Hello nasty, don't use my music: Deceased Beastie Boy to admen Beastie Boy Adam Yauch, who died aged 47 in May after a three-year battle with salivary gland cancer, left a will that barred the use of his music and artwork by advertising outfits. According to Rolling Stone magazine, the New York hip-hop star whose band rocked the world with albums Licensed to Ill in 1986, Ill Communication …
Dunno why you got the downvotes, we have a valid example of how difficult it is while still alive, The Rolling Stones. They always said they'd never allow their music to be used in advertising and that held until Billy G offered a humungous wodge of lovely wonga to use "Start me up" to advertise Win 95 (it's the "Start" button, geddit????).
I was reminded of this the other night when I heard "Start me up" being used to advertise something else. I guess the fatter end of the wedge is now through that door.
haven't the Beastie Boys long been known for not allowing any of their material to be used in advertising? since the 80s.
so this is merely a continuation of his wishes from when he was alive. presumably the other two feel the same, so this largely applies to any solo work of his
Reputedly, being against the use of their music in advertising contributed to the Beasties' big break; suing British Airways for the unauthorised use of their first EP (and insisting that the advertising stop rather than that they be cut in) gave them just about their only pre-fame income, working up to the first album.
I'd also surprised if this was enforceable. Obviously I'll listen to any lawyers out there who feel like educating me, but I though the legal theory behind a will was that it was enacted as your last act. Therefore, it carries the authority that you had at the moment of death and it *follows* any actions you take between writing the will and dying. However, if your last act is to transfer your estate to someone else, then anything *they* do is done with the authority of ownership and obviously post-dates anything that you willed. Therefore, the relatives always get the last word.
Having said that, it would be a pretty poor relative who ignored such a clearly worded preference. The will still leaves you with all revenues from selling the music to fans, performance royalities from tribute bands, and I dare say a few other things besides.
If you're serious, you'd have to leave your artistic or intellectual property rights to a foundation which can continue in perpetuity, but which cannot have its founding purposes overturned. You'd need to take expert legal advice on which jurisdiction to create this foundation under!
That's what the FSF is for, with respect to free software. Copyleft is also capable of application to music, literature, etc. "You're licensed to use it subject to these terms. If you reject these terms, you have no license to use it at all" (You can ask, but you won't get special terms).
The law won't allow you to make stipulations that are clearly illegal or contrary to the public good. An argument might be made that freedon to advertise is a public good, but advertising using a particular work against its author's and its owner's specific desire when there are plenty of other musical works to choose from, would be a bit of a stretch!
IANAL etc.
It's enforceable by law unless some general purpose statute later invalidates it.
Old man Hershey started an orphanage that was explicitly for white boys and for which they boys had to work the farm way back when he was alive. It stayed that way until SCOTUS handed down Brown vs Board of Education. Now of course it's a fully integrated facility with no work requirement.
I see where you are coming from, but he is probably just reducing the income. There will still be a stream of income from other means and the remainder of his estate. I respect him for taking such a stand. I doubt his family will be flipping burgers anytime soon, even with this restriction. He obviously had ideals which he chose to stand by and is asking his family to respect that.
Not many people will stand by their ideals when it costs them money, I got rounded on here a while back because I did something for free. There is more to life then dollars.
Re: And what is the obvious exactly, Mr Anonymous Coward?
He considers using his music in advertising to be compromising the principles or integrity of the music and the image he presented.
Money can still be made in royalties from album sales, digital downloads, or radio/TV plays, but if, for instance, a large restaurant chain that sells chicken wanted to use "Finger Lickin' Good" in an advertising campaign they would be out of luck.
Has the world changed so much that this really needs to be explained?
"He considers using his music in advertising to be compromising the principles or integrity of the music and the image he presented.
Money can still be made in royalties from album sales, digital downloads, or radio/TV plays, but if, for instance, a large restaurant chain that sells chicken wanted to use "Finger Lickin' Good" in an advertising campaign they would be out of luck.
Has the world changed so much that this really needs to be explained?"
But this is my point - it's pure artistic pretentiousness on his part. If he was selling music direct to consumer via his own website then I could understand. But he was perfectly happy for Apple, HMV etc to make profit on something they didn't create. His specific anti advertising hissy fit is a logical disconnect.
His specific anti advertising hissy fit is a logical disconnect.
If you have a soul that responds to music, it most certainly is not.
For example, the second movement of Dvorak's "New World" symphony is one of the most sublime musical creations of all time. Unfortunately some soul-dead advertising agency used it to advertise Hovis bread, and now I can no longer listen to it without momentarily wincing at the association. Which incidentally, has negative value for Hovis, because I always buy some other make of bread whenever I have a choice!
(It could have been worse. They might have associated the music with something I really detested. Be thankful for small mercies).
"If you have a soul that responds to music, it most certainly is not.
For example, the second movement of Dvorak's "New World" symphony is one of the most sublime musical creations of all time. Unfortunately some soul-dead advertising agency used it to advertise Hovis bread, and now I can no longer listen to it without momentarily wincing at the association. Which incidentally, has negative value for Hovis, because I always buy some other make of bread whenever I have a choice!"
Were it not for that Hovis ad, many millions would never know "New World". So yes, a company used it to sell a product, but as a direct result of that people who would never have known it now know and enjoy it.
However, Dvorak's situation is not Yauch's. Yauch was perfectly fine with iTunes and HMV. There is no reason other than his artistic pretention for this loathing of advertising.
Your assertion as to life's purpose is astonishingly blinkered, it is very sad that you feel that way and that your brain is only capable of comprehending the world in such a basic manner.
Would you therefore have committed suicide if you had found out you were unable to have children? Do you therefore advocate that millions of humans that find they suffer from such an affliction should be euthanised?
Based on your comments I would speculate that the world would in fact be a nicer and better place if you had been sterilised at birth.
Your assertion as to life's purpose is astonishingly blinkered, it is very sad that you feel that way and that your brain is only capable of comprehending the world in such a basic manner.
Would you therefore have committed suicide if you had found out you were unable to have children? Do you therefore advocate that millions of humans that find they suffer from such an affliction should be euthanised?
Based on your comments I would speculate that the world would in fact be a nicer and better place if you had been sterilised at birth.
What a lovely little field of strawmen you have there, Mr Anonymous Coward! The only thing missing is a mention of a certain German political party of the early 20th Century. In your next post perhaps...
His family have been and will continue to be well taken care of. His decision will not cause them hardship. There is more to teach and gift to our children then money. Culture, morals and outlook on life are also important. Your success as a parent is not measured solely by your bank balance but by how happy your children are and how they interact with the world.
My kids aren't going to be swimming in pools of gold coins and I kark, but they will speak their language, understand their culture and its protocols and inherrit their ancestors lands and responsibilities. Money can be nice, but it is only a small part of being a whole person.
There is a difference between selling a song (even via a label), which is a statement by a person that they like your music, and your music being used to endorse a product especially after death. If he had allowed it when he was alive then that is different, but if he is ensuring his choice is continued after his death then that is his choice. Trying to make out he is depriving his kids is wrong. They have been left with money and a continued stream of revenue, he has just asked that one area of sales continue to be prohibited. Perhaps teaching his kids to have the courage of their convictions is a greater gift than the money? It depends if you value money more than morals.
You don't get my point. The association that has been created in my head between Dvorak's music and Hovis bread is to the irrevocable detriment of the music and (part of) its audience. In my opinion it's like letting a graffiti vandal tag a sublime painting. It is something that the creator of that work of art has a legitimate right to refuse in his will. I've no idea how Dvorak would see it, but I know that's how I'd see it!
The law permits a creator of intellectual property to leave it/them to a literary executor, who/which may be bound by the creator's wishes provided those wishes are legal. I don't know if it's ever been tested in a court, but I don't see anything obviously contrary to public policy in refusing permission for use of music in advertising until the copyright expires (assuming he owns the copyright at death). He's allowed to make that distinction and refusal in life, so why not make his intellectual property subject to that same condition after death?
The law permits a creator of intellectual property to leave it/them to a literary executor, who/which may be bound by the creator's wishes provided those wishes are legal. I don't know if it's ever been tested in a court, but I don't see anything obviously contrary to public policy in refusing permission for use of music in advertising until the copyright expires (assuming he owns the copyright at death). He's allowed to make that distinction and refusal in life, so why not make his intellectual property subject to that same condition after death?
I'm not saying he doesn't have the right. He may indeed have, or the courts may rule his works as collaborative efforts and the wishes of two live people outweigh the wishes of one deceased person. I'm just saying that his wish is an artistic pretention given that he commercialised his music, companies turned a profit on it directly, and it has already been indirectly used to sell other products. You tune into MTV for his music, and then an advert plays for chicken drumsticks. He didn't know that's why MTV was playing his music, to sell advertising slots?
"You tune into MTV for his music, and then an advert plays for chicken drumsticks. He didn't know that's why MTV was playing his music, to sell advertising slots?"
There's a world of difference between having your music play ALONGSIDE an ad (which is The Cost of Doing Business on broadcast radio and MTV, and the artist has no control over this--most people recognize this distinction and shrug) and having your music play DURING an ad (the ad agency has to have permission to use the music at this point, which creates an involuntary statement about the artist's tastes and/or attitudes, which is more significant).
There's a world of difference between having your music play ALONGSIDE an ad (which is The Cost of Doing Business on broadcast radio and MTV, and the artist has no control over this--most people recognize this distinction and shrug) and having your music play DURING an ad (the ad agency has to have permission to use the music at this point, which creates an involuntary statement about the artist's tastes and/or attitudes, which is more significant).
There's a difference certainly, but I wouldn't say there's a world of difference. He has the right to specify his desires relating to his creations, I do not for one second deny that, but that doesn't mean they're not silly.
"I'm happy for my song to play immediately before or after a chicken drumsticks ad, but not during dammit!"
Please Mr Yauch, you created pop songs with the shelf-life of a few decades, not some great philosophical work that will inspire nations to action for centuries to come. Don't fret it, the possibility of their 'corruption' is a total non-issue
Hasham, you clearly don't care to understand what the Beastie Boy ethos evolved into. The fact you used a phrase like 'you created a few pop songs' shows not only your misguided ignorance, but also how much of a bellend you are.
Starting with Paul's Boutique, the Beasties created sublime music that influenced a generation, and more than just a few here I imagine. Your attempt to lessen this is comically inept.
Yauch then devoted his time promoting non aggression, and attempted to raise awareness of oppressed nations. All on his own dime. You think this guy wanted to shill crap to stupid fat Americans after his death? You can't see how this would be the antithesis to his character?
To borrow from Bill Hicks also. Stop trying to put a dollar sign on everything, you sucker of Satan's cock.
Hasham, you clearly don't care to understand what the Beastie Boy ethos evolved into. The fact you used a phrase like 'you created a few pop songs' shows not only your misguided ignorance, but also how much of a bellend you are.
Starting with Paul's Boutique, the Beasties created sublime music that influenced a generation, and more than just a few here I imagine. Your attempt to lessen this is comically inept.
Yauch then devoted his time promoting non aggression, and attempted to raise awareness of oppressed nations. All on his own dime. You think this guy wanted to shill crap to stupid fat Americans after his death? You can't see how this would be the antithesis to his character?
To borrow from Bill Hicks also. Stop trying to put a dollar sign on everything, you sucker of Satan's cock.
"Beastie Boys songs, they're so deep and pure, man, they make me cry. You just don't understand!"
"Please Mr Yauch, you created pop songs with the shelf-life of a few decades, not some great philosophical work that will inspire nations to action for centuries to come. Don't fret it, the possibility of their 'corruption' is a total non-issue"
You may be interested to know that a lot of what we consider timeless classics of art were, in fact, commissions: done to order for a paying customer. So who's to say what will become a timeless classic or not in a couple hundred years? I mean, I don't picture the future become like that seen in the Bill & Ted movies, but...you never know.
quote: "I'm just saying that his wish is an artistic pretention given that he commercialised his music, companies turned a profit on it directly, and it has already been indirectly used to sell other products. You tune into MTV for his music, and then an advert plays for chicken drumsticks. He didn't know that's why MTV was playing his music, to sell advertising slots?"
I'm fairly sure he was well aware that that is MTVs business model. However MTV just plays the original, and in most cases advertisers create derivative works (different video, and voiceover on the audio, are the 2 most obvious alterations that would take place). "You can distribute my message (for profit), but you may not subvert my message" could be one interpretation of the logical disconnect between allowing publishers to profit, and not allowing advertisers to profit, from his works. Unfortunately we can no longer ask the man himself on his reasoning behind the decision, so we are left with speculation.
"You can distribute my message (for profit), but you may not subvert my message" could be one interpretation of the logical disconnect between allowing publishers to profit, and not allowing advertisers to profit, from his works.
I guess what this comes down to is how important one takes that message to be. Yauch created his songs, so no doubt he puts a great deal of importance onto them and thinks they can be made 'impure' somehow. For myself it's just pop songs alongside thousands of others; they're nice and catchy but not to be taken too seriously.
This post has been deleted by its author
Hasham, the difference is simple: HMV and co are selling music. Advertisers are selling a product and using music to form part of that product's image. HMV and co don't alter the artist's creative intent by associating third-party imagery with the music. They don't blend it and break it and merge it with their own ideas, they just sell it. Advertisers transform a creative work, they associate that music with concepts that may be completely opposite the artist's original intent and in doing so they alter what the artist is trying to say. They are not selling the music. You're apparently labouring under the impression that selling music and using music to sell a product are the same thing when they are, in fact, completely different.
"But this is my point - it's pure artistic pretentiousness on his part. If he was selling music direct to consumer via his own website then I could understand. But he was perfectly happy for Apple, HMV etc to make profit on something they didn't create. His specific anti advertising hissy fit is a logical disconnect."
This particular artist appears to consider his product to be music, and that is what he is choosing to sell.
I don't see where he is being pretentious or having a "hissy fit" - he is choosing not to endorse an industry that he did not work with as far as I can google in his lifetime and wishes to continue that after death. Civilised humanity has always distinguished between different choices where the choices are based on morality and integrity. The sums of money involved (an estate of US$6+ million) takes this question away from that of survival of his family and into a realm of choice. It may not be the best choice when viewed from differing perspectives, but it is his choice.
"This particular artist appears to consider his product to be music, and that is what he is choosing to sell."
'He' would still be selling music (or licensing its use, I suppose). MTV bought his songs to attract viewers, with the aim of getting companies to advertised goods and services to those viewers. That's his music being used indirectly as a hook to sell other things, but ultimately it's still to sell other things.
So, when someone's ethics based decisions don't agree with what *you* think is logical, you feel free to assert things about their mental and emotional states. You describe this as a "hissy fit", insinuating that the decision was emotionally immature rather than thought through. Ad hominems are tiresome.
Pro tip: You can disagree with the logic of someone's reasoning and still respect them for following *their* logic or ethics.
This post has been deleted by its author
@Hasham - way to miss the point!
Nobody is complaining about him having or leaving money. The fact is he's left $6m and there will be more coming in from royalties. Why should more be made from advertising by people that didn't create the art if he didn't want it? He has left a good legacy - both musical (to all of us that want to appreciate it) and financial (to his family).
"Nobody is complaining about him having or leaving money. The fact is he's left $6m and there will be more coming in from royalties. Why should more be made from advertising by people that didn't create the art if he didn't want it? He has left a good legacy - both musical (to all of us that want to appreciate it) and financial (to his family)."
But his music is already making Apple 30% on iTunes, and for innumerable other companies besides, who didn't create the art. It's an irrational position to specifically rail against advertising when you've not got an issue with Apple et al's 30%
Maybe because he rather give amazon, apple, etc a cut to sell through their services rather than build his own service and support?
No need to get butt hurt over apple and amazon getting a cut. It does cost most to sell and provide support for digital downloads. You don't hear people bitching that record shops take a cut.
"I'm sorry it burns you so much that there are people with lots of money out there. God forbid they should make any more..."
WTF are you talking about? Where did it seem like I was objecting to anyone making money, or object to anyone having *lots* of it?
You're the one positing that his kid can't possibly cope with what he left her.
His wife and child can make lots of money - royalties don't just stop do they? But to ignore his wishes and go ahead and use his music for adverts *WHICH IS WHAT HE DIDN'T WANT TO HAPPEN* would be a pretty shitty thing to do, no?
$6,000,000 will get you an income of somewhere between $60,000 and $90,000 per year if you put it in secure investments. I don't know how many people that has to be split between, but if it is more than about 2, then it probably isn't enough to live a middle class lifestyle never mind not having to worry about money again.
quote: "His wishes are his wishes I guess, but if his artistic works are the fruits of his labour why not let his daughter profit from such"
I see your point, however I would like to point out that those are the fruits of his labour. Not hers. Why should she automatically be able to profit from somebody else's work if they have specifically requested it not happen? Especially since they already have a $6.4m estate (plus their share of royalties on any future record sales) to tide them over, it's not like they've been left on the breadline here.
If anything, I would have expected people to be more incensed that his bandmates Mike Diamond and Adam Horovitz are also being prevented from selling ad rights to work that Mr. Yausch was involved in creating. It's interesting that your first instinct seems to be "think of the children!", rather than realising that this clause is going to limit the other co-creators of the works in question should they decide to sell out at some point in the future.
"If anything, I would have expected people to be more incensed that his bandmates Mike Diamond and Adam Horovitz are also being prevented from selling ad rights to work that Mr. Yausch was involved in creating. It's interesting that your first instinct seems to be "think of the children!", rather than realising that this clause is going to limit the other co-creators of the works in question should they decide to sell out at some point in the future."
I see your point also on the co-creators, but band mates are band mates, not blood. Reproducing and maximising the resources available to your progeny is, after all, the only proven purpose to life.
European and international law, in the form of the Berne Convention, establishes something called "moral rights", which is what Mr Yauch is trying to assert in this case. An author in Europe and most other countries could insert a clause like this in their will and have it upheld by courts - assuming someone was willing to take the case to court.
Despite the US's accession to Berne, US law to this day still doesn't recognise "moral rights". There is no such thing, in US law, as an "inalienable" right: everything is for sale. (Even the famed "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" can be, and frequently are, signed away.) What that means for copyright is that if you pass your copyrights to your daughter, then your daughter owns them entire, lock, stock and barrel. And she can benefit from them in any way you could have done while you were alive.
So this clause will not be enforceable. At best it creates a bit of moral pressure on his heirs.
His will excludes the usage of his music in ADVERTISING.
Beastie Boys' music has been included in multiple films (Star Trek, Iron Man 2, etc), and will most likely be used in the future as well.
There's also the constant revenue from record sales, songs played in radio, music videos played in TV and so on. I'm sure his family don't have to worry about money.
Bill also said, "Any advertising people in tonight? Yeah! KILL YOURSELVES! You are nothing but the sucker of Satan's cock, you are worthless and serve absolutely no purpose! No, there's no joke! Just kill yourselves. 'Oh yeah Bill's going for that angst comedian dollar! That's a big market'. STOP PUTTING A DOLLAR SIGN ON EVERY FUCKING THING YOU SEE! 'Oh yeah, the manic shouting dollar, another good market!'. Please just stop it!", starts sobbing.
Time until this is challenged in court and over ruled?
After all what does a dead man's wishes matter when there is money to be made! just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Byrne_%28giant%29
He wanted to be buried at sea because he was afraid of being regarded as a freak for all time, yet his bones are still on display!
Unfortunately the one thing that you do not own in law, and possibly even by definition, is your own body after its life is extinct.
There are good public-health reasons for this, as well as theological ones. Your body therefore belongs to your executors as soon as life is pronounced extinct (without waiting for probate!), and they are responsible for its safe disposal in accordance with the laws governing such.
This unfortunate chap obviously chose the wrong executors (and maybe the wrong jurisdiction to die under).
That's where the rights you do have come in.
Dear Loved and Trustworthy Descendants,
I hereby leave you the sum of ELEVENTEEN MILLION GROATS to divide equally amongst yourself....
...provided you bury my body at sea within 14 days of this reading. Otherwise the cat's getting the lot.
Imagine the raised digit in the icon being the one two places to the left.
That would be the safe assumption. At least while he was alive, he could personally look at the ad and consider whether or not the spirit of his music fit in with the ad or not. In the case you described, a dog on a skateboard evokes an image of unorthodoxy and rebellion, which fits in well with the theme of "Fight For Your Right:".
I'm pretty sure you can put in SOME conditions. You can DEFINITELY put in contingency conditions (where the inheritance goes if the heir is dead, for example--many a will I've seen put these in just in case). And given that you hear and see eligibility conditions all the time in books and TV, you would think there was at least some basis in reality for such a portrayal.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
