Wydeven column: Beastie Boys continue fight to keep their intellectual property rights

When I was in eighth grade, the Beastie Boys released their vanguard album, “Licensed to Ill.” It became the first rap album to top the Billboard 200 chart and was the second to be certified Platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). In 2015, it was certified Diamond after selling over 10 million copies in the U.S. It is widely considered one of the greatest hip hop and debut albums of all time.

I had the cassette tape, and I would put it in my boombox and carry it on my shoulder so my buddies and I could listen to it as we walked around town. It was one of many, many times I thought I looked cool and was sorely mistaken. Still, it is a great album that taught me I had to fight for my right to party and I still listen to it.

Apparently, Chili’s restaurant is also a huge fan of the Beastie Boys. But, when they decided to get ill, they didn’t get a license.

In 2022, the chain purportedly launched a social media ad that featured three people wearing 1970s-style disguises stealing ingredients from a Chili’s restaurant while the Beastie Boys’ song “Sabotage” played. The tune was released by the group in 1994 on their album “Ill Communication.” The song was a huge smash, most likely because of its iconic video that featured the band’s three members donning wigs, fake mustaches and sunglasses parodying 1970s crime television shows.

So, the Beastie Boys sued Brinker International, Chili’s parent company, in federal court in New York. The suit accuses the chain of using significant portions of “Sabotage” and copying their music video without permission. The lawsuit asserts that consumers would incorrectly believe the group endorsed the restaurant. The band is seeking $150,000 in damages and an injunction to stop the use of the ad.

The case was filed by surviving group members Adam “Ad-Rock” Horovitz and Michael “Mike D” Diamond, along with the executor of the estate of Adam “MCA” Yauch, who died of cancer in 2012 at age 47. In fact, Yauch’s will specifically barred the use of his music in advertisements.

This is not the first time the Beastie Boys have gone to court to protect their intellectual property rights. In 2014, the group sued the maker of Monster Energy drink for using several of their songs, including “Sabotage,” in a promotional video posted on Monster’s website without the Beastie Boys’ permission.

According to their complaint, “The public was confused into believing that plaintiffs sponsored, endorsed and are associated with defendant Monster in promoting defendant Monster’s productions and promotional events.” The band claimed that Monster’s use of its music would cause “irreparable damage” and sought the removal of the video from Monster’s website.

The Beastie Boys were awarded $1.7 million in the copyright violation case and in a separate ruling, Monster was ordered to pay an additional $668,000 of the band’s $2.4 million legal fees.

U.S District Court Judge Paul Engelmayer held that there was “ample basis” to believe the video would incorrectly lead people to believe the group was officially endorsing the product. Apparently, Engelmayer is a cool judge, as he quoted the group’s song, “So What’cha Want,” by noting that one of the parties to the suit can rest “as cool as a cucumber in a bowl of hot sauce,” because Monster’s Third-Party Complaint against him was dismissed.

FYI: the Oxford English Dictionary actually credits the Beastie Boys for coining the term “mullet” in 1994 in their song “Mullet Head.” The chorus is, “cut the sides, don’t touch the back.” Simply genius.

Reg Wydeven is a partner with the Appleton-based law firm of McCarty Law LLP. He can be reached at pcbusiness@postcrescent.com.

This article originally appeared on Appleton Post-Crescent: Beastie Boys continue fight to keep their intellectual property rights