Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: All

Seems like a lot of freepers need educating on copyright law. Using a song for a political campaign is NOT a public performance, it’s a commercial use. It’s not only a pertinent legal distinction, but one helluva financial distinction as well. Public performance rights are relatively cheap, but commercial use licenses have gone into the 7 figures.

Note that although it was settled in a pre-trial mediation, Charlie Crist’s campaign wound up paying big bucks to David Byrne for using his music without permission.

John McCain likewise wound up paying Jackson Brown big bucks.

Don Henley? Yep, you guess it, won big bucks from Chuck DeVore


82 posted on 06/29/2011 12:30:56 PM PDT by Melas (Sent via Galaxy Tab)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Melas
Every one of your examples were for the unauthorized use of music in a campaign ad or promotional video.

Bachman's team played the song as she exited the stage at a press conference. The song was not used in any advertising, but was played over the speakers at a live event.

90 posted on 06/29/2011 12:42:10 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]

To: Melas
Using a song for a political campaign is NOT a public performance, it’s a commercial use.

I'd have to look into the legal definitions. A political campaign is not a commercial enterprise, so i don't see how it would be a prohibited use. In a sense a political rally is like a family get together. If they used it in a politcal advertisement, then that would be different, but just to use it at rallies would seem to be a permissible use under the ASCAP and BMI rules.

Maybe there is a specific exemption for political rallies?

103 posted on 06/29/2011 1:14:09 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]

To: Melas

Thanks for the information! That’s helpful.


108 posted on 06/29/2011 1:23:56 PM PDT by proud American in Canada (To paraphrase Sarah Palin: "I love when the liberals get all wee-wee'd up.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]

To: Melas
Seems like a lot of freepers need educating on copyright law. Using a song for a political campaign is NOT a public performance, it’s a commercial use. It’s not only a pertinent legal distinction, but one helluva financial distinction as well. Public performance rights are relatively cheap, but commercial use licenses have gone into the 7 figures. Note that although it was settled in a pre-trial mediation, Charlie Crist’s campaign wound up paying big bucks to David Byrne for using his music without permission. John McCain likewise wound up paying Jackson Brown big bucks. Don Henley? Yep, you guess it, won big bucks from Chuck DeVore

This is correct.

109 posted on 06/29/2011 1:28:39 PM PDT by Bronzewound (When radicals begin to follow rules, are they still radicals?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]

To: Melas

Seems like a lot of freepers need educating on copyright law.


It’s not copyright law, it’s entertainment law, having to do with the licensing of recorded works.

And the McCain and Devore cases had to do with the creation of NEW (”derivative”) works that were parody/variants of the original composition. There were also issues of right of publicity, with fake cover singers mimicking the stars’ voices. “Dole Man/Soul Man” was the same issue.

Those are very different legal issues than simply playing a recording at a rally.

You’re awfully confident, but my decades of practice in intellectual property law says your confidence is unjustified.


113 posted on 06/29/2011 1:52:12 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (End the "Fiscal Fiasco" in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson