Posted on 05/25/2016 2:44:02 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
So I just saw little article about leftist 60s guy Neil Young who said Donald Trump couldn't use one of his songs...same thing with Aerosmith....
So, it just kind of struck me: Artist "Y" created something and THEN Trump purchases the CD/Music File/Record, whatever the material is upon which the recording is made...and then uses it for his OWN pleasure.
Artist Y hates Trump and says that even though the record can be bought and purchased, Trump cannot play it publicly. And that wish is respected.
Baker "J" creates cakes. Or photographer "G" creates stunning pictures. Can THEY not restrict the use of THEIR creations and services?
I know I am speaking to the choir here, by and large, but I wonder why the hypocrisy isn't plain and obvious.
Seriously. We have to respect the recording artist whose creations (they've made and sold by the millions) are out in the public. We must listen when they say "Don't use my song for X". But we don't have to respect the artist who creates cakes...or the artist who creates stunning photographs? *They* have to be enslaved and made to create their works for anyone....even if they disagree with the event for which the creation is made?
i seem to recall several years back when the preteners took exception to rush limbaugh using their song as his theme. when the dust settled, he was still using the song.
EZ: It’s NEVER about fundamental fairness or the rights of others
It’s ALL about THEM
Great analogy. I will remember this one.
good call
HYPOCRISY
Bakers don’t copyright their cakes.
I think that cuts to the heart of it. In America we have (had) the right of free association. The Civil Rights Act took that away and we’ve seen our our liberties draining away ever since.
Why can’t actors be made to perform in anti-gay commercials?
Neverthless, they have contractual rights in the creation. It’s their materials, their location, their labor.
An important observation. Thank you!
First of all, you are quoting the rules incorrectly. While artists might decry the use of their songs, they really cannot stop them. However, they can have ASCAP ensure that their rights are enforced in terms of payment. THAT can be expensive.
So their Contract “Requires” them to be BIGOT’s?? No COntract can run afoul of Human Rights, they should be brought up on Human Rights Charges for even suggesting such blatant Bigotry.
Addressing your second point, some states have laws that prevent you from performing a service based on a whole list of discriminatory items.
For instance, I am a photographer. If I specialize in wedding photography, I cannot charge a different rate or refuse service based on my personal religious beliefs.
Most of the time, I would just say I am busy. But, I don’t do weddings.
I heard him talk about this, but I am no expert on music licensing so not sure I got it right. My understanding is that the people doing the licensing said the artist didn’t like him using it and he stopped. Then later it was found out the artist actually did not object and it was ok to play it again, and something about the artist’s father being a ditto-head.
Likewise, other artsy types do the same thing when their "art" is used in commercials by companies they oppose.
Me? I'd take the money and run.
Finally, as a photographer my pictures are copyrighted just because I made them. However, if I am going to publish them, sell them, or display them I send in copies of the photos and a check to US copyright office. Now, if you display them with my permission I can sue you for the “established” rate of use, send you a cease and desist order, and ask for treble damages.
I had a customer who did not pay my bill within 90 days. But they used my photos on a billboard, their web site, and in the promotional pieces.
I sent a cease a desist order to the lawyer of the company informing them they were in violation of my copyright (included in the mail) and they were to remove my photos for all venues. It would have cost them about $50k to remove my pictures.
I got a check the next day along with a formal apology from the marketing guy who did not pay me, and a call from the President of the company.
Copyrights are wonderful things.
A member since 2005, is this a serious post?
Their acceptance or non acceptance of an offer to buy their products, etc. is a basic tenet of FREEDOM. “Bigotry” is just laughable as a label. It’s about FREEDOM and their rights, not someone else’s who they disagree with.
Anybody who pays a general performance license can use any song for live events. Artists can complain all they want, but as long as they get paid they have no say in it. They can complain but that’s just pr. A general license doesn’t cover film or TV, so they can’t use it in a commercial without a specific deal. It’s that simple.
Tom Petty wouldn’t let Michelle Bachmann use “American Girl” either.
Now, I like Tom Petty, but why the hell he would care I do not know. I thought there was a 25-year limit on rights to that stuff.
Where am I wrong here?
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.