Last week, the famous band Beastie Boys sued Monster Energy drink for using snippets of their songs ‘Sabotage’, ‘So Watcha Want’ and ‘Looking Down the Barrel of a Gun’ and names of band members in promotional videos without permission. Michael "Mike D" Diamond, Adam "Ad-Rock" Horovitz and Yauch's estate now claim that Monster is guilty of copyright infringement and violation of the Latham Act (trademarks and endorsement). Additionally, the suit cites violation of the New York’s civil rights law. It seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction, as well as statutory damages of $150,000 for each infringement of the Beastie Boys works.

However, the question is whether Monster needed permission for using the names and music.  A few days before the Beastie Boys sued Monster, it became known that Adam Yauch, member of the famous band ‘Beastie Boys’ who died in May of this year after battling cancer, made an addition to his will, concerning the publicity rights and copyrights of his works:

Yauch was likely trying to make a statement by adding this sentence to his will, telling the world that life is about more then profit. However, copyright law is a complicated field and Yauch’s addition is not clear on all points. For example, did he only mean the works he solely produced, wrote or performed, or did he want to include the works he made with others? One can only give away what one owns, which means that Yauch cannot give away copyrights over his works held by others. Enforcing this will could result in months – or years – of legal battles for Yauch’s heirs. 

This matter gets even more complicated when we add ‘mandatory compulsory licenses’.

The mandatory license right forces the owner to license the rights to others who may make their own recordings and sell them for a profit. These licenses state that, when a work has been distributed to the public under certain conditions, the copyright holder cannot prevent other artists from using his work in certain ways.  The question subjected to the lawsuit is whether Monster Beverage exceeded the rights afforded by a mandatory compulsory license. 

Whether Yauchs addition to his will is valid, how it should be interpreted and whether Monster Energy Drink was at fault will be decided in court. We will keep you updated on the progress of this case. 

A PDF of the lawsuit can be found here 

Read more about this topic on Future of Copyright:

• South Park parody case clarifies principle of fair use

Sources: Huffington Post, Forbes, E!, The Consumerist

Written by: Nathalie Falot