Ooooo. I’m in error. And so you’re point is what? 
I have no sympathies for either party’s views, never heard the Beastie Boys, and think the strict application of copyright absurd; however copyright is not the actual issue. The artists specifically forbid their works to be used in advertising. To disregard such beliefs is vile.
I only wish classical and other composers’ works could not be used in advertising without written agreements for each product from the creator.
From Popehat.
Beatie Boys don’t have much to complain about. They are playing ‘you struck first’ but it was simply a natural reaction to some rather pushy copyright compaints.
In the end, this will go nowhere. BB just don’t have the resources to pursue this and apparently Goldie Blox knows how to defend itself.
It’s not a parody.
It uses the exact tune.
It’s being used to shill a commercial project.
Look, I fully support encouraging more girls to get into engineering. But there is no way this is fair use. The Goldieblox people could have chosen lots of different soundtracks for their commercial – they didn’t need to rip off the Beastie Boys.
A couple of years ago I was working on a game and we thought “Baby Got Back” would be a funny song to run over the credits. So we contacted Sir Mix-A-Lot and got the rights. If he’d said “no” we would have used something else instead. We wouldn’t have hired a studio band and recorded our own knock-off version. That’s Not How It’s Done.
As a reference point, here’s the 2 Live crew song mention earlier that the appellate court decided could potentially be legitimate parody. It settled out of court after being remanded so we don’t know what the lower court would have determined.
Why?
Huh? The original song is an execrable gleeful bit of misogyny. The song in the commercial is directly arguing against it: instead of
It’s
It’s mocking the sexism of the original, turning the idea on its head. Girls aren’t a combination of sex object and domestic servant, as they were in the original, but instead are agents of change.
Yes, it’s commercial, but it’s absolutely a parody. Did you even listen to the words?
As for the etiquette: frankly the Beastie Boys ought to be mortified that they ever created such a nasty piece of work as that oriiginal song. They should stand by their guns in keeping it from being used in ads for Axe Body Spray or whatever, but after a “Dude, chill, we were just asking!” response, they should give their blessing to the parody, which rescues some good from the puerile ugliness of the original song.
I kind of want to buy Goldieblox for my daughter now, except that the toy itself looks less cool than Legos.
The Goldieblox people are on fairly steady legal ground. That said, it was MCA’s dying wish (and stated in his will) that his music never be used for advertising purposes. That was his wish, the surviving BBs are trying to respect it. That is not the law, Goldieblox does not have respect the wishes of others.
Goldieblox are legally correct AND a bunch of stupid jerks, and, for the record their toy product is boring and badly made.
Considering that the Beasties’ Paul’s Boutique is considered the King of sampling of other’s work, they should consider this flattery.
I think what must be particularly annoying for the Beastie Boys is that GoldieBlox didn’t just use their music but also used their name in the title of the commercial. From the company’s YouTube upload it’s, “GoldieBlox, Rube Goldberg, & Beastie Boys “Princess Machine” (a concert for little girls)”. I’d forgive anyone who mistook that as an endorsement and can’t fault the Beastie Boys for at least making an inquiry about the commercial.
I see what you’re saying, but I think they’re not using his music for commercial purposes so much as they’re mocking him for commercial purposes. And he thoroughly deserves to be mocked for that bit of music, so I don’t much care about his wishes on that subject.
This ironic upheaval of the song’s message feels entirely different to me from a straightforward use of the music, which would be cruddy.
Edit: Mithras, I think that’s a fair point about using Beastie Boys’s name in the title of the piece. If they called it something like “an answer to the Beastie Boys,” that’d be a lot better.
Because I like the goldieblox ad and I don’t particularly care for the attitude of the band, either in the original song or in their response to the GB ad.
The fact that the company didn’t approach the Beastie Boys about using the song seems short-sighted to me. The other members also have the added factor of abiding by Adam Yauch’s request that none of their music be used in commercials.
As for the original song, you can throw away pretty much all of the Licensed to Ill album as far as I’m concerned. Everything from Paul’s Boutique forward was much different and much better.
I don’t know why they didn’t approach the band, but that sounds like a move you make when you’re parodying something you respect. I suspect the Goldiblox folks find the original song so offensive that they didn’t care about staying in the artists’ good graces, and I’m fine with their call, if that’s what it was.
Agreed, although, I’m not sure why, as Mithras pointed out, they’d include the Beastie Boys name in the video in that case. That looks more than a little underhanded.
Yeah what’s up with that? There are tons of other awesome unisex toys that seem a lot more exciting than a handful of small tinker toys.
The probable reason they didn’t approach the band is that the answer would have been ‘No’. It is simply easier to beg forgiveness (or armor yourself with a declaratory judgment) than ask permission from a band that has stated it wants its music to have nothing to do with commercial use.
I can actually understand that approach pretty well.
You don’t understand Zipper, these tinker toys are PINK with ANIMALS and RIBBONS so GIRLS will like them, and that’s totally not insulting in any way.
I confess I was pretty excited by the toys until I looked at their “play” part of their website, with about six different variations on “spin something on an axle” and a single slingshot-looking thing. These seem nowhere near as versatile or awesome as Legos.
Their innovations seem to be the use of a ribbon as a power source (or something, I’m sure that’s the wrong engineering term) and the use of a storybook to replace the instruction manual. These are both interesting ideas, but I’m not sure they’re enough to make the toy worthwhile.