The Daily Variety multiplies "harm" by 100,000.
The Daily Variety, a Hollywood Trade Publication, objected to punk band The Vandals doing a parody of their font in 2004. The band was forced into a settlement, but 6 years later the Daily Variety, and their parent company Reed Elsevier (Dutch) have filed a lawsuit against the Vandals again claiming they saw images of the now discontinued version of the album "Hollywood Potato Chip" on the internet in places like myspace and youtube.
The Fallout:
If you google "The Daily Variety" today you get a page of entries about their frivolous attempt to abuse the legal system to bleed $75,000 out of a punk band that never should have settled with Variety in the first place. The band is representing themselves in Federal Court and is on their way to overturning the original forced settlement. Worst of all for Variety and Reed Elsevier, by filing this case in public, they have nullified the confidentiality part of their settlement with the Vandals so the internet is now full of information on their bully tactics to stifle protected artistic speech. If you Google their competitor, The Hollywood Reporter, you get a page of entries about Hollywood journalism. Variety can only dream of this kind of reputation. So after 101 years in business (and trying to be sold), this is how the Daily Variety defines themselves on the internet. see www.vandals.com for more info.
Although I'm not completely sold on the argument that CIO's use is transformative, I love the brief because it really opens up the arguments for a full debate. I usually think of transformative as meaning there is an actual physical transformation, as in taking a picture of Mickey Mouse and transforming it from a cartoon into a social comment.
Our case, The Daily Variety Vs. The Vandals, looks like a joke when run though Schultz' analysis. We are presently waiting for a judge in Delaware to decide if it should be heard out there or here in California where all the parties and the lawyers are located. If you are unfamiliar with our case, we were sued for releasing an album that included a parody of the Daily Variety's "special font."
We discontinued the product as part of a settlement that we were railroaded into by the usual threats of burdensome litigation that trolls spew out. Then The Daily Variety abused the settlement agreement by ignoring its terms and suing us 6 years later because they said they "saw the image again on the Internet." So they are trying to frame it as a contract case, but it is really about Fair Use and abusing the legal process.
Now the Daily Variety has submitted a motion to the court to demand that we not be allowed to represent ourselves and that we be forced to hire expensive Delaware attorneys because it's not fair that we are not spending as much money as they told us we would have to spend if we didn't just give them $75,000 when they demanded it earlier this year. All this from a trade publication for the "arts." http://www.vandals.com/Vandals/Description_of_Lawsuit.html
For an interesting example of an attempt to use entire works to make a point under the Fair Use Doctrine, see how the director of the compelling documentary "The Agony and Ecstasy of Phil Spector" used his music to tell a story.
He used entire works, made a justification for it, and commented on the works in the lower 3rd of the screen while the documentary rolled on.
Thank you techdirt for illuminating the essential question here. Why are they sticking with this
?
Why this is "clearly a parody:" the Daily Variety calls itself the "Bible Of The Entertainment Industry." When the Vandals want to parody Hollywood, if they can't spoof the people that call themselves the Bible of it, then let's take the word parody out of the dictionary, and any other words Reed Elsevier things might cost them a nickel.
Webster calls a Parody "a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule."
Legally, the Fair Use Doctrine protects works like ours because they are creative and transformative. We take a hint of a pompous enterprise's logo and comment on the materialistic and egotistical obsessions of the Hollywood system. That may not be high brow art, but it's our art. It's the best we can do. Should we be financially ruined over it?
Should Reed Elsevier and the Daily Variety be allowed to extort money out of us in a far away jurisdiction unless we spend tens of thousands to explain to them and the court in Delaware how the Internet works and how negotiated "30 day cure periods" work in a fair society?
The only people that would think this punk band should be subject to financial ruin for what has taken place here are the 950 attorneys at Fulbright & Jaworski who have to try to rationalize this kind of corrupt behavior to get some sleep at night and the in house counsel for Reed Elsevier Henry Z. Horbaczewski who has to explain to Reed and Variety why they should think it's worthwhile to take such a beating in the press for what they're doing.
Google "Daily Variety." All you see, besides their own website, are articles about suing a punk band over a free speech issue. After one hundred and one years, this is where they've brought themselves. For what?
Well, they own Lexis-Nexis. So when the Vandals do legal research to defend themselves, they actually have to send Reed money. So does everyone defending themselves in a frivolous lawsuit. Reed has found a way to actually profit nicely from lawsuit abuse.
Perhaps they hate our bass player because he uses his law degree to give free legal advice to thousands of people on his radio shows that might otherwise hire their type of attorneys. And he is a spokesperson for Legalzoom.com, a revolutionary service eliminating the need for attorneys in many instances. What does he do in his spare time? He enjoys his life playing in a "popular enough" punk band. He represents freedom to these people and a world where they are less powerful so they want to drive him out of the public forum, mafia style. We don't have any other way to explain this odd behavior.
Here's a couple clarifications. I loved this article by the way.
The album art concept is a parody of the materialism of Hollywood business machine. The Daily Variety was parodied because they call themselves the "Bible of Show Business." they are the heralds of what is being mocked by our band.
Regarding the contract issue, the blogger was right who said that if we signed a settlement agreement, they are just suing on the contract. However, we did not breach the agreement, we do not control myspace music, amazon, and youtube. This is where the Variety made their mistake. Since they are abusing the permanent injunction, which carved out 3rd party postings and provided a 30 day cure period, both of which were ignored by Variety's lawyers when they filed their law suit, we are taking the occasion to try to lift the permanent injunction.
It was signed under the duress of a bullying law firm with 950 attorneys at their disposal.
If this is what they are going to do to us for the rest of our lives we have to stand up and fight back this time.
They asked us for $75,000 and want us to sign something to say that if this happens again we owe them twice as much. If what happens? Someone uses the internet? It's ludicrous.d
Thanks for your support.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by The Vandals.
Yap
Thanks for mentioning Yap. I try to tell people at that place but people think I'm nuts.
Odd Couple: Assume
Bad News Bears II (the search for Curly's gold) made a huge deal about that assume joke. Good example. It's all in the execution.
Joke Stealing
Great article Mike. I love that Jackie follows Rupaul.
We think we have #1 Streisand Effect disaster
The Daily Variety multiplies "harm" by 100,000.
The Daily Variety, a Hollywood Trade Publication, objected to punk band The Vandals doing a parody of their font in 2004. The band was forced into a settlement, but 6 years later the Daily Variety, and their parent company Reed Elsevier (Dutch) have filed a lawsuit against the Vandals again claiming they saw images of the now discontinued version of the album "Hollywood Potato Chip" on the internet in places like myspace and youtube.
The Fallout:
If you google "The Daily Variety" today you get a page of entries about their frivolous attempt to abuse the legal system to bleed $75,000 out of a punk band that never should have settled with Variety in the first place. The band is representing themselves in Federal Court and is on their way to overturning the original forced settlement. Worst of all for Variety and Reed Elsevier, by filing this case in public, they have nullified the confidentiality part of their settlement with the Vandals so the internet is now full of information on their bully tactics to stifle protected artistic speech. If you Google their competitor, The Hollywood Reporter, you get a page of entries about Hollywood journalism. Variety can only dream of this kind of reputation. So after 101 years in business (and trying to be sold), this is how the Daily Variety defines themselves on the internet. see www.vandals.com for more info.
Transformative Works
Although I'm not completely sold on the argument that CIO's use is transformative, I love the brief because it really opens up the arguments for a full debate. I usually think of transformative as meaning there is an actual physical transformation, as in taking a picture of Mickey Mouse and transforming it from a cartoon into a social comment.
Our case, The Daily Variety Vs. The Vandals, looks like a joke when run though Schultz' analysis. We are presently waiting for a judge in Delaware to decide if it should be heard out there or here in California where all the parties and the lawyers are located. If you are unfamiliar with our case, we were sued for releasing an album that included a parody of the Daily Variety's "special font."
We discontinued the product as part of a settlement that we were railroaded into by the usual threats of burdensome litigation that trolls spew out. Then The Daily Variety abused the settlement agreement by ignoring its terms and suing us 6 years later because they said they "saw the image again on the Internet." So they are trying to frame it as a contract case, but it is really about Fair Use and abusing the legal process.
Now the Daily Variety has submitted a motion to the court to demand that we not be allowed to represent ourselves and that we be forced to hire expensive Delaware attorneys because it's not fair that we are not spending as much money as they told us we would have to spend if we didn't just give them $75,000 when they demanded it earlier this year. All this from a trade publication for the "arts."
http://www.vandals.com/Vandals/Description_of_Lawsuit.html
Fair Use of complete works
For an interesting example of an attempt to use entire works to make a point under the Fair Use Doctrine, see how the director of the compelling documentary "The Agony and Ecstasy of Phil Spector" used his music to tell a story.
He used entire works, made a justification for it, and commented on the works in the lower 3rd of the screen while the documentary rolled on.
Daily Variety Sues Punk Band For Font
Thank you techdirt for illuminating the essential question here. Why are they sticking with this
?
Why this is "clearly a parody:" the Daily Variety calls itself the "Bible Of The Entertainment Industry." When the Vandals want to parody Hollywood, if they can't spoof the people that call themselves the Bible of it, then let's take the word parody out of the dictionary, and any other words Reed Elsevier things might cost them a nickel.
Webster calls a Parody "a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule."
Legally, the Fair Use Doctrine protects works like ours because they are creative and transformative. We take a hint of a pompous enterprise's logo and comment on the materialistic and egotistical obsessions of the Hollywood system. That may not be high brow art, but it's our art. It's the best we can do. Should we be financially ruined over it?
Should Reed Elsevier and the Daily Variety be allowed to extort money out of us in a far away jurisdiction unless we spend tens of thousands to explain to them and the court in Delaware how the Internet works and how negotiated "30 day cure periods" work in a fair society?
The only people that would think this punk band should be subject to financial ruin for what has taken place here are the 950 attorneys at Fulbright & Jaworski who have to try to rationalize this kind of corrupt behavior to get some sleep at night and the in house counsel for Reed Elsevier Henry Z. Horbaczewski who has to explain to Reed and Variety why they should think it's worthwhile to take such a beating in the press for what they're doing.
Google "Daily Variety." All you see, besides their own website, are articles about suing a punk band over a free speech issue. After one hundred and one years, this is where they've brought themselves. For what?
Well, they own Lexis-Nexis. So when the Vandals do legal research to defend themselves, they actually have to send Reed money. So does everyone defending themselves in a frivolous lawsuit. Reed has found a way to actually profit nicely from lawsuit abuse.
Perhaps they hate our bass player because he uses his law degree to give free legal advice to thousands of people on his radio shows that might otherwise hire their type of attorneys. And he is a spokesperson for Legalzoom.com, a revolutionary service eliminating the need for attorneys in many instances. What does he do in his spare time? He enjoys his life playing in a "popular enough" punk band. He represents freedom to these people and a world where they are less powerful so they want to drive him out of the public forum, mafia style. We don't have any other way to explain this odd behavior.
Re: Re:
The Daily Variety calls itself "The Bible of the Entertainment Industry." The Vandals were indeed attempting a parody of them.
The Daily Variety
Here's a couple clarifications. I loved this article by the way.
The album art concept is a parody of the materialism of Hollywood business machine. The Daily Variety was parodied because they call themselves the "Bible of Show Business." they are the heralds of what is being mocked by our band.
Regarding the contract issue, the blogger was right who said that if we signed a settlement agreement, they are just suing on the contract. However, we did not breach the agreement, we do not control myspace music, amazon, and youtube. This is where the Variety made their mistake. Since they are abusing the permanent injunction, which carved out 3rd party postings and provided a 30 day cure period, both of which were ignored by Variety's lawyers when they filed their law suit, we are taking the occasion to try to lift the permanent injunction.
It was signed under the duress of a bullying law firm with 950 attorneys at their disposal.
If this is what they are going to do to us for the rest of our lives we have to stand up and fight back this time.
They asked us for $75,000 and want us to sign something to say that if this happens again we owe them twice as much. If what happens? Someone uses the internet? It's ludicrous.d
Thanks for your support.