Posted on 10/11/2024 5:02:45 PM PDT by Morgana
The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has sent a cease-and-desist letter to the progressive political group ‘Evangelicals for Harris,’ threatening to sue them for copyright infringement after they featured the organization’s namesake in a series of anti-Trump ads.
Evangelicals For Harris, which is only slightly less absurd than “Queers for Palestine,” claims to represent evangelicals who are voting and advocating for the Harris/Walz ticket, running interference for them while seeking to downplay their radical agenda on issues like the economy, climate change, abortion entrenchment and expansion, LGBTQ promotion, destroying the nuclear family, and trans-ing the children.
In a prime example of “don’t pee on my head and tell me it’s raining,” the group puts a huge focus on Harris’ faith, insisting she is a “deeply committed Christian” despite being a living, breathing emblem of Jezebellion hubris that deeply despises Jesus, Christianity, and everything it stands for.
Several months ago, the group released a campaign ad featuring the late evangelist Billy Graham insisting on the importance of going to the cross and asking for forgiveness. This was then contrasted with footage of Trump from 2015 who, when asked if he had ever sought God’s forgiveness (which we’ve criticized him for), said: “I am not sure I have. I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don’t think so. I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don’t bring God into that picture. I don’t.”
And another more recent one:
At the time, the ad featuring Graham prompted a response from his son, Franklin Graham, who insisted that “The liberals are using anything and everything they can to promote candidate Harris” and that “they are trying to mislead people” on account that his father was a “firm supporter of President Trump in 2016.”
Evangelicals for Harris have responded to the threat of a lawsuit from the BEGA, saying in a statement that their use of Graham’s footage is entirely fair use and they have no intention of removing it.
“Our ability to publicly discuss the moral failings of Donald Trump and how his behavior comports with the values espoused by evangelical leaders, including Billy Graham, is essential First Amendment expression…EFH’s limited use of Billy Graham’s speech falls squarely within the fair use protections afforded by Section 107 of the Copyright Act…
The “Keep Clear” advertisement contains short clips from a speech given by Billy Graham thirty-six years ago. The advertisement uses these clips to comment on Graham’s message and contrast it with the statements and actions of former President Donald Trump. This is a paradigmatic example of fair use, which protects “criticism, comment, [and] news reporting”[4] and provides “breathing space within the confines of copyright.
EFH’s use of the short segments of Billy Graham’s speech is legal, fully appropriate, and well within our rights. EFH will not be removing the “Keep Clear” advertisement in response to your demand. The advertisement is a transformative, noncommercial use of less than two percent of a widely disseminated video, aimed at a market that BGEA was prohibited from targeting.”
How is this any different than Trump using songs that the authors/performers refuse permission for?
Just sue them. The morality of Kamala and that Knucklehead is non existent. This is a waste that the RATs are even doing this because they love immoral people and defend them.
Good point.
I just listened “Brave Mark Robinson RIPS the Entire Democrats to SHREDS With FIERY Speech, Gets a Standing Ovation” on YouTube
Black Conservative talks about Republicans vs Democrats and Jesus. VERY well done.
https://youtu.be/QfjOxLlgX9g?si=arIz34gWuliDGwNw
That’s right.
I hope the BGEA sues the rat campaign for every single penny they have.
You can’t tell?
Harris the Hooker did not pay a royalty to use the image of Billy Graham.
It sounds like the RATs are just grabbing parts of sermons without permission.
PDJT pays a ton of money to play the songs.
I believe the person who posted it was thinking that they whined and griped about Trump playing their song, but that those same people would think it was okay to use Graham’s content and Graham is supposed to just shut up and take it.
Wasn’t thinking about it in a legal sense. That is how I took it.
As well they should.
I think they purchase the rights to use music that no longer is “owned” by the original artist. Apparently it’s not unusual for an artist to sell off their music to a larger entity, like Sirius.
EFH’s use of the short segments of Billy Graham’s speech is legal, fully appropriate, and well within our rights. EFH will not be removing the “Keep Clear” advertisement in response to your demand. The advertisement is a transformative, noncommercial use of less than two percent of a widely disseminated video, aimed at a market that BGEA was prohibited from targeting.”
Right. And yet, even when he paid the fee to use the songs, the artists STILL claim that they can refuse to let Trump use them.
It sounds like the jerks are saying that since they’re only using a portion of the Billy Graham sermon, it’s “fair use”.
So what would happen if Trump used less than half of a whole album from an artist which complains about Trump using their work, even if he pays the royalties? And used it in a political ad, no less?
Well, artist are often not that bright. It's why many of them end up broke.
It sounds like the jerks are saying that since they're only using a portion of the Billy Graham sermon, it's “fair use”.
That is what they are saying but they are on shaky legal ground as they are using it for a political ad. If they were using it to talk about various preaching styles or things like that they would be on far firmer ground but an ad is an ad whither you are selling a politician or a perfume.
So what would happen if Trump used less than half of a whole album from an artist which complains about Trump using their work, even if he pays the royalties? And used it in a political ad, no less?
Using something as part of an advertisement falls under a different set of licensing agreements then just using it as essentially background music which is what Trump does. So it is not the same thing. But yeah they would probably cry, whine and pitch a small fisted tantrum. But I would bet his lawyers could beat up their lawyers.
Fair use is a tricky subject. Using snippets of something as an example for teaching or in a satire is one thing. Using it in an advertisement is quite something else.
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.