If you fail to enforce your IP rights, you can lose them altogether.
I get that (although I didn't know that) BUT I think this was an opportunity for the BB to say hey, you shouldn't have done it but the product is awesome and we'd love to back it. That kind of thing. Yes, I realize I live in optimistic land where rainbows and unicorns defeat companies and their need to have control and the almighty dollar.
The product is only so awesome. I know it gets a lot of hype, but it isn't bringing water to villages plagued by drought and famine. It isn't even the only toy of it's kind on the market aimed at girls or at least gender neutral. If their stance had been "only advertise for products with a conscience," then I could see them adding this to the list. But it isn't. It's a strict no advertisements policy.
Post by snipsnsnails on Nov 25, 2013 20:21:15 GMT -5
And, I'm not a lawyer! I totally need to add this disclaimer (although, I probably don't since no one would mistake me for one-ha!)
Interesting discussion, though. I always like seeing how these things shake out. We dealt with it some when I was in literary publicity. I didn't envy the legal teams for some of those authors/artists.
I think you are being a little naïve. This is a company and they knew what they were doing.
And counted on the publicity this garnishes to boost the hype they've already worked hard on.
How many of you know that there is a company that makes doll house kits specifically designed so that a girl can learn to wire the house herself? Once wired, the house has lights and things that move. Really cool engineering stuff well beyond what goldiblox does. But it didn't do the same level of PR grandstanding. So it isn't on your radar.
snipsnsnails, I could allllmost see a judge siding with GB, IF BB had ever licensed their music. But the fact that they are vocal about NOT commercially licensing their music makes their case stronger, IMO.
Oh see, I think this is going to work against them. I mean, it shouldn't justice being blind and all that. yadda, yadda, yadda, but I feel like a judge is going to look at the tighthold they have on their IP and see it in opposition to the idea that creative works are living, breathing entities meant to be collectively expanded upon through all sorts of fair use.
This is an ongoing debate between my DH and I. We're both creative types and he holds to the idea that an artist is allowed to control his ideas/works forever and ever, amen. I am more of the mindset that there is a deliberate release of a certain amount of control (copyright does not necessarily equal control) when you put your art into the public to be consumed. There is always the possibility that there will be a fair use of your property that you have to allow (or the courts will do it for you .
I'm no expert, but I pretty much disagree completely
Fair use implies 1st amendment protection. GB is trying to make a profit. It's pretty cut and dry. You can't use someone else's protected IP for your own profit without permission. It's the whole POINT of copyrighting something.
BB has set precedent about how their music is used (or not). They are not wishy-washy about it. Adam Yauch SPECIFICALLY put it in his will.
And, again, as I said before, it would have taken NOTHING for GB to figure out that BB would not have agreed to let them use this song. And if they did do some research, knew BB's stance, and used the song anyway?? WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT.
This is not someone putting a documentary on PBS about gender disparity among children's toys. This is an established, for-profit business that knew exactly what kind of hot water this could put them in. They chose to roll the dice.
For the record, I am quite enjoying this discussion today
I think you are being a little naïve. This is a company and they knew what they were doing.
And counted on the publicity this garnishes to boost the hype they've already worked hard on.
How many of you know that there is a company that makes doll house kits specifically designed so that a girl can learn to wire the house herself? Once wired, the house has lights and things that move. Really cool engineering stuff well beyond what goldiblox does. But it didn't do the same level of PR grandstanding. So it isn't on your radar.
And counted on the publicity this garnishes to boost the hype they've already worked hard on.
How many of you know that there is a company that makes doll house kits specifically designed so that a girl can learn to wire the house herself? Once wired, the house has lights and things that move. Really cool engineering stuff well beyond what goldiblox does. But it didn't do the same level of PR grandstanding. So it isn't on your radar.
Oh, really?
Linky?
I found it while looking for a dollhouse for DD. She's still a little young for it but they were really cool. Let me see if I can find them again.
ETA: here it is: www.roominatetoy.com/ Although now that I look at the site they do get plenty of press. I stand by the idea that goldiblox isn't the only toy of it's kind.
I think the argument of fair use would be most plausible if we weren't dealing with a for-profit company making an ad for commercial gain. Also the fact that the Beastie Boys were not notified and GB first inclination was to sue is disappointing. In my industry for example it would be okay for me to use a picture of a Big Mac in article or exhibit on popular food choices in America. I would NOT be able to use that picture however in order to promote my article or exhibit because then it falls under secondary use not covered by the fair use clause.