1044
This kind of bullshit needs a law to be honest.
Politicians should need direct approval before using copyright music in campaigns.
Is there not one? Seems like I, a person, can't just publicly use a song for my own gains if an artist really wanted to stop me. A politician, also a person (albeit a wealthy one) is still targetable by the artist right.
Like sure, rich asshole just gets a slap on the wrist fine and it gives their lawyers more more to do. But there is a law about this right?
It is a law. That’s why he keeps getting taken to court to pay up.
It is a law. That’s why he keeps getting taken to court to pay up.
Well I'm sure this slap on the wrist will be the one that causes him to mend his ways.
Generally the person who recorded the music would have a performance copyright on that recording. This is often sold, licensed, or otherwise given to another group to distribute that recording such as through CDs or streaming. That same performance can also frequently be licensed for use in videos, commercials, public displays, etc.
If the campaign purchased a license from the distributor to play the recording at a public event, there really isn't any consultation with the original artist. Hence, an artist's music being used for something they do not agree with.
If they did not purchase a license, that's when the lawyers are unleashed.
I used to think the same, but ASCAP has a very nice, easy to understand page about licensing for political events that is super informative.
I posted this up a level, but being as you seemed to have a better understanding about this than most other commenters, I wanted to post this as a reply to you too so you would see it.
If the campaign events are properly licensed, can the campaign still be criticized or even sued by an artist for playing their song at an event?
Yes. If an artist is concerned that their music has been associated with a political campaign, he or she may be able to take legal action even if the campaign has the appropriate performance licenses. The campaign could potentially be in violation of other laws, unrelated to music licensing:
The artist’s Right of Publicity, which in many states provides image protection for famous people or artists The Lanham Act, which covers confusion or dilution of a trademark (such as a band or artist name) through its unauthorized use False Endorsement, where use of the artist's identifying work implies that the artist supports a product or candidate
As a general rule, a campaign should be aware that, in most cases, the more closely a song is tied to the "image" or message of the campaign, the more likely it is that the recording artist or songwriter of the song could object to the song's usage by the campaign.
I believe there has been a ruling on this though, it came up back in 2016. Trump used another artists music at a rally, and the artist couldn’t sue but could force the Trump campaign to stop using their discography. Only after if they used it again they could sue.
If you're thinking of the Neil Young case, it seems Neil dropped it, possibly after a settlement, but maybe not, as he doesn't sound mad in the article.
As the bit I posted said, if the artist objects, the campaign can't play it anymore, but Trump and Co ignored multiple cease and desist orders, and that is what brought the lawsuit. So we are both correct.
There's still a pending lawsuit over a campaign video that used Electric Avenue, but that hasn't gone to court yet.
This kind of bullshit needs a law to be honest.
It’s is a law.
Seriously, performers need to DMCA the shit out of him! He's no doubt received cease and desist letters and continues to violate copyright laws.
Even better, sue his ass and donate the money received to Harris in his honor!
load more comments
(1 replies)
It is a law. It's covered under copyright. Trump's just ignoring the law (as usual).
load more comments
(4 replies)
When commenting on the Trump campaign's use of "My Hero," a spokesperson for the band told CBS News on Saturday: "Foo Fighters were not asked permission and if they were, they would have not granted it."
The spokesperson added that any royalties received as a result of the Trump campaign's use of the song will be donated to the campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Tim Walz.
Haha. There go my heroes.
But seriously, that's a great middle finger towards Trump. I still remember how quite a few artists seemed intimidated to speak out against conservatives in the mid-noughties (the whole Iraq invasion fiasco). It's good to see many artists today defiantly standing up to conservative hate-mongers.
Gah, the poor Dixie Chicks
Actually they learned a valuable lesson about “their base” and it’s part of the reason they’re not “the Dixie” chicks anymore.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Brendon Urie did it 4 years ago when he outright told Trump to fuck off and stop playing High Hopes at his rallies.
The equivalent today would be coming out as pro-Palestine.
load more comments
(1 replies)
First Taylor Swift, now the Foo Fighters?!?! Damn Donald, wanna piss off Dolly Parton fans next?
Didn't they already kinda do that?
ETA: Yup, they did.
The exhausting 24hr news cycle must've deleted this from my brain to make more room for storage. Of course they went after Dolly, there is no shame and there is no low too low for these traitorous scumbags
Include Isaac Hayes and Celine Dion.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is the perfect approach. He can't play it without donating to Harris out of his campaign funds. That will actually make him stop.
Only thing is, he never pays anyone, so are they even going to get any royalties?
They can still say the money they donated was money from Trump's use, standard fees.
Better than that, someone should put up a page itemizing all the times Trump’s campaign contributes to Harris/Walz. Make it show up at the top of the search results. Links to it on the DNC webpage.
ASCAP nicely has a whole page set up to ELI5 the licensing of music for political events.
I always had a lot of assumptions, but this breaks it down very nicely.
What music is covered by the ASCAP license for political campaigns?
The ASCAP political campaign license agreement provides a blanket license to perform any or all of the millions of musical works in the ASCAP repertory. However, ASCAP members may ask us to exclude some or all of their works from a particular political campaign's license. In that event, ASCAP will notify the campaign of the excluded works.
If the campaign events are properly licensed, can the campaign still be criticized or even sued by an artist for playing their song at an event?
Yes. If an artist is concerned that their music has been associated with a political campaign, he or she may be able to take legal action even if the campaign has the appropriate performance licenses. The campaign could potentially be in violation of other laws, unrelated to music licensing:
The artist’s Right of Publicity, which in many states provides image protection for famous people or artists
The Lanham Act, which covers confusion or dilution of a trademark (such as a band or artist name) through its unauthorized use
False Endorsement, where use of the artist's identifying work implies that the artist supports a product or candidate
As a general rule, a campaign should be aware that, in most cases, the more closely a song is tied to the "image" or message of the campaign, the more likely it is that the recording artist or songwriter of the song could object to the song's usage by the campaign.
ASCAP
The dog people!?
That's ASPCA lol
Not quite, but you could say they're the dogs of enforcing royalties! Har har!
I'm bad at telling if people are serious or not, so I'll give a real answer too.
ASCAP is the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. You're on lemmy.ca, so in Canada, the equivalent is SOCAN, Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada. Their front page gives a pretty good run down of the purpose of these organizations.
Basically they enforce copyright and royalties collection. They license copyright music for public use and distribute that money to artist, somewhat like a brick and mortar Spotify for people hosting public events or social settings.
I got to make a joke and also learn something!
That's a win-win!
load more comments
(1 replies)
As soon as I heard it O knew David Growl would not approve
I’m sorry that you had to pay attention to an Arizona Trump rally.
Lol at David Growl.
rawr
He should have learned by now. If He wants to use a song, check if it was recorded by Kid Rock. If not, don't use it.
Cmon don't sell him short....there's also Ted Nugent
Trump to Vance:
"Aim for the bushes"
moments later: "I SAID BUSHES, NOT CUSHIONS"
This made me lol
The list gets longer with pretty much every song they play, LOL!
George Harrison's estate denounced the use of the Harrison-written Beatles song "Here Comes the Sun" after the Trump campaign used the song to introduce Ivanka Trump at the 2016 Republican National Convention.
The estate noted that Trump did not have permission to use this song, but that they would consider allowing him to use the Harrison song "Beware of Darkness".
🤣🤣
load more comments
(2 replies)
I love how the right idolize certain rock bands having no clue that 99.9% are left leaning. Especially the ones that talk about ragtm, syoad etc, like they are rad left if anything
Fun fact, actually the drummer of SOAD is a Trump supporter. Serj has said he's mystified about it. You're right about the other three members though.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
FFS Donald, don't fight the Foo.
I think Trump's strategy of "Literally piss off everyone and make yourself an enemy of pretty much everyone" is sure to get him elected and it needs to keep doing it. Maybe he should start using racial slurs and directly antagonizing law enforcement?
"The spokesperson added that any royalties received as a result of the Trump campaign's use of the song will be donated to the campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Tim Walz."
So... they won't be donating any money to the Harris/Walz campaign?
load more comments
(1 replies)
There goes Walmart Nero …
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024
1044 points (99.4% liked)
politics
19145 readers
4637 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS