The technical word is "derivative work."

Very, very interesting, but yeah, I don't buy it. I mean, the original may be sexist, but that doesn't give you the right to take it and use it for unauthorized ends. I think Mary Gauthier's music is insufferable, but if I improved it and slapped it into a Campbell's soup commercial, something tells me she wouldn't be…

I'm sorry, but "fair use" does not give you the authority to usurp someone's copyright completely.

Girls can do anything that boys can, Raisin!

Are you saying a female is incapable of being a songtheif who is attempting to profit by exploiting changing moraes? You're just being sexist!

He's been flying under the radar because what he does is entirely legal and protected by copyright law, unlike what GoldieBlox did.

Yep. GoldieBlox could put this parody on a CD and that would be fine. It would stand alone as commentary then.

They are. This is allowed per Campbell v Acuff-Rose: You can create a parody and sell it without the consent of the original author. The spirit of fair use is to stimulate discussion, commentary, and creativity. If you happen to sell a bunch of copies of your parody, great — that means that you've created something…

So they are sexist hypocrites that you help subsidize. Neat!

That's a good point! Although synch licenses (what you need to synchronize a song with a moving images) are different from mechanical royalties (what you pay to cover a song as a sound recording), so that may come into play. Also, I'm not sure if a knowledgeable, competent music supervisor would let their client make…

Weird Al gets permission before doing his parodies! Even though Campbell v Acuff-Rose deemed that was unnecessary. But Al's parodies aren't used to sell products.

I think Slug Life's thinking hasn't evolved since he was 16…unlike the Beasties.

You can say that. But, whether or not they are sexist hypocrites or not, they own the rights to that song and are legally authorized to prohibit its use.

I've certainly never heard of a "fair use" defense being applied successfully in this way.

The primary intent of songs is to express emotion and to comment. Commercials can express emotion and comment, but their primary intent is to sell things. The fair use defense holds up just find in artistic contexts, but it will not stand in this one.

It sounds like you respect the letter of the law more than the spirit of it. This may be a loophole that gets GoldieBlox off, but it would set such a massively detrimental precedent that it would severely hamper the control that right's holders have over their intellectual property.

It may be a "parody," but it's a parody used to sell a product. If it were a PSA or a genuine expressive gesture whose foremost goal was satire, it would be covered by fair use. But in a corporate context, used to generate sales and raise profits, the fair use claim will not stand up. It is a commercial, and using…

I always kinda liked the way their records looked more than the way they sounded.

In related news, the market for black hair-dye futures is skyrocketing.

"In my mind / I'm going to have angina."