Posted on 09/04/2008 9:33:23 PM PDT by Prime Mover
Yeah, I have this one remix CD of Blondie where they do an awesome remake of “Atomic”. She did really have to work at getting her voice right. At the beginning she wasn’t too concerned about staying in key.
Barracuda also was featured in two very big computer games, so I wouldn’t consider the song to be worthless for royalties.
Short version: If this is a normally licensed song (almost certainly true) and the McCain people paid the BMI, ASCAP or SESAC royalties, then no, there isn’t a dang thing they can do about it.
That said, screw ‘em — find another theme song, why give these hags money?
they are angry that someone who uses their song doesn’t like killing babies like they probably once did..
I'm pretty sure if it is played on TV, you do. It's called a Synchronization and Performance license. The publishing company can deny such a license.
It's different than recording a cover on a record--that's called a mechanical license and it's automatic by statute. Also "grand performance" rights give you the right to sing someones song in a public performance (but not on TV). It's possible that, since this is a newsworthy event, the media is able to transmit the event under fair use. So the grand performance rights would give the right to play the song at the convention and the media would have a separate right to broadcast anything that happened there.
It all depends on who owns the publishing rights to Heart's "music." I doubt the girls own it--its probably the publishing company associated with the record company that Heart recorded for.
Take all this with a big grain of salt. It's been more than ten year since I practiced law and there's a new copyright act since I was acquainted with the field.
Outside of Grace Slick, They are the best female vocalists whoever graced the planet.
I’d keep using the song (I personally don’t like it) if they pay the royalties. Send a special check they know comes from the RNC, make them cash it knowing where it comes from. Maybe they’ll burn it in one of their wiccan ceremonies.
IIRC, there are different sorts of music rights. There are performance rights, publication rights, etc. The different rights can be retained by artists or sold.
So, the answer seems to be, “it depends”.
This is Wikipedia, so take it with a shaker of salt, but I think this begins to explain things pretty well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Related_rights
Only if they’re Conservative.
Wouldn’t a convention be considered advertizing rather than just a party?
If they don’t own it, they can’t do a damn thing about it.
Thank you. EXACTLY!
If the McCain campaign went through the proper licensing channels, the Wilson sisters have nothing to say about it.
If they're pro-abortion feminists, they're likely horrified that their song is being used for a Christian, pro-life woman! ;o)
She was one of my first boyhood crushes. Now it’d be a whole different kind of crush.
It can also fall under the same regs & rules as a disco, restaurant or bar jukebox, etc.. with the exception that the convention was broadcast to the public.
The point: I don't think the Wilson sisters really have any right to refuse anybody the RE-PLAYING of their recorded music. They own the song but NOT the recording. The recording is owned by the record company who makes money through sales and licensing.
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.