More on Goldieblox vs Beastie Boys

 Youtube Direktgirls, via Geekosystem

Ich bin beim Copyright-Bullshit zwischen den Toy-Herstellern von Goldieblox und den Beastie Boys nach wie vor sehr zwiegespalten. Einerseits ist es sicher mindestens unsensibel, ausgerechnet einen Beastie Boys-Track für ein Commercial zu parodieren, wenn Adam Yauch in seinem Testament eine werbliche Nutzung seiner Musik ausgeschlossen hat. Andererseits ist es eben aufgrund des parodischen Characters des Tracks nicht mehr „der Song der Beastie Boys“: es wurden keine Samples genutzt und der Text komplett auf den Kopf gestellt. Ich tendiere leicht zur Sichtweise der Goldieblox, bin aber – wie bereits erwähnt – zwiegespalten.

Deshalb hier zwei ziemlich differenzierte Sichtweisen auf das Thema: Felix Salmon betrachtet den Fall als Corporate Bullying eines jungen und mit Geld überschütteten Startups, das aggressiv Rechte für sich in Anspruch nimmt, die es unter Umständen gar nicht hat. Salmon zählt hier insgesamt sehr valide Argumente auf: GoldieBlox, fair use, and the cult of disruption.

[Goldieblox Statement] is faux-naïveté at its worst, deliberately ignoring the fact that Girls, the original song, is itself a parody of machismo rap. The complaint is also look-at-me move, positively daring the Beasties to rise to the bait and enjoin the fight. Which the Beasties, in turn, are trying very hard not to do. In their letter to GoldieBlox, the Beasties make three simple points. They support the creativity of the video, and its message; they’re the defendants in this suit, rather than the people suing anybody; and, most importantly, they have a long-standing policy that no Beastie Boys songs shall ever be used in commercial advertisements. (They don’t mention, although they could, that this last was actually an explicit dying wish of Adam Yauch, a/k/a MCA, and an integral part of his will.)

Given the speed with which the GoldieBlox complaint appeared, indeed, it’s reasonable to assume that they had it in their back pocket all along, ready to whip out the minute anybody from the Beastie Boys, or their record label, so much as inquired about what was going on. The strategy here is to maximize ill-will: don’t ask permission, make no attempt to negotiate in good faith, antagonize the other party as much as possible. […]

GoldieBlox did exactly what you’d expect an entitled and well-lawyered Silicon Valley startup to do, which is pick a fight. It’s the way of the Valley — you can’t be winning unless some household-name dinosaur is losing. (The Beasties are actually the second big name to find themselves in the GoldieBlox crosshairs; the first was Toys R Us.) The real target of the GoldieBlox lawsuit, I’m quite sure, is not the Beastie Boys. Instead, it’s the set of investors who are currently being pitched to put money into a fast-growing, Stanford-incubated, web-native, viral, aggressive, disruptive company with massive room for future growth — a company which isn’t afraid to pick fights with any big name you care to mention.

Dann hat Andy „Waxy“ Bayo einen längeren Artikel zum Thema verfasst. Der Mann hatte selbst eine Fair Use-Klage angestrengt und – verloren. Er betrachtet das Thema vor allem unter dem Fair Use-Aspekt, zu dem ich ebenfalls tendiere: Goldieblox and the Three MCs.

Myth: It's an advertisement, so it's not fair use.

More than any other, I've seen this myth repeated everywhere. Can a company parody a famous artist's work and use it, against their will, to advertise an unrelated product? Actually, yes, as long as the use is transformative enough. The most famous case is the Naked Gun advertisement [shown left], a parody of photographer Annie Leibovitz's famous portrait of Demi Moore for Vanity Fair. […]

In her decision, Judge Preska noted that the landmark 2 Live Crew case, settled by the Supreme Court only two years earlier, set a new precedent for deciding fair use cases.

In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that commercial use does not preclude a finding of fair use, so long as the work is "transformative" — does it add value to the original material and use it for a different purpose, such as criticism or parody?

Delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court, Justice Souder wrote, "The goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally furthered by the creation of transformative works... The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use."

Wie gesagt, ich bin zwiegespalten. Aber angesichts der Tatsachen, dass der Track im Commercial 1.) nicht der Original-Track der Beasties war und 2.) die grundsätzliche Botschaft auf den Kopf gestellt wurde (auch wenn das Original als Parodie auf Machismo im Rap gemeint war), was 3.) durchaus eine gesellschaftsrelevante Kritik formuliert, tendiere ich zur Haltung von Goldieblox, auch wenn die sich angeblich wie die Axt im Walde verhalten.

[update] Jeez…

Vorher auf Nerdcore:
Girls’ Rube Goldberg Princess Machine feat. Beastie Boys
Beastie Boys go Copyright-Bullshit over Girl-Parody
Beastie Boys Open Letter to Goldie Blox