The artists are right and the RNC is wrong. You can’t use someone else’s intellectual property without their permission, and “Barracuda” is doubtlessly still under copyright.
Having said that, it might have been in the artists’ interests to let it go, because the RNC effectively gave them advertising worth six figures if not more. The publicity would probably have led to increased album sales (and royalties). As someone (PT Barnum or Cecil B. DeMille, I’m not sure which) once said, the only bad publicity is no publicity.
It’s moving up the rankings on Amazon:
The song is in the ASCAP catalog so it can be used when an ASCAP License fee is paid. I’m quite sure that’s a standard fee in the contract with the convention center.
The question though is who owns the Copyright??
Most artists especially from the 70s didn’t own the copyright to their own songs, their record labels did.
If they still hold the copyright, then McCain shouldn’t use it... we’ll just have to use it on our You Tube tributes without their permission.
Yes, you can. See Title 17, Chapter 92 and the section that limit exclusive rights to holders of copyright. See particularly Compulsory license for making and distributing phonorecords.
There are also examples of patent holders being compelled to grant a license, over their express objection.
You can’t use someone else’s intellectual property without their permission, and “Barracuda” is doubtlessly still under copyright.
You think all those saloons and discos with the “ASCAP” and “BMI” stickers on the door are copyright violators for playing copyrighted recordings for their customers?
You think they are supposed to get permission from each artist before they play them? I know that many artists would object if they could to their recordings being played along with nude strippers’ gyrations. So why don’t they?
Think about it.
(The answer is that this is the work of the Heart PR agent, who is just getting free publicity for the hags.)