Intellectual Property

Bill Murray Responds To Demand Letter Like The Dalai Lama To A Caddy

Oh, uh, there won't be any money.

By  
on

(Photo by Harry How/Getty Images)

We had a lot of fun last week with the demand letter from the Doobie Brothers asking Bill Murray to stop using their music to promote golf shirts without paying for it. In the process, entertainment attorney Peter Paterno took us on a journey into the unknown limits of legal composition with an unorthodox yet intensely compelling letter.

Murray has now responded, courtesy of Alexander Yoffe of Yoffe & Cooper (again spotted quickly by Eriq Gardner). Befitting the response of a comedy legend to a humorous letter shared all over the internet, Yoffe brings a light-hearted approach to the dispute. But he doesn’t so much… answer the first letter.

After complimenting Paterno on the letter, Yoffe points out:

We would also like to confirm that both our firm, and the good folks at William Murray Golf, are indeed fans of the Doobie Brothers’ music, which is why we appreciate your firm’s choice of “Takin’ It to the Streets”, rather than to the courts, which are already overburdened “Minute by Minute” with real problems.

Oh, I see what you did there. Now, right after this paragraph is the part of most responses where the recipient says, “we apologize for having unintentionally used your clients’ intellectual property for commercial purposes and would love to enter a discussion about licensing it for future use.” That is… not what happens next:

I am sure that Howard King of your firm, who argued that the song “Blurred Lines” (Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams and T.I.) did not infringe on Marvin Gaye’s composition “Got To Give It Up”, would agree that your client was not harmed under these circumstances.

Sponsored

Except Marvin Gaye’s family won that case.

Lawyers say a lot of things while advocating for their clients, but when they lose they can’t be held to their past unsuccessful arguments. The “Blurred Lines” case was problematic in a lot of ways because it set a standard that arguably weaponized intellectual property against creative inspiration but that’s not really relevant here. That Paterno’s firm tried and failed to get a ruling that lifting a melody for a new song wasn’t infringement has little to do with whether or not artists should be paid when their copyrighted works are used in advertisements.

There may be a lot wrong with intellectual property law right now and it may have become the domain of trolls making a mockery of the spirit of this protection to harass good faith actors, but “using someone else’s music in an advertisement” is very much the core case for copyright protection.

As your client so aptly stated in this classic song in question, “What the people need is a way to make them smile”— which both Bill and the Doobies have been doing for decades, as world-class entertainers.

Please provide us with the shirt size for yourself, Tom Johnston, Patrick Simmons, Michael McDonald, and John McFee, along with which of our client’s shirts you find the least offensive, and we will happily upgrade your wardrobes and hopefully win each of you over as new fans of the brand.

At least that’s “what this fool believes”.

Oh, uh, there won’t be any money. But when the Doobies die, on their deathbeds, they will receive free William Murray golf shirts.

Sponsored

So they got that going for them… which is nice.

(Letter on the next page.)

Earlier: A Jungian Analysis Of Bill Murray Getting Absolutely Blown Up By A Lawyer

HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

1 2Next »

Topics

, , , ,