ONTD

10:18 pm - 08/09/2012

Adam Yauch's Will Prohibits Use of His Music in Ads




Fans of the Beastie Boys will never need to worry about hearing "No Sleep Till Brooklyn" in a DayQuil commercial or "Brass Monkey" in a spot for Brass Monkey. The last will and testament belonging to founding member Adam "MCA" Yauch — who died in May after a battle with cancer — was filed Tuesday in Manhattan Surrogate Court and reportedly contains a clause that bars advertisers from using his music, likeness, or any art he's created in connection with hawking products. We hope this means no commercials where he'll be dancing with a vacuum (like the decade-passed Fred Astaire in 1997) or praising diet cola (like the 20-years-dead Louis Armstrong somehow did in '91), and certainly no shoe ads like the ones that featured Kurt Cobain, Joey Ramone, and Joe Strummer a few years ago. It's unclear, though, whether his bandmates could supersede the clause.

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, in no event may my image or name or any music or any artistic property created by me be used for advertising purposes," reads a copy of the will, according to Rolling Stone. The phrase "or any music or any artistic property created by me" was reportedly added in handwriting.

The will also reportedly stipulates that the artist is leaving $6.4 million, earned from his work with the Beastie Boys and his indie film distro Oscilloscope, go into a trust for his wife, Dechen, and 13-year-old daughter, Tenzin. It also names Dechen the executor of his estate.


The news about advertising is particularly timely, though, considering the Beastie Boys are currently going head-to-head with an energy drink company who put together a 24-song mega mix for a viral campaign.

It's unclear whether Yauch's will would prevent his bandmates from ever selling the music they wrote together to advertisers. Yauch's lawyer and a spokesman for the Beastie Boys did not respond to requests for comment.

Sources: 1, 2

Cause I'm a specializer, rhyme reviser / Ain't selling out to advertisers
What you get is what you see / And you won't see me in the advertising
h0tfuss 10th-Aug-2012 03:56 am (UTC)
The Fred Astaire thing probably came about in part because someone else wrote the song. It's also different because the footage was taken from a film that Fred didn't write, direct, or own the rights to.
enid_keaner 10th-Aug-2012 03:59 am (UTC)
I know this. Still found it uncomfortable and I personally didn't like it. I just find all of this uncomfortable really.
h0tfuss 10th-Aug-2012 04:02 am (UTC)
I know what you mean. I would just feel bad if the songwriter's granddaughter needed money for college or whatever and a bunch of people who have no connection to the creative process spoke out against it.
enid_keaner 10th-Aug-2012 04:06 am (UTC)
To be honest, I think it's the image of the person more so than the music that gets to me, really. Like the Tupac hologram really creeped me out. The image is a lot more concrete than the music - there's something about taking the image of a dead person and just using it as they please that just makes me end up going "...." all the time.
h0tfuss 10th-Aug-2012 04:10 am (UTC)
I don't know, I'm just at a point in my life where I'm over notions of credibility if it interferes with making money. Someone sold that footage of Fred Astaire because someone somewhere down the pike needed the money.
enid_keaner 10th-Aug-2012 04:23 am (UTC)
I should be at that point since I'm old enough but I'm not. LOL.

I'm over it when it comes to you yourself but not so much when it comes to other people.
stellawuzadiver 10th-Aug-2012 04:03 am (UTC)
The shittiest part about that is that his will actually took measures to control his image after he was dead, but that commercial exploited a possibility he never could have foreseen.
enid_keaner 10th-Aug-2012 04:07 am (UTC)
That makes me quite sad.
h0tfuss 10th-Aug-2012 04:07 am (UTC)
That's all good and fair, but no actor ever has control of the way the studio uses footage from the movies they own. I know Fred Astaire is sort of untouchable and that the nature of the commercial makes the whole thing seem like a bigger violation than it really is, but no actor ever has control of a movie they didn't direct or produce.
enid_keaner 10th-Aug-2012 04:09 am (UTC)
Well, yes. I know that. I'm going to assume the other person knew that too.

It's just. It's something I find really distasteful in general.
stellawuzadiver 10th-Aug-2012 04:17 am (UTC)
I know that he doesn't have any ownership of the footage his studios produced. My point was it's pretty shitty to co-opt the image of a guy who was wary of something as minor as being portrayed in a movie, for a vacuum commercial.

Edited at 2012-08-10 04:17 am (UTC)
This page was loaded May 22nd 2013, 9:59 pm GMT.