Posted on 07/21/2016 7:41:07 AM PDT by rktman
Wednesday's NBC Nightly News followed the example of CBS the previous evening in spotlighting the latest Republican presidential candidate to get in trouble with a liberal musician for using their music at a campaign event. Peter Alexander zeroed in on how "just hours after [Donald] Trump tried to cast himself as a winner, Queen complained the billionaire used the song 'against our wishes.'" He also cited how "George W. Bush had to 'back down,' after receiving a cease and desist letter from Tom Petty." [video below]
Anchor Lester Holt led into Alexander's report by noting that "sometimes, a song fits with a candidate in perfect harmony. But for the artist, it's not always music to their ears." The correspondent first spotlighted the current campaign music from Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's rallies: "Hillary Clinton's come out swinging, with the help of pop stars Rachel Platten and Katy Perry. Donald Trump routinely revs up crowds with the Stones." He featured Rock and Roll Hall of Fame CEO Greg Harris, who claimed that "rock and roll musicians are some of the greatest idealists on the planet. They believe in three cords and the truth."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Really not sure what you are trying to argue here, the link in #7 does not anywhere state that after paying the fees a political rally cannot use a song without the performers permission.
the intentional use as part of a commercial does have require permission from the publisher and label... but not the ARTIST themselves.
A live Rally can use any damned music they please as long as they pay the “PUBLIC PERFORMANCE LICENSE” that’s it, they DO NOT NEED ANYONES PERMISSION as long as they have paid the fees.. from the very link in post 7:
“The use of music at a live campaign event requires a “public performance” license, generally attained from one of the United States’ performing rights organizations. These organizations track the use of music and help distribute royalties from such events.”
A Political campaign doesn’t need an artists permission to use a song at campaign rally’s, never did.. and as I originally said, the Republicans should have told artists to go pound sand long ago on this nonsense.. They took their money, so shut up and sit down. Don’t want it used, remove it from the catalog.
If that’s all NBC can find to complain about then we’re doing good.
The song that sticks out for me during the Clinton regime era was Fleetwood Mac’s “Don’t Stop”. To this day, I can’t stand that song.
liberal music
suck a lemon
sue me
From the article: "Technically, campaigns do not need to receive explicit permission from the artist to use their work, but it should be noted that even if a politician has all the requisite legal permissions the artist can still sue the campaign. The author(s) could make a claim to their “Right of Publicity,” which is a legal protection many states give celebrities and artists. The right of publicity generally protects the use of someone’s name and likeness for commercial reasons. However, this right is not yet nationally recognized. On the federal level, the Lanham Act protects an artist’s trademark or brand by offering protection against false endorsement in which the use of an artist’s work can imply the artist’s support. Politicians and their campaigns also need to acquire proper licensing from the publisher, record label, and venue."
So, yes, the artist could sue to compel the campaign to cease and desist. It may depend on the state they're in, but there are situations where it could happen. I could see that. If I had a huge following as an artist of folks of all political stripes, why would I want my work associated with something that potentially would piss off half my fans? Even Michael Jordan understood that Republicans bought shoes, too.
Well then, I have a work-around.
Parodies are 100% protected according to the Supreme Court (that awful Jerry Falwell vs. Hustler case from years ago). That’s what frees Weird Al to parody any song he wants to.
Al seems like a pretty conservative guy, so just ask him to parody the song you want, and then use the instrumental version of his parody at your rallies.
Funny how liberal recording artists get upset when someone with views they don’t support pays to use their music against their wishes.
When a baking artist is forced to sell a cake decorated with views he doesn’t support against his wishes it’s cause for liberal celebration.
Well, he usually gets the artist's permission first, and the only one that was a real issue was Coolio's Gangsta's Paradise that Al parodied with Amish Paradise.
That was a misunderstanding, and Coolio eventually stated he was okay with it.
A parody would really be a good way around these things.
Anyone can sue anyone for any reason in civil court... Legally if you paid th public performance fees you can use the music... Period. The artist can’t stop you... No more than Coke can stop you from drinking a Coke after you bought it because they don’t like the fact you are wearing a Pepsi shirt..
Republicans should have done what Trump has been doing since day one, pay the fees use the music and tell the artists to go pound sand.
Both Yankee Doodle and the Star Spangled Banner were British songs....
No cake for these folks. hah
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.