“The defense has some issues here,” Oines said. That would be more difficult if he explicitly misrepresented Astley’s endorsement on top of mimicking Astley’s refrain, he said. Oines said Yung Gravy could argue he reasonably believed he was within his rights based on fair use and licensing the composition copyright, potentially mitigating any damages even if he is held liable. “If in fact that’s true, that would be a little reckless to say that he endorsed it,” IP attorney Ronald Oines of Rutan & Tucker LLP said. And even if Yung Gravy validates mimicking Astley’s voice, he may have dug himself a separate hole by allegedly saying Astley “digs the song,” “approved it,” and is a “fan.” That could support a distinct false-endorsement claim in a promotional context, one removed from the First Amendment implications of an artistic work, attorneys say. The dispute over the song itself carries a number of interesting wrinkles. “They’re going to have to stretch a bit from the existing case law, I think.” They’re having to be creative with trying to enforce what rights he has,” IP attorney Meaghan Kent of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP said. But harnessing right of publicity or trademark law against such use in an artistic manner-especially one to which he acquired at least a a partial license-complicates if not dooms the claim, attorneys say. The complaint notes that courts have held that voice imitation can create right-of-publicity liability. Astley’s voice throughout the song,” Astley said. Yung Gravy’s song, certified gold and viewed at least 32 million times on YouTube, incorporates an “indistinguishable imitation of Mr. It also invokes music industry sampling practices, the line between the First Amendment and the Lanham Act-an issue before the US Supreme Court-and the definition of transformative use-also before the high court.Īstley’s claims include state law right of publicity and false endorsement under federal trademark law-the Lanham Act. The case implicates an array of intellectual property issues, including whether and when the right of publicity can be asserted over part of an artistic work without being preempted by copyright law. Matthew Huari, known as Yung Gravy, acquired a license to use the composition copyright of Astley’s oft-memed 1987 hit in order to mimic a portion of it in his 2022 song “Betty (Get Money).” But Astley’s California state court complaint said Yung Gravy violated Astley’s right of publicity-which can include copying one’s voice-and falsely suggested Astley approved of the song. The world is a wonderful and beautiful place, and I am very lucky.Rick Astley’s lawsuit over a rapper incorporating a “Never Gonna Give You Up” sound-alike clip faces major First Amendment hurdles, lawyers say, though the rapper’s false assertion that Astley endorsed the impersonation could give the ‘80s icon a boost. “Never Gonna Give You Up” is only the fourth music video from the 1980s to join YouTube’s Billion Views Club, behind Guns N’ Roses’ “Sweet Child o’ Mine,” A-ha’s “Take on Me,” and Michael Jackson’s “Billie Jean.”Īstley, 55, celebrated the milestone in a tweet, saying in a video, “So I’ve just been told that ‘Never Gonna Give You Up’ has been streamed a billion times on YouTube. The indestructible Rickrolling meme has generated untold millions of views for Astley’s video: On April Fool’s Day 2021 alone, it topped 2.3 million views, according to YouTube. The video has benefited from one of the earliest YouTube memes: “Rickrolling,” a prank in which someone shares a link promising one thing - but which, in fact, launches the red-headed Brit’s dance-pop iconic music video. The official video for Rick Astley’s 1987 hit “Never Gonna Give You Up” - uploaded almost 12 years ago - surpassed 1 billion lifetime views on YouTube on Wednesday. Rick has rolled into YouTube’s billion-views club.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |