Girls

[dust monkey]

= lawsuit?

[Mr. Smacktackle]

just seen this and came to the board to post it if nobody hasn't.

my first impression was that the vid was supported/given a green light by the boys themselves, because of the title. (and i find the vid quite cool.) but there's no note about that in the credits. if it wasn't approved by them it's kinda rude, right? especially knowing what MCA wrote in his will...

[M|X|Y]

it's not an ad, its a psa - pretty sure all would approve

[JohnnyChavello]

That's awful, but it's fair use.

[Jiberish]

Oscilloscope just posted it on their facebook wall. Fair bet they know about it and are cool with it. Besides it takes the most terrible song they have [though catchy] and allows the Girls to "take it back" if you will.

I hated it and loved it while watching it. But mostly loved it.

[abbott]

Straight up awesome.

[Kid Presentable]

This is cool.

[YoungRemy]

it's awesome, why assume lawsuit?

[MrSmiley1]

I, for one, support this! What a positive message (even if it is to sell a product).

I have a 10 year old daughter and love that she loves the Beastie Boys too, but am disappointed that her favorite song is Girls given its sexist slant. Yes, I fully understand they were young and dumb and eventually realized the error of their ways, so I still can enjoy it on some level. She does not get that and will not understander stand their evolution as people for a few years yet.

She will however be getting to that age where she will figure it out what they are really talking about and probably start to dislike it.

[POMP]

I don't have kids, and that's probably a good thing... because "Girls" just sounds like a horny guy lusting after a girl to me (and some killer xylophone). Wanting sex doesn't make you sexist IMO. The song always seemed tongue-in-cheek to me, but I am a politically incorrect asshole, who also likes the way that they walk.

[b-grrrlie]

I love it! The way the girls (well the advertising people....) gave the song a totally different meaning!
Also I love the fact that last year one of these multinational toycompanies had girls play with "boys toys" and boys play with "girls toys" in their Christmas catalogue here in Sweden last year and this year most of the European stores of the chain are doing the same!
(and IKEA has women in their catalogue in Saudi Arabia this year)

[Brass Monk]

Originally Posted by M|X|Y

it's not an ad, its a psa - pretty sure all would approve

No it appears to be a commercial, a toy company selling toys.

[Extra Cheese]

Originally Posted by Brass Monk

No it appears to be a commercial, a toy company selling toys.

yeah, pretty clear cut.

[JohnnyChavello]

It might be on: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...r-viral-659308. Still think it's fair use, but the closest analogy, Campbell, doesn't involve product advertising.

[abbott]

Somehow it was played at our public schools

[JohnnyChavello]

They'll probably face some backlash over this based on the general response to the commercial. I'm 100% with the idea that young girls (boys, too) need to hear messages like this more often, but I'd rather it come from an actual person. The fact that it's naked advertising makes it completely different to me. Co-opting the cultures of the Beasties and feminism to create a viral ad in order to sell marginally educational toys that are manufactured in China isn't exactly my idea of empowering. I can understand why people would disagree, but I'm a cynic. The Beasties have been consistent about this, both publicly and privately, for a long time. Who knows, maybe they'll back off.

[beasties#1fan]

I really don't know how to feel about this to be honest...
D:

[tt5brevisited]

It's cute but indeed it's an ad.

[dave790]

It's a clever ad. Infringement or not, if the Beasties do file a lawsuit - given the advertisements "message" - it will not look particularly good, especially as every report will reference the original lyrics.

Shrewd work.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

It is an altered cover of a song, which is okay for an ad. It may not require permission (it depends though). I do not think cover artists require permission and advertisers can cover any song changing the lyrics as long as it does not hurt the reputation of the artist. It is not using actual Beastie-recorded material.

[Micodin]

The Black Keys filed federal lawsuits against Home Depot and Pizza Hut for using elements of their songs.

Elements is the key word. Because "Girls" is copyright protected. And the ad used a whole lot of elements of "Girls" for that song.

Personally, I think that the makers of the ad calling it a parody is a cop out.

Either way, it's a big mess for the lawyers to squabble about. It'll prob get settled out of court.

It is a cute video tho.

[Kid Presentable]

Oscilloscope posted it on facebook.

[Micodin]

Originally Posted by Kid Presentable

Oscilloscope posted it on facebook.

Yeah, that's all and nice but the B-Boys and Rick Rubin are still getting sued.

It's has to be the B-Boys lawyers that started all this. I guess they figure the ad is cute and all that but if they give this one a pass it would be tough to battle other cases similar to this one down the line.

[Mr. Smacktackle]

o.k. well now it might be safe to say that the boys' lawsuit will just make the video more viral and promote goldiebox even further.
(and maybe that's just what the company wanted to happen)

21st century marketing...

[JohnnyChavello]

Originally Posted by Michelle*s_Farm

It is an altered cover of a song, which is okay for an ad. It may not require permission (it depends though). I do not think cover artists require permission and advertisers can cover any song changing the lyrics as long as it does hurt the reputation of the artist. It is not using actual Beastie-recorded material.

Not at all OK for an ad unless it's fair use. There is a compulsory license provision in the copyright act applying to covers, but you can't change the lyrics or alter the fundamental character of the song - aside from minor changes necessary for genre, style, etc. Their entire argument is that they changed it so significantly (in terms of meaning, message) that it should qualify as a fair use.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

Originally Posted by Micodin

Yeah, that's all and nice but the B-Boys and Rick Rubin are still getting sued.

Wow why are they litigating against Beastie Boys?

[Lyman Zerga]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...on_object_map=

another article

[JohnnyChavello]

Originally Posted by Lyman Zerga

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...on_object_map=

another article

Yeah, I was expecting that. The whole copyright bullies thing only makes sense if you think albums and advertisements are equivalent. They're not. I guess we know now that wrapping yourself in the flag is a really effective way to dumb down and simplify the issues in a debate. That's part of what makes me so uncomfortable about social issue advertising.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

Originally Posted by JohnnyChavello

Yeah, I was expecting that. The whole copyright bullies thing only makes sense if you think albums and advertisements are equivalent. They're not. I guess we know now that wrapping yourself in the flag is a really effective way to dumb down and simplify the issues in a debate. That's part of what makes me so uncomfortable about social issue advertising.

Interesting. I think I may be changing my mind about this as the story is developing. One person commented quite rightly:

Corporations do not have the right to use songs in advertising without the permission of the songwriters!
Do you really wanna go down the rabbit hole where Exxon can promote fracking to the sound of Leonard Cohen's 'Hallelujah' ?
From knowing the Beastie Boys, I am sure of 2 things:
If an actual ARTIST requested a derivative work license for 'Girls' from the Beasties, they would easily get it.
If someone posted on youtube a parody with well intentioned lyrics like these, they would enjoy it.
That's not what this is about. It's an Advertisement!
Does Masnick truly believe corporations are super entities that can ignore the laws the rest of us have to follow?

[Jiberish]

I wonder how much of this is from Def Jam's lawyers? I mean aside from the bit that Yauch put in his will about "no commercials".