Posted on 09/06/2008 10:39:05 AM PDT by markomalley
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The rock group Heart, angry that its '70s hit "Barracuda" is being used as the unofficial theme song for Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, is taking aim at the Alaska governor.
The song, a nod to the "Sarah Barracuda" nickname Palin earned on the basketball court in high school, was dusted off for her appearance at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul on Wednesday.
Heart singers Ann and Nancy Wilson said a "cease-and-desist" letter has been sent to the Republicans asking them not to use the song.
"The Republican campaign did not ask for permission to use the song, nor would they have been granted that permission," according to a statement issued late on Thursday on behalf of the sisters.
There was no immediate comment from the Republican camp.
Last month, rocker Jackson Browne sued Republican presidential candidate John McCain, the Republican National Committee and the Ohio Republican Party, accusing them of using his 1977 hit "Running on Empty" in a campaign ad without permission.
Copyright law may not be on the Wilsons' side as the song is licensed for public performance under a blanket fee paid by the venue to ASCAP, the firm that collects royalties on behalf of composers and copyright owners.
Despite the Wilson sisters' objections, one of the song's co-writers said he was "thrilled" that the song was used.
In an e-mail to Reuters, the band's former guitarist, Roger Fisher, said it was a win-win situation. Heart gets publicity and royalties, while the Republicans benefit from "the ingenious placement of a kick-ass song," Fisher said.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
That doesn't mean I won't steal it and use it at some future time.
They should offer the two women from Heart a couple pints of Hagen Daz and all will be fine!
If the article is accurate, it says the public performance licensing fee was paid, so no intellectual property rights or contractual obligations were violated.
That said, if they are going to make a stink, you stop using the song, and leave them looking like the petty, classless loons that they are. (With the exception of the song’s co-writer, who had a much more level-headed and witty response.)
He also issued a statement that the royalties he earns from Republicans using the song would be forwarded to Obama campaign...that he is a big Obama supporter...
But isn’t this what happened? The McCain campaign got the rights and paid the fee?
I’m sure there is a way for the song’s owners to remove themselves from the license agreement, but as I said, if they are making a public stink, that should be reason enough for the campaign to stop using the song.
A guy like Rush Limbaugh can keep using a liberal group’s song for decades just by paying the license fee and not worrying about the owner’s griping (as he has,) but in a campaign you have to think about “winning the battle but losing the war,” and it just isn’t worth it.
“Copyright law may not be on the Wilsons’ side as the song is licensed for public performance under a blanket fee paid by the venue to ASCAP”
The venue apparently had already paid the blanket fee that was required.
Yes, I know. I'm bad.
And, of course, libs can be bought. Just ask Chrissy Hynde, the writer of Rush Limbausgh's theme song. He paid her alot to keep her mouth shut!
I believe there is also a HUGE difference in fees and user rights when it’s for a NON-COMMERCIAL event (like the RNC Convention) and a commercial enterprise (Rush’s show).
I’m not sure what point you are trying to argue. The article at the top of this thread says the venue paid a public performance licensing fee for the song. To use it in the future, the campaign would have to pay that fee, as well, and unless Heart withdraws from the umbrella agreement under which the song’s royalties are paid, McCain would be doing nothing wrong. That’s exactly what Rush does. As far as specific details of the agreements and royalties - I have no idea, and unless you are an attorney specializing in this field, I doubt you do either.
I think you agree with me that it would be dumb for the campaign to pick a fight over this. In addition, I think it is dumb for Heart to make a stink just because somebody liked their song enough to play it. Nobody on earth would take that as an endorsement of the candidate by the artist, just as nobody took Obama’s use of “Only in America” after his speech to mean that the Republicans who sang it were endorsing him. They played that song live for Bush in 2004. Unlike Heart, Kix Brooks only stated that he was flattered his music appealed to people in both parties.
I don’t know what you’re trying to say..but Rush did talk about his deal with Chrissy Hynde many years ago. He said he pays her a fortune.
Thank you for your clarifications, your posts. Even if you don’t know for absolute fact, I appreciate the commentary.
You're crazy. Heart is one of the greatest rock bands ever. Their rock songs in the 70s and their power ballads in the 80s are classics. Just because they're liberal doesn't mean they suck.
Their 70s stuff rocked, their 80s stuff sucked.
Actually, that's not what happened. Rush start using the song without permission and some liberal scumbag told the band. The band then told Rush not to use it - but their parents (who are Rush listeners) talked to them and told Rush he could use it if he donated to PETA or something. And that's what Rush did.
I never would have known that was an actual song. I had always thought the distinctive riff was something that was personally made for Rush.
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.