They better be pooping cotton candy. No one is gonna eat black eyed pea poop.

If they were smart they would buy said toy company.

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?

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.”

And here I now had the need to YouTube a pooping unicorn song

What the actual fuck

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

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.

What is up with shitting toys?

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.

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.

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.

thats my favorite worst song in the world, so bad that its good

and yah, clear rip off

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.

I just finished my marketing degree, and if this is what reaches people— we’ll, I’m rethinking my life choices

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.

Lol dolls too…

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.

The real crime here is that these pieces of landfill-destined shit are selling for over a hundred dollars. Christ. Consumerism is a disease.

Rip off? Or parody? Or sample, even?

PS - I am not even close to being a lawyer, so...

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.

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

Poop smells, but poop sells

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.

I don't think that is consumerism. That is toy hoarding and people who should really be on som sort of list.

No, go into marketing. We need people who will make better choices.

Yes, indeed.

Scalping is a symptom of consumerism

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.

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.

So you think weird al Yankovic should be sued for making a living from his parody songs?

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.

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.