Posted on 07/19/2016 3:34:39 PM PDT by conservative98
Sony/ATV Music Publishing which administers Queens catalog including songs such as We Are the Champion said a statement Tuesday they have repeatedly asked Trump not to use the We Are the Champions, which he played Monday during the first day of the Republican National Convention. Last month, Queen guitarist Brian May also wrote a blog post protesting the use of the song by the Trump campaign.
Sony/ATV Music Publishing has never been asked by Mr. Trump, the Trump campaign or the Trump Organization for permission to use We are the Champions by Queen. On behalf of the band, we are frustrated by the repeated unauthorized use of the song after a previous request to desist, which has obviously been ignored by Mr. Trump and his campaign, the statement read.
Trumps representative did not respond to questions about the Sony/ATV complaint Tuesday.
Queen also tweeted they were unhappy about Trumps use of the song on Tuesday: An unauthorised use at the Republican Convention against our wishes.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
bttt
And how is Queen’s attitude different from that of a Christian baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding? I see little difference.
Freddy Mercury’s voice was like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard. I couldn’t stand his singing.
Do you have a royalty agreement on the use of my baking services? No comparison.
It is unprofessional to refuse to bake a cake for people who voted for legalizing gay weddings. Or for refusing to bake a cake for people just because you know they are gay.
But it is not unprofessional for you to refuse to participate in a gay wedding by baking a custom cake for it, or catering to it, or such.
If however you own a factory that makes cakes, it would be unprofessional for you to object to somebody purchasing one and decorating it for a gay wedding, since you are just selling cakes and not participating.
Do you see the principle here? Somebody should not refuse business to people based on idealogy, its unprofessional. Not sure it should be illegal, but it is unprofessional. However one should not be obliged to participate in a specific service that they find offensive by custom making something the service needs.
For example Queen could reasonably refuse to play live at the convention. Or a black hardware store owner could reasonably refuse to custom cut boards and fit them together as he might normally do if it was for custom cutting them for some KKK members burn a cross ceremony and they made that clear. These would be participation in an enterprise offensive to the person asked to participate in it by virtue of their business. And likely the KKK types may be intentionally making it clear to the black hardware store owner what its for in the hopes that he will refuse and they can sue him out of business...well not sure the KKK has done that, but litigious gay lobby people have reportedly done such targeting of bakeries they wanted to take out for ideological reasons.
It gets back to not screwing somebody because you disagree with them on both sides. Queen is trying to screw with the Donald. The gay lobby is trying to screw with the bakers. The hypothetical KKK members are trying to screw with the hardware store owner. A baker who refuses to just sell a cupcake to somebody because they are gay is screwing with them.
We need to quit screwing with each other over our differences, and discuss them and adopt the more reasonable view each of us can without intimidation and stunts....or ideally it would be nice if it could be that way, sadly the left won't let it be that way.
There is a world of difference I just illustrated in post 185.
Dig deeper.
1. Right of Publicity
2. The Lanham Act
3. False Endorsement
Just because obnoxious AASCAP claims it to be so, it doesn't mean that it's the state of the law. I have a feeling that, if litigated, all three of those claims would be set to the wayside if a legally copyrighted song is bought and paid for.
I don't think you'd make a successful argument that the trademark was "diluted." Certainly, a song does not infer an endorsement. I am not certain how the "Right of Publicity" really comes into play here.
I do like the counter argument that once you put yourself (or your music) out in the public domain, you do not have a right to discriminate against who uses the song in question. Much like the bakery owner can't limit who he bakes a cake for in this day and age.
Queen is acting like a bunch of anti-Republican queens here.
Misapplied analogy.
Its more like a baker refusing to let gay people eat cup cakes they make in the store.
The baker refusing to make a custom cake for a gay wedding ceremony would be more like Queen refusing to play live at the RNC convention.
There is more than one moral principle involved. There is a distinction to be made between allowing somebody to avail themselves of a product you produce for general consumption, and providing custom service that is essentially participation and implicit endorsement.
Trump playing Queen's song does not imply Queen endorses him or is participating in the convention. Queen coming to play for his convention does.
A Christian baker selling cup cakes to people in the store who happen to be a gay "married" couple is not an implied endorsement or participation in their "marriage". The baker baking and decorating the wedding cake of a gay "marriage" does.
I can’t say we can agree on this.
It’s the same thing.
1) Baker avails himself of becoming a public place of accommodation then he opens his shop and bakes a cake.
2) Artist avails themselves to having their songs become part of the public domain once they sell their songs to the public.
3) Once the works either it be a cake or a song are available for public consumption, the baker and artist can not discriminate as to who can purchase their goods.
4) Refusing to allow a song to be played and refusing to bake a cake are in essence the same thing. Both goods are open for purchase by the public. Once that happens, you can not discriminate as to who buys your product.
There’s no discernible difference between the two.
No difference. Both Queen and Christian bakers do not want their art to be used for things with which they disagree.
That argument fails. Both of them have noses...but that does not make the moral conditions the same. Make a counter argument that makes sense within practical reason. Just finding a similarity and assuming equivalence is silly.
Unsure we are communicating well here. To clarify do you see a difference between queen playing live at the RNC or being asked to compose a custom song in honor of Trump vs Trump just playing a recording that was already made for general consumption like he did?
Exactly. No one even knows their names.
Yep - especially since it isn't his theme song and most of the tunes he plays are just short clips vs. whole songs - they might as well go after the folks that pipe in elevator music - better chance of getting their way....
Pathetic, overrated has beens...never was a Queen fan.
Pat Buchanan used Van Halen’s “Right Now” for his presidential campaign years ago...and I don’t recall Eddie Van Halen protesting it....may be wrong, but I like EVH regardless.
Every bit as gay as Freddie and can sing almost as well. Good fit for them.
I was going to say a bunch of drunks at a bar but not the convention?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.