• 18
  • 3
  • 2361

About the Author

www.fasterlouder.com.au

CarrieMemphis

view my other 90 articles

www.fasterlouder.com.au

Foo Fighters sue Australian ad

Tue 15th Jun, 2010 in Local News

The Foo Fighters are suing for copyright infringement after an advertisement for Queensland-based real estate agents RE/MAX used portion of one of their songs was used in a TV ad without permission.

The court case arose after an innocent comment in a forum on the band’s website alerted them that an ad for RE/MAX Australia had used the guitar riff from the group’s 1999 single Learn to Fly.

Dave Grohl, Nate Mendel and Taylor Hawkins launched the international copyright case seeking unspecified damages, interests and costs and have demanded that the company hand over all copies of the offending work.

The Age reports that the case will be heard in August in the Australian Federal Court. The legal actions took RE/MAX regional director Nicholas Thiele by surprise.

Thiele said, “It’s certainly not the position of this company to intentionally infringe on anyone’s copyright. We’ve got very strong trademark and copyright issues regarding our own brand that we feel are very important.”

The music on the commercial was recorded by an independent US contractor and supplied by the company’s US head office.

This is not the first time the Foo Fighters went up in arms for breach of copyright. During the 2008 United States presidential election the group attacked candidate John McCain using their song My Hero for his campaign. Also in 2008, the group sued Marvel Comics for using “substantial excerpts” of their songs Best of You and Free Me in the trailer for the animated series Wolverine and the X-Men.

Social

arrow
Click the 'I Heart This' button and it'll be linked on your profile page for all to see. It's a great way to let your mates know what you're into at the moment.
  • colemo
  • Miel
  • sarahanne

All About

Follow your favourites to get news & event alerts +Follow

Add Follows

Keep informed about your favourite artists and events. We'll email you whenever there is new gigs or news posted about your favourite things. Simply select those you want to be notified about. View my Follows |  Follow Settings

  • Foo Fighters
Cancel Finish

Comments

www.fasterlouder.com.au arrow left
32919
Braveheart81

Braveheart81 said on the 15th Jun, 2010

I'm pretty sure RE/MAX is a group of real estate agents not an ad agency.

sarahanne

sarahanne said on the 15th Jun, 2010

I think you are right - will edit.

TIm D

TIm D said on the 15th Jun, 2010

i wanna see the ad?

billzbub

billzbub said on the 15th Jun, 2010

so what's the deal? if someone re-records a riff, or re-interprets a song but it is not the original recording, is it still liable for copyright clearance? what about the multitude of ads out there that blatantly sound like goldfrapp, sia etc songs?

Braveheart81

Braveheart81 said on the 15th Jun, 2010



If the copyright holder can prove that the work infringes on their original material they can claim royalties.

Royalties go to the original copyright holder in relation to covers.

grattan

grattan said on the 15th Jun, 2010

Edit:

Too slow. What Braveheart said.

Julz_901

Julz_901 said on the 15th Jun, 2010

So are Foo Fighters running out of cash and need to sue a small time Real Estate agency or are they offended by Realtors. Does that mean that Like a Version is illegal or do triple j have some sort of something... that means they can play covers?

grattan

grattan said on the 15th Jun, 2010



No.



Probably not.



No - but sometimes it should be.



When they put together the Version compilations they'd have to pay for licensing.

Braveheart81

Braveheart81 said on the 15th Jun, 2010



From RE/MAX's website...
[quote=RE/MAX]It's no wonder that nobody in the world sells more real estate than RE/MAX.

RE/MAX is truly a global network, with a presence in more than 70 countries on six continents. Your property listings search on remax.com makes the home search process easier than ever.

They're not a small time real estate agency.

There is nothing illegal about Like a Version. The royalties attached to the sales would just not go to the artists who sing the songs. They would go to the original artists (as long as the copyright hadn't expired).

The Fool

The Fool said on the 15th Jun, 2010



read this. it's a fun read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

Julz_901

Julz_901 said on the 15th Jun, 2010

I kind of understand copyright, in the sense that i understand it exisits to protect artsists etc, but it seems like rather alot of effort to go to to prosecute a small time real estate agency (which i see is actually a rather big real estate agency) who probably arent actually making that much money from the song given that its a localised ad... providing of course it is a localised ad. I totally understand not letting politicans use it in their campaines knowing some of my friends and how they choose who they vote for in our elections...

There are alot of ad's using professionally recorded music, are alot of them using it illegally or is there a way to pay the artists for it?

Braveheart81

Braveheart81 said on the 15th Jun, 2010



I would say that almost all ads are using music legally by licencing the music.

That is why Foo Fighters are suing this company because they haven't done the right thing.

garrypeadon77

garrypeadon77 said on the 15th Jun, 2010

i think you will find that the foo fighters employ a company whos roll is to seek out unlicenced material and then take action. if they start letting one company slip, then another company will follow etc etc.. foo fighters probably don't even know this case is happening..

HEAD OF STATE

HEAD OF STATE said on the 15th Jun, 2010

Fucking shittest ad too! t annoyed me too, the obvious rip-off put to a cheap-ass commercial! Sue the pants off the real estate scum!

HEAD OF STATE

HEAD OF STATE said on the 15th Jun, 2010

APRA and AMCOS pay artists whenever they are pplayed on the radio//TV/film/ad... APRA to the writter, AMCOS to the performer. RE/MAX should be fucked over for this, big time!

gumbuoy

gumbuoy said on the 16th Jun, 2010



Its been a couple of years since I did my creative industries legal issues, but from memory, if you dont defend your copyright, it makes it harder to defend later

ie if they dont take action this time, someone else could take the same song and use it in a different way, and then claim they thought FF had relinquised copyright over that particular song/performance, because they didnt take action last time.

I KNOW thats the case with trademarks, but im only 75% sure that it also applies to copyright. Basically, any time you discover that your copyright has been violated, you should take action...

jonnoseidler

jonnoseidler said on the 16th Jun, 2010



absolutely

truthlies

truthlies said on the 16th Jun, 2010

i haven't heard or seen the ad which is sooo suspect. however, the fact that it is only a riff does not warrant much. the riff itself was probably originally a beatles song or something. i dont think it is the first time three cords have been played like that!