Submitted by theizzz t3_10lgd2q in nottheonion
Comments
Kraken160th t1_j5y2aff wrote
Often times when someone is sent a C&D the response isnt "well sue me" lawyers are called and they take a long ass time to do anything. Whatever that conversation was it didn't work out so it was escalated.
MadeFromNews t1_j5wp2pf wrote
Reason for the lawsuit:
BMG’s lawyer alleges that “My Poops” infringes on Black Eyed Peas’ surprise 2005 hit single, “My Humps,” 75% of whose publishing rights belongs to BMG thanks to a corporate acquisition.
The suit claims — and a review of each song’s Genius annotation confirms — that the two compositions bear a strong resemblance.
“First, the title of the infringing work is ‘My Poops,’ which is an obvious play on the name of the copyrighted composition, ‘My Humps,'” wrote BMG’s lawyer, Seth L. Berman, of Abrams Fensterman LLP.
Berman goes on to list other similarities, including the melody, countermelody, lyrics, chord progression and the use of a lead singer who “uses a similar delivery and vocal inflections as used by Fergie on the original sound recording.”
Xavier_Lights t1_j5zipz1 wrote
Ok. But won't they be protected under the fair use parody law since it's is less of a resemblance than the dumb Starbucks store that was only shutdown due lack of permits to sell food.
Fanwhip t1_j66c2vq wrote
Watching it (the cringe) feels like lots of paraody for the song.
The whole argument of "sound/lyric/candance" feels like music law needs some rewriting as there is literally only so many notes/so many beats. and if we wanna go "who owns what" then they should owe some older muscians money as the beats they use allot of the time has been done before. Music law is a big joke when it comes to the defense of "the notes going Fa so la te do is mine i made it" when the notes are the only notes used by anyone.
Nagger_Luvver t1_j5ybm1c wrote
What is up with shitting toys?
libraryofwaffles t1_j5yq3j0 wrote
It's been a big craze in the kids toy market for the past couple years. Poop sells I guess.
Edit: Too early for correct words.
bohanmyl t1_j607rvp wrote
Poop smells, but poop sells
libraryofwaffles t1_j60jo7b wrote
Yes, indeed.
Fodder01 t1_j5wncpy wrote
They better be pooping cotton candy. No one is gonna eat black eyed pea poop.
whiterac00n t1_j5wui5t wrote
And here I now had the need to YouTube a pooping unicorn song
angeltay t1_j5xhi9b wrote
What the actual fuck
whiterac00n t1_j5xjc41 wrote
Can you imagine sitting at a board meeting with this and being like “this is genius! Let’s green light this immediately” I feel like I would have died inside sitting in room seriously discussing this
homkono22 t1_j5ydys9 wrote
As much as I hate that toy, I hope blackeyedpeas loses, or else future things that should fall under parody could be affected with examples like this.
It's so obviously a parody with the intention to make it funny and referecial, not copy the original piece. Anyone should be able to do so for that purpose.
It's not about the stupid unicorn video, but about everyone else who wants to parody or reference something in their work.
dragonbird t1_j5ypwht wrote
If the toy company is a commercial operation, then it probably isn't (and shouldn't be) covered by parody "fair use". They're using someone else's intellectual property to make a profit, so they should pay to use it. The judgement, whatever it is, wouldn't be setting a precedent, each case should be judged on its own merits.
homkono22 t1_j5zbcks wrote
Commercial operation shouldn't matter, what if a comedian does a parody of something for their standup show and then sell a DVD as well of it.
What about comedy skits parodying certain movies? There's legitimate cases where you should be able to parody things and get money from it. Toys included. Remember the garbage pail kids lawsuit? Or Uri Geller going after the Pokemon company because of Kadabra's spoon bending.
Lawsuits like it limit things and is not good from a consumer standpoint, we've had no new Kadabra cards ever since because of that.
It is fair use regardless of what ends up getting ruled. It's one thing to flat out steal something, it's another to be transformative for the sake of comedy, which is exactly what's happening here, even if that comedy is in poor taste.
dragonbird t1_j60ys3c wrote
But it does matter. The key thing here is that the law is designed to protect both intellectual property AND free speech rights, and in general it does a good job at it. So any individual lawsuit, like this one, shouldn't be condemned for a precedent reason, it should be judged on its own merits. It doesn't in itself damage future scenarios.
The Garbage Pail Kids lawsuit was for trademark violation, not copyright, which means different laws applies. Parody didn't enter into it, it was a straight commercial issue. Uri Geller lost in California, I believe, and the decision made by Nintendo was to avoid possibly losing in other countries. It may or may not have been a "good" decision, but it didn't set precedent.
Comedians doing a parody would probably be safe under fair use, even if it was commercial. Comedy skits parodying movies would definitely be safe because they're transformative - it's a totally different kind of parody. So yes, there are legitimate cases where you can make money off it.
If the courts decide it was sufficiently transformative, then Black Eyes Peas will lose. Leave it to them to decide.
Metalhippy666 t1_j62z675 wrote
So you think weird al Yankovic should be sued for making a living from his parody songs?
dragonbird t1_j63n4mp wrote
Firstly, it's a bad example. He asked permission, and he paid royalties.
Secondly, I'm not saying anyone should be sued. I'm simply saying, repeatedly, that it's up to the courts to decide on a case by case basis, and whatever the decision is in this case, it doesn't affect other parodies. I really don't understand why anyone should be upset or worried about some imagined knock-on effect. The law hasn't changed. Some win these cases, some lose.
s_decoy t1_j5z2lcr wrote
Reminds me of the Moshi Monsters song getting sued by Lady Gaga for using a parody character of her as a mascot - she won that lawsuit.
7grims t1_j5yuxbf wrote
Wrong, there is plenty of parody songs around my hump alone, this song has been the butt of jokes for a long time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W91sqAs-_-g parody by Alanis Morissette
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh0IBg7GBeY in the movie Blades of Glory
​
Wile the commercial, is a direct advertisement to sell a product.
Very different.
AjahnAnarchy t1_j61tmv4 wrote
The commercial composition absolutely butchers everything about my humps.
Unfortunately, musically illiterate people will serve on the jury and be persuaded by nonsense paraded about by more musically illiterate people waiting to make their money.
InternetPeon t1_j5wnnxo wrote
If they were smart they would buy said toy company.
Rosebunse t1_j6080nk wrote
I still don't know how this toy was made. It was basically five fetishist rolled into one horrible toy.
Edit: I'm not even gonna change my typo because I'm pretty sure this toy was the idea of five fetishists.
7grims t1_j5yude6 wrote
thats my favorite worst song in the world, so bad that its good
and yah, clear rip off
MOS95B t1_j5zicec wrote
Rip off? Or parody? Or sample, even?
PS - I am not even close to being a lawyer, so...
7grims t1_j5zt77m wrote
Its not trying to make a parody, its not a creative work adding value on top of the original.
Its literally selling toys, an advertisement, wile appropriating a song to do so
SuteSnute t1_j5zfr75 wrote
The real crime here is that these pieces of landfill-destined shit are selling for over a hundred dollars. Christ. Consumerism is a disease.
Itzbubblezduh t1_j5z8gxx wrote
Lol dolls too…
EvenSpoonier t1_j5wo4td wrote
That commercial has been around for at least two years, and went viral ages ago. How is it they're only getting around to suing now?