Tag: Beastie Boys

Beastie Boys Sue GoldieBlox

I have to admit to feeling a measure of sympathy for Debbie Sterling, CEO of GoldieBlox, who now finds her company at the receiving end of a suit by The Beastie Boys for acting with “oppression, fraud, & malice” in the misuse of the band’s song “Girls.”  Why the sympathy?  Because I watched Sterling’s TED talk in which she relates the story of her pursuit of an engineering degree and the founding of the GoldieBlox brand, and I think two things:  1) the world needs entrepreneurs with her sensibilities; and 2) somebody has given her some really bad  advice.

The probability that GoldieBlox actively endeavored to use legal controversy itself as a marketing tool is very high.  After all, on the same day the Beastie Boys made inquiry into the use of their song, GoldieBlox filed for declaratory and injunctive relief predicated on a claim of fair use of “Girls” as a parody.  It’s almost as though some lawyers had already prepared the filing in anticipation of a dispute.  Ya think?  Then, the EFF and Techdirt come out smug as ever, wagging fingers at The Beastie Boys and declaring the obviousness of fair use in this case despite the fact that there is rarely anything obvious about fair use, and particularly when a work is used in the form of advertising.  Meanwhile, most professional editorials and general comments from the public tended to favor the Beastie Boys, demonstrating to GoldieBlox that there really is such a thing as bad publicity, and so the company re-released the same video sans “Girls” and also issued a rather cloying apology, saying effectively, “Gosh, we’re sorry, we’re just a fledgling company, please don’t hurt us. We love you!”

Despite what was looking like a PR fiasco, the suit now facing GoldieBlox is at least partly based on the premise that the company’s use of both the song “Girls” and the Beastie Boys name contributed to a significant increase in sales.  After all, if drawing the foul was a tactical PR move, then that’s trading on the Beasties as a brand in addition to using their song without permission.  It will be interesting to see where this leads, but I am sorry to see a business that appears to be founded on some good ideas make such a dumb mistake.  I don’t think GoldieBlox has a leg to stand on with its fair use claim, and if they decide to fight that particular battle, I suspect Ms. Sterling is going to begin to wonder how she got quite so far away and so quickly from the business she meant to be running.  After all, she isn’t in the parody business, which has a lot to do with why this approach is so likely to backfire.

ADDENDUM:  WTF?  I refer you to the Trichordist reporting that Goolge Books lawyer Daralyn Durie is representing GoldieBlox in this, which is some high-octane legal muscle for a tiny little startup.  As indicated above, did Debbie Sterling really mean to get into the “copyfight” business? Because this is her life now.  Ah well.  I’m sure there’s another woman engineer out there interested in inspiring young girls to pursue math and science.

GoldieBlox Sues Beastie Boys

[NOTE:  Since publishing this post, GoldieBlox removed access to its original video and has replaced it with a generic version absent any reference to the Beastie Boys song.]

I’d seen this video make the rounds on Facebook but didn’t know that it was at the heart of a new controversy regarding copyrights and fair use.  A promo for the innovative toy-making startup GoldieBlox, the video traces the path of an ingenious Rube Goldberg construct made of everyday household items and kids’ toys as the lyrics promote empowerment for girls.  All good except for one little problem:  the song is in fact “Girls” by the Beastie Boys, a band that determined in its earliest days not to allow commercial use of its works.  Atypically, though, the band wasn’t the first to file suit or even send a cease and desist letter.  To the contrary, as soon as the band made an inquiry into the use of its song, GoldieBlox sued them claiming fair use on the grounds that the video is parody.

I have two observations:

First, if the case were to go to court, it could be a big deal.  Parody or not, the spirit of fair use in this sense is meant for people or entities whose purpose is to create parody itself in the form of entertainment, not for producing commercials that sell products or promote brands.  Regardless of GoldieBlox’s noble mission to empower young girls, there’s no gray area here; this is a commercial for a company, and we cannot allow fair use to include any company simply boosting creative works at will.  Finding in GoldieBlock’s favor would be precedent-setting.  If that company can use a  Beastie Boys song without permission, then what’s to stop Koch Industries from rewriting the lyrics to “Imagine” for a brand identity video that also promotes the Koch Brothers’ social and political views?  It would just be parody of Lennon’s pro-communist song, right?

The second observation I have is a creative one.  The video is so brilliant, the message so strong, and the Rube Goldberg contraption so complex and fun to watch that I insist the video would be as effective and readily shared without actually using the Beastie Boys’ “Girls.”  For one thing, a parody of the original, misogynistic lyrics only resonates with a viewer who knows the source; and most parents of young children are probably a decade or so too young to have a lot of Beastie Boys in their subconsciouses.  Hell, I went to tiny little Bard College with Adam Yauch, and I wouldn’t have known this video was based on “Girls,” if I hadn’t read about it. But I still would share the video as a cool piece for its many virtues.

It can be hard to know why creative teams or executives determine that a commercial production needs to be based on some existing cultural reference.  Sometimes it’s essential to the concept and the message, sometimes it’s a misjudgment, sometimes it’s laziness, and sometimes it’s just ego.  One possibility in this particular case, given how quick GoldieBlox moved to sue the band, is that the company wanted to draw fire from the Beastie Boys, which if nothing else, would generate free publicity and more views of the video.  I hope this wasn’t part of the calculus; I like what the GoldieBlox brand wants to be for young girls and would hate to see the company act like old boys.

ADDENDUM:  Read Felix Salmon from Reuters.  Silicon Valley company being “disruptive” as  SOP and having nothing ultimately to do with the Beastie Boys or the rights of artists?  Could be.  I would also recommend Chris Castle’s piece on the subject and the issue of PR by Lawsuit (just in time for Black Friday!)

POST SCRIPT 7:00p EST: And then . . .the open letter apology from GoldieBlox that brings to mind the word cloying, particularly the “we’re just little, please don’t hurt us” implication considering the Beastie Boys had only made inquiries. It’s been interesting and encouraging to note that as this story has unfolded throughout the day, public sentiment seems to favor the Beastie Boys in this case.  Through all the mystifying nonsense about copyright these days, people seem to believe in the fundamental principle that creators do have a right to control the use of their works.