What do you think about musicians trying to dictate who can play their music?

[klmama]

DH just told me tonight that Heart is upset about the RNC playing Barracuda at the convention. This election it seems there has been one band after another complaining about their music being played by politicians who don't share their views. Do you think it's reasonable for musicians to ask them to stop using the music? What if royalties are paid?

[cathmom]

Umm, my first reaction is "Get over it." :lol:

[Mrs Mungo]

I think if musicians own the rights to their music (many of them do not) then they should be able to say who uses it and when. When you play an artist's song in a public forum you are *supposed to* ask for permission. They doesn't mean everyone does.

 

Jackson Brown and John Mellencamp have also taken action against the Republican campaign this campaign season.

[Amy in Orlando]

I think if musicians own the rights to their music (many of them do not) then they should be able to say who uses it and when. When you play an artist's song in a public forum you are *supposed to* ask for permission. They doesn't mean everyone does.

 

Jackson Brown and John Mellencamp have also taken action against the Republican campaign this campaign season.

 

Like Mrs. Mungo said, if they own the rights, it's their call. Personally, I think it's kind of silly. If nothing else, it would be nice if they just sent a note to the people in charge of music. To put out foul press-releases makes me think less of people I've never really thought about anyway. There has to be a graceful way to handle this, doesn't there?

[In The Great White North]

I think if musicians own the rights to their music (many of them do not) then they should be able to say who uses it and when. When you play an artist's song in a public forum you are *supposed to* ask for permission.

 

However, if they sold the rights to their music (to their producers, record label, etc) and the current owner of those rights gave permission, they have can complain to their producer but that's about it. Usually, record labels market their songs for public distribution (ie. radio and TV) in a group, not by individual artist or song. The producers of the RNC could easily have gotten this for the event, without discussing it with individual artists at all.

 

The artists made their choice back when they signed the contract. Obviously, record labels are going to pay the musician more if they (the record label) gets full rights to the music than if the musician retains the rights.

 

Unless they're standing on stage playing it live, I don't really think anyone is going to assume the artist supports whatever organization is playing their song.

[Slartibartfast]

The graceful way to handle it would be to ask the artist's permission.

 

Did people learn nothing from the Springsteen incident?

[mommylawyer]

If a musician owns the rights to their music, then they own the right to release it. If someone has purchased that music, they can play it. If I want to play a CD at my birthday party, I should be able to do it. I bought it, I own the CD, I'm not playing the CD to profit from the artist's work.

 

I guess, though, that raises the issue of WHY is the music being played. If Heart doesn't want their music played at the RNC because that might lead someone to believe that Heart supports Republicans, then I think they have the right to ask that the music be stopped. "Does the RNC have to stop playing the music?" is another question altogether.

 

The profitability of the music, the possible embarrassment or other even more negative connotations to the artist are considerations.

 

If the RNC wants to avoid a stink, then they should stop. If they want to use this to stir up more publicity - then keep on rockin'!

[Mrs Mungo]

If a musician owns the rights to their music, then they own the right to release it. If someone has purchased that music, they can play it. If I want to play a CD at my birthday party, I should be able to do it. I bought it, I own the CD, I'm not playing the CD to profit from the artist's work.

 

That's totally different than playing it at a nationally televised event or to a crowd.

 

Individuals/groups/etc *are* supposed to get permission in that case. Isn't it true that as copyright holders they endanger their copyright if they don't fight those who seek to erode it by not asking permission?

 

Now, in the case of Heart they apparently have no legal standing since it was licensed under and paid by the venue via blanket fee.

 

However, as the bad press shows, it's not a good idea to tick off a bunch of artists who then come out of the woodwork to support the other guy. It looks like the GOP has ticked off a bunch of artists lately-Van Halen, John Hall, Jackson Browne...Warner Music Group even made the McCain campaign take down a youtube video linked on its site because of copyright violation. Mike Myers made McCain take down a web ad as well. ETA: I think you would agree, mommylawyer, that using the songs in ads is even more problematic than playing the songs at the RNC.

 

As Sis pointed out, did the Republicans learn nothing from the Reagan v. Springsteen situation of the past? Does the GOP not care about copyright when the complaints come from artists?

[Heather in the Kootenays]

Apparently no one learned anything from the Springstein incident. Someone or several people should be looking for jobs now.

 

And even if they have the legal right to use the music, it shows poor judgement to use music in such a high profile way without making sure that its writer is at least neutral to their cause. American politics is so polarized that this just doesn't seem likely right now.

[Mama Lynx]

I think if musicians own the rights to their music (many of them do not) then they should be able to say who uses it and when. When you play an artist's song in a public forum you are *supposed to* ask for permission. They doesn't mean everyone does.

 

Jackson Brown and John Mellencamp have also taken action against the Republican campaign this campaign season.

 

Actually, artists allow their songs to be licensed through an agency that handles broadcast rights. Any public place that plays copyrighted music has to get a license from one of these agencies to play music legally. If you, for instance, own a store, and plan to have the radio on as background, or to play various kinds of music, you pay a licensing fee to do so - contacting each artist for permission would be ridiculous.

 

Heart's song in question is licensed by ASCAP, and the Republicans had an ASCAP broadcast rights license. That means they were legally entitled to play anything licensed by ASCAP for broadcast, regardless of who actually holds the copyright to the song.

 

What do I *think*? I'm in two minds. It think Heart is overreacting. I don't automatically think that because a song is played in that way for that meaning, that it means the artist supports the cause. I think we're all getting a little ridiculous here. So ... you can only play a song, that you are legally licensed to play, if you've checked on the artist's political affiliation? How about other works of art? Some bands have made strong political statement from their stages; do they only want the "right" fans at their shows? If I'm of the "wrong" ideology I assume they'll still want my money, but it's okay for them to take my money and trash my politics ... hmmm. That goes both ways - I don't have to give them my money. But I so hate to be at a show and have it turn political. Sure, the artist has a right to use their stage as a platform. Sure. But it always turns me off. Why does EVERYTHING have to be politics??

 

I think it's ridiculous the way music is involved in politics, frankly. I certainly do not want politics to impact the rest of life.

 

It's a hot button subject with me. Sure, Heart had a right to ask the Republicans to not use the song, even though it was done legally. Sure, they have a right to not want themselves tied in any way to the RNC. But I think it was badly done. They could have made a public statement that they did not support the RNC or the Party in any way. Instead they came off sounding like they were taking their toys home with them.

[Mama Lynx]

However, if they sold the rights to their music (to their producers, record label, etc) and the current owner of those rights gave permission, they have can complain to their producer but that's about it. Usually, record labels market their songs for public distribution (ie. radio and TV) in a group, not by individual artist or song. The producers of the RNC could easily have gotten this for the event, without discussing it with individual artists at all.

 

The artists made their choice back when they signed the contract.

 

That's the thing. They signed the contract. They're happy enough when the music gets played anywhere else. They get paid, either way. But oh ... what does the contract matter when it's the WRONG politics? :glare:

[sleepy]

Actually, artists allow their songs to be licensed through an agency that handles broadcast rights. Any public place that plays copyrighted music has to get a license from one of these agencies to play music legally. If you, for instance, own a store, and plan to have the radio on as background, or to play various kinds of music, you pay a licensing fee to do so - contacting each artist for permission would be ridiculous.

 

Heart's song in question is licensed by ASCAP, and the Republicans had an ASCAP broadcast rights license. That means they were legally entitled to play anything licensed by ASCAP for broadcast, regardless of who actually holds the copyright to the song.

 

What do I *think*? I'm in two minds. It think Heart is overreacting. I don't automatically think that because a song is played in that way for that meaning, that it means the artist supports the cause. I think we're all getting a little ridiculous here. So ... you can only play a song, that you are legally licensed to play, if you've checked on the artist's political affiliation? How about other works of art? Some bands have made strong political statement from their stages; do they only want the "right" fans at their shows? If I'm of the "wrong" ideology I assume they'll still want my money, but it's okay for them to take my money and trash my politics ... hmmm. That goes both ways - I don't have to give them my money. But I so hate to be at a show and have it turn political. Sure, the artist has a right to use their stage as a platform. Sure. But it always turns me off. Why does EVERYTHING have to be politics??

 

I think it's ridiculous the way music is involved in politics, frankly. I certainly do not want politics to impact the rest of life.

 

It's a hot button subject with me. Sure, Heart had a right to ask the Republicans to not use the song, even though it was done legally. Sure, they have a right to not want themselves tied in any way to the RNC. But I think it was badly done. They could have made a public statement that they did not support the RNC or the Party in any way. Instead they came off sounding like they were taking their toys home with them.

 

:iagree: Thank you, Mama Lynx. :001_smile:

[mommylawyer]

That's totally different than playing it at a nationally televised event or to a crowd.

 

 

 

 

Mrs. Mungo... Did you neglect to read the rest of my post?

[TraceyS/FL]

Actually, artists allow their songs to be licensed through an agency that handles broadcast rights. Any public place that plays copyrighted music has to get a license from one of these agencies to play music legally. If you, for instance, own a store, and plan to have the radio on as background, or to play various kinds of music, you pay a licensing fee to do so - contacting each artist for permission would be ridiculous.

 

Heart's song in question is licensed by ASCAP, and the Republicans had an ASCAP broadcast rights license. That means they were legally entitled to play anything licensed by ASCAP for broadcast, regardless of who actually holds the copyright to the song.

 

What do I *think*? I'm in two minds. It think Heart is overreacting. I don't automatically think that because a song is played in that way for that meaning, that it means the artist supports the cause. I think we're all getting a little ridiculous here. So ... you can only play a song, that you are legally licensed to play, if you've checked on the artist's political affiliation? How about other works of art? Some bands have made strong political statement from their stages; do they only want the "right" fans at their shows? If I'm of the "wrong" ideology I assume they'll still want my money, but it's okay for them to take my money and trash my politics ... hmmm. That goes both ways - I don't have to give them my money. But I so hate to be at a show and have it turn political. Sure, the artist has a right to use their stage as a platform. Sure. But it always turns me off. Why does EVERYTHING have to be politics??

 

I think it's ridiculous the way music is involved in politics, frankly. I certainly do not want politics to impact the rest of life.

 

It's a hot button subject with me. Sure, Heart had a right to ask the Republicans to not use the song, even though it was done legally. Sure, they have a right to not want themselves tied in any way to the RNC. But I think it was badly done. They could have made a public statement that they did not support the RNC or the Party in any way. Instead they came off sounding like they were taking their toys home with them.

 

:iagree:

 

If you don't like it, then don't sign the contract. Period. When you sign that you lose the right to do this.

[Carrie12345]

That's the thing. They signed the contract. They're happy enough when the music gets played anywhere else. They get paid, either way. But oh ... what does the contract matter when it's the WRONG politics? :glare:

 

I happen to respect putting personal convictions ahead of money.

 

Artists (of any kind) are going to be connected to the venues in which their work is presented, and they can't exactly be expected to ponder all of the possibilities involved.

 

What if Heart discovered that their song was used in a porn movie? Would people still roll their eyes and say "What's the big deal?"

[SFP]

Here's a Slate article on the licensing necessary for a song to be performed at a campaign event--it talks about Heart.

 

Here's another article on Jackson Browne's suit against McCain and the RNC for using "Running on Empty" in a political ad--the suit alleges a violation of "the United States Lanham Act by falsely suggesting that Mr. Browne is associated with and endorses Senator McCain's candidacy. The suit also alleges that the use of Mr. Browne's voice in the commercial violates Mr. Browne's right of publicity under California law. The suit seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting the use of Running On Empty and any other Jackson Browne composition, as well as damages."

 

McCain has also used the theme from "Rocky," a Frankie Valli song, and footage of "Wayne's World" without obtaining permission. He did stop short of using music by ABBA, his favorite group, though.

 

The irony of all this? John McCain's own website promises "John McCain Will Pursue Protection Of Intellectual Property Around The Globe"

and "John McCain Will Protect The Creative Industries From Piracy."

[Tracey in TX]

Get over it!

Does this mean a doctor's office can't play elevator music without permission? What if the artist isn't in agreement with the type of medicine practiced? Sheesh, sometimes I think we've raised a bunch of prima dona Americans.

Move beyond yourself and do something for other people. It's amazing how one's perspective changes about the little, petty issues in life.

[lovemyboys]

What do I *think*? I'm in two minds. It think Heart is overreacting. I don't automatically think that because a song is played in that way for that meaning, that it means the artist supports the cause. I think we're all getting a little ridiculous here. So ... you can only play a song, that you are legally licensed to play, if you've checked on the artist's political affiliation? How about other works of art? Some bands have made strong political statement from their stages; do they only want the "right" fans at their shows? If I'm of the "wrong" ideology I assume they'll still want my money, but it's okay for them to take my money and trash my politics ... hmmm. That goes both ways - I don't have to give them my money. But I so hate to be at a show and have it turn political. Sure, the artist has a right to use their stage as a platform. Sure. But it always turns me off. Why does EVERYTHING have to be politics??

 

 

You make a good point about the "right" fans. A fair number of people in that audience have no doubt supported those bands over the years. Look at the huge spectrum of kids who are into rap and hiphop these days, supporting those musicians, yet have very little in common with the ideology that created it. (Did that point make sense?)

 

In this particular instance, I do think that Heart was within reasonable rights to request that Barricula be pulled. Since it's an old nickname, there is reason to assume that it could have become a theme song of sorts for Palin.

 

I'm a real stickler about copyrights/infringement so while I recognize that they signed away their rights, which is often the case for artists, it's still their originally created material. A request respectfully submitted should be honored. As much as I've loved Heart's music over the years, I'm not impressed by the way they handled this issue. But I stand by their right to speak up for it.

 

Now, I wonder if they speak up when it's used in other ways, like more money-making ventures?

[Elaine]

Actually, artists allow their songs to be licensed through an agency that handles broadcast rights. Any public place that plays copyrighted music has to get a license from one of these agencies to play music legally. If you, for instance, own a store, and plan to have the radio on as background, or to play various kinds of music, you pay a licensing fee to do so - contacting each artist for permission would be ridiculous.

 

Heart's song in question is licensed by ASCAP, and the Republicans had an ASCAP broadcast rights license. That means they were legally entitled to play anything licensed by ASCAP for broadcast, regardless of who actually holds the copyright to the song.

 

What do I *think*? I'm in two minds. It think Heart is overreacting. I don't automatically think that because a song is played in that way for that meaning, that it means the artist supports the cause. I think we're all getting a little ridiculous here. So ... you can only play a song, that you are legally licensed to play, if you've checked on the artist's political affiliation? How about other works of art? Some bands have made strong political statement from their stages; do they only want the "right" fans at their shows? If I'm of the "wrong" ideology I assume they'll still want my money, but it's okay for them to take my money and trash my politics ... hmmm. That goes both ways - I don't have to give them my money. But I so hate to be at a show and have it turn political. Sure, the artist has a right to use their stage as a platform. Sure. But it always turns me off. Why does EVERYTHING have to be politics??

 

I think it's ridiculous the way music is involved in politics, frankly. I certainly do not want politics to impact the rest of life.

 

It's a hot button subject with me. Sure, Heart had a right to ask the Republicans to not use the song, even though it was done legally. Sure, they have a right to not want themselves tied in any way to the RNC. But I think it was badly done. They could have made a public statement that they did not support the RNC or the Party in any way. Instead they came off sounding like they were taking their toys home with them.

 

:hurray:

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I don't think Heart overreacted at all, especially since there are women involved in the group.

[Jenny in Florida]

There's the legal/financial issue, which is pretty cut and dried. The RNC wanted to use Heart's song as part of their broadcast and, as I understand it, had the appropriate license to do so. Legally, they're covered.

 

However, as a wanna-be creative type, I can understand how incredibly frustrating it would be to have something I created used in support of a person or cause I did not support. So, I believe, as both a courtesy to the artist(s) and a way to head off negative publicity, it's probably appropriate to get permission from the artist(s) as well as covering the legal bases.

 

Otherwise, in addition to upsetting people, you risk having the artist(s) speak out against your candidate or cause. Just not a particularly polite or politically savvy decision, in my opinion.

[genie]

Do you think it's reasonable for musicians to ask them to stop using the music? What if royalties are paid?

 

Well, legally the RNC had the right to play it. Had it just been background music while the audience was seating themselves, no big deal. If they were using it as a sort of "theme song", then I think it would have made sense for them to get approval. If for no other reason than to avoid this kind of negative publicity.

 

Back when I did laser shows at planetaria, we had to pull any Pearl Jam songs from our shows. But I could understand where were coming from, since we were advertising their name and in a sense making money off of them. Most artists loved it, though. Free publicity, in a way.

 

But it seems the RNC was publicity Heart didn't want to be associated with. I guess when it comes down to it, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to ask that it not be used.

[sdWTMer]

DH just told me tonight that Heart is upset about the RNC playing Barracuda at the convention. This election it seems there has been one band after another complaining about their music being played by politicians who don't share their views. Do you think it's reasonable for musicians to ask them to stop using the music? What if royalties are paid?

 

If the RNC paid for it, then they should be able to use it. No, I don't think that the musicians have a right to say. When they put that music out on cds it's fair game, if they don't want anyone to use it, they need to keep it to themselves. :tongue_smilie:

[jmgconner]

Get over it!

Does this mean a doctor's office can't play elevator music without permission? What if the artist isn't in agreement with the type of medicine practiced? Sheesh, sometimes I think we've raised a bunch of prima dona Americans.

Move beyond yourself and do something for other people. It's amazing how one's perspective changes about the little, petty issues in life.

 

Actually, a doctor's office or any place providing a service or selling goods is not to play any copyrighted music without permission. Stores do it all the time, but they are getting busted for it, as well. I'm a photographer, and one of my online photographer friends got in trouble for playing copyrighted music in her studio. (Incidentally, it's not illegal for the client to bring in his/her own music CDs or iPod and play it during our photo session.) And to be honest, I don't remember if we're legally allowed to play a radio station or not.

 

Websites are now a big violator of this policy. My business website cannot legally play any copyrighted music without permission. I had to find an artist who was willing to let me play his music on my website. There are now companies that provide music (for purchase) legally to websites. Also, anytime I want to put together a photography slideshow to music, I have to use royalty-free or permission-granted music.

[Mrs Mungo]

If the RNC paid for it, then they should be able to use it. No, I don't think that the musicians have a right to say. When they put that music out on cds it's fair game, if they don't want anyone to use it, they need to keep it to themselves. :tongue_smilie:

 

This is a total misunderstanding of how music licensing works.

 

Yes, some musicians have their music licensed for use (Heart does and their music was used legally) but others do not.

[kokotg]

I think they have the right to play anything that they have a legal, well...right to play. It appears that this is the case with "Barracuda," so more power to them (the co-writer of the song has said that he's donating a portion of the licensing fees he receives to Obama or the DNC). And I also think that the musicians whose songs are being used have every right to speak up publicly and make clear that the use of the song does not constitute an endorsement by them, and that they're not happy about it.

[cathmom]

it was used as background music...

 

what happened with Springsteen?

[Momof2kids]

Rush Limbaugh discussed this years ago on his show. He plays The Pretenders (Chrissie Hynde) song Ohio as bumper music. Limbaugh pays the proper royalties and fees and he can use it. Apparently Chrissie Hynde's musician friends asked her how she could let this happen. She pretty much said that's the way it goes. As long as the rules are followed and the fees are paid, Limbaugh has the right to play her song as bumper music on his show and she never raised a ruckus. I give her alot of credit for that. Classy. Class act.

 

The other musicians big babies. Crying whinny liberal babies.

[Murphy101]

I happen to respect putting personal convictions ahead of money.

 

Artists (of any kind) are going to be connected to the venues in which their work is presented, and they can't exactly be expected to ponder all of the possibilities involved.

 

What if Heart discovered that their song was used in a porn movie? Would people still roll their eyes and say "What's the big deal?"

 

I would. They knew that they were signing a contract that would allow anyone who paid a fee to play their music in certain situations. If they didn't know that, then they need to get a clue about their own business.

 

Well, legally the RNC had the right to play it. Had it just been background music while the audience was seating themselves, no big deal.

 

:001_huh:It was backgorund music as everyone was getting up and the thing was over. What's the difference?

 

Back when I did laser shows at planetaria, we had to pull any Pearl Jam songs from our shows. But I could understand where were coming from, since we were advertising their name and in a sense making money off of them. Most artists loved it, though. Free publicity, in a way.

 

ah but if you were using their name and making money off them, then they were probably entitled to some kind of royalty. The RNC didn't make any money off or advertise for HEART.

 

If the RNC paid for it, then they should be able to use it. No, I don't think that the musicians have a right to say. When they put that music out on cds it's fair game, if they don't want anyone to use it, they need to keep it to themselves. :tongue_smilie:

 

I presume you mean when they put it out for user licensing and don't restrict the cirsumstances under which a license will be granted? If so, I agree.

 

If in totality, then I disagree. They have just as much right to decide how to publish their work and who has permission to use their work as any other artists, be it written or physical arts.

 

To me, HEART needs to get over it. They have an open license and it was legally used. If they don't like it, then they should look into being more selective about who and how others get a license to their music.

 

I don't think anyone was even remotely thinking, "Hey is that HEART music they are playing? Whoa! Hey I didn't know HEART was endorsing the RNC!" HEART would have had to be live on stage or something for me to think anything at all near that. Even then I'd only think the RNC was really wasting money on a concert, not neccessarily that HEART was endorsing them.:tongue_smilie:

 

I will agree it was a stupid move on the part of the RNC to not double check with HEART to avoid negative PR like this. But to be fair, it's mighty heard to find republicans in hollywoods sets?

[beansprouts]

I think if musicians own the rights to their music (many of them do not) then they should be able to say who uses it and when. When you play an artist's song in a public forum you are *supposed to* ask for permission. They doesn't mean everyone does.

 

 

 

How is this reasonable? What would this mean for radio stations? What about people who play music at parties, weddings or loudly though an open window while driving down the road? What does it mean for an athlete who uses music as part of their performances, or a photographer using music in a slide show? Am I now expected to contact the artist directly and make sure we share the same political views before I can use their music at my event?

[genie]

:001_huh:It was backgorund music as everyone was getting up and the thing was over. What's the difference?

 

There is no difference if it played was once the stage was cleared. If it was being played at the end of the speech while a candidate was still on stage, like a theme song, that gives it a completely different feel. It's no longer background music, it's part of the "show".

 

 

ah but if you were using their name and making money off them, then they were probably entitled to some kind of royalty. The RNC didn't make any money off or advertise for HEART.

 

Pearl Jam was getting royalties through the music association fees that the science center paid. Yet they still were able to have their songs removed from the shows. I'm aware that the RNC wasn't advertising Heart, and that was the point I was making.

 

 

 

If they don't like it, then they should look into being more selective about who and how others get a license to their music.

 

 

Musical artists have been fighting this battle for years. It's not as simple as crossing out and initialing a line in a contract.

 

I will agree it was a stupid move on the part of the RNC to not double check with HEART to avoid negative PR like this.

 

My husband could find Heart's manager's name and number within a couple of hours. I'm guessing someone organizing the RNC could have found it within a few days. :tongue_smilie:

[genie]

How is this reasonable? What would this mean for radio stations? What about people who play music at parties, weddings or loudly though an open window while driving down the road? What does it mean for an athlete who uses music as part of their performances, or a photographer using music in a slide show? Am I now expected to contact the artist directly and make sure we share the same political views before I can use their music at my event?

 

Radio stations, restaurants, etc. are all supposed to pay ASCAP fees. It is those fees that are used to pay the musicians. Here's a link that explains it in more detail.

[Mrs Mungo]

How is this reasonable? What would this mean for radio stations? What about people who play music at parties, weddings or loudly though an open window while driving down the road? What does it mean for an athlete who uses music as part of their performances, or a photographer using music in a slide show? Am I now expected to contact the artist directly and make sure we share the same political views before I can use their music at my event?

 

Radio stations pay licensing fees. Athletes usually use music in the public domain or they pay licensing fees. Parties, weddings, your car radio are not public events.

[tibbyl]

My first reaction after reading the first few posts is that there must be a dearth of popular Republican musicians.

[genie]

My first reaction after reading the first few posts is that there must be a dearth of popular Republican musicians.

 

I think that would depend largely on the musical genre.

[tibbyl]

Depends upon type of licensing agreement the venue has with ASCAP and the agreement that composer has with publisher, if applicable.

[bettyandbob]

I'm an intellectual property attorney (I'm not practicing, but I keep my license). The RNC did get permission from the artists or the record labels that own the music. That is in fact stealing. I am appalled that they did this 4 times and recieved cease and desist orders 4 times. I could understand the mistake once, but 4 times. Anyone who is a writer, artist or musician should be upset by this behavior. It is stealing. I don't care if these artists are wealthy. Allowing it to happen to wealthy artists, erodes the rules for those who really need it. My father-in-law was a professional writer, one of my best friends is a professional artist. Most people who make a living this way cannot defend themselves when something is stolen from them that's why the big names MUST make a big deal.

 

Now, if they did get permission from the own of the music and paid the royalty that would be fine. And in that instance it would also be fine for the artist to publicly say that although the RNC legally obtained the right to the work there is no endorsement by the artist.

 

I'm not endorsing what any of these artists said. I simply cannot understand why the RNC continued to disregard the step of getting permission before using the works. I guess they are above the law.

[bettyandbob]

The RNC used music by Boston, John Mellencamp, and Jackson Brown without permission. Each time they received a cease and desist. But they had to continue to think the law didn't apply to them so they used Heart.

 

You know I'm sure they could have gotten Ted Nugent's permission. He's a big time republic and not a country singer--if they were trying to get away from country. They made no effort to comply with the law or research artists. That should be offensive to anyone who relies on copyright protection.

[Mrs Mungo]

The RNC used music by Boston, John Mellencamp, and Jackson Brown without permission. Each time they received a cease and desist. But they had to continue to think the law didn't apply to them so they used Heart.

 

You know I'm sure they could have gotten Ted Nugent's permission. He's a big time republic and not a country singer--if they were trying to get away from country. They made no effort to comply with the law or research artists. That should be offensive to anyone who relies on copyright protection.

 

Except...you know...most people think Ted Nugent is cra-zay.

[teamturner]

And even if they have the legal right to use the music, it shows poor judgement to use music in such a high profile way without making sure that its writer is at least neutral to their cause. American politics is so polarized that this just doesn't seem likely right now.

 

I guess the Republicans will just have to only use country music from now on since they are probably the only ones who would "support" a Republican candidate or cause!

Except for the Dixie Chicks of course! :tongue_smilie:

[genie]

I guess the Republicans will just have to only use country music from now on since they are probably the only ones who would "support" a Republican candidate or cause!

Except for the Dixie Chicks of course! :tongue_smilie:

 

I would imagine there are tons of contemporary Christian artists who are republicans and would LOVE the exposure. And I think it would be a huge appeal to their "base".

[bettyandbob]

I can't help that Ted Nugent might be considered crazy or that other options are limited and I'm not going to research options for the RNC either.

 

I have to agree that Ted Nugent looks crazy.

[teamturner]

I would imagine there are tons of contemporary Christian artists who are republicans and would LOVE the exposure. And I think it would be a huge appeal to their "base".

 

Yes, them too! I just wondered if having an overt Christian song at a convention might make non-Christian Republican supporters unhappy. Of course, many Christian artists have songs that are not overtly Christian in their message. Good idea!

[teamturner]

My first thought was "Heart is Canadian, why do they care!" but of course they do care and mostly play in the US. I am actually going to see them in about a week with Journey. I wonder if the will still play Barracuda?

 

Heart and Journey in the same concert??? That's fantastic!!! I'm so jealous. Have fun!

 

I think the Wilson sisters have lived in the US for a long time though, haven't they?

[genie]

Yes, them too! I just wondered if having an overt Christian song at a convention might make non-Christian Republican supporters unhappy. Of course, many Christian artists have songs that are not overtly Christian in their message. Good idea!

 

I thought about that, too. And, as always, the flip side is that there are probably Christian republican supporters unhappy with secular choices. :tongue_smilie: There are some great Christian artists with cross-over songs that would be ideal choices.

[Wendi]

I'm confused. It seems like other posters (and the linked article) have all said that the RNC was not legally required to get permission from the band, that they had a license that allowed them to play the music. But you've asserted that they've broken the law repeatedly. Can you clear this up for me?

 

Wendi

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm confused. It seems like other posters (and the linked article) have all said that the RNC was not legally required to get permission from the band, that they had a license that allowed them to play the music. But you've asserted that they've broken the law repeatedly. Can you clear this up for me?

 

Wendi

 

In the case of playing Heart's song the RNC was on OK legal ground. In other cases they (eta: they=the GOP) have used music illegally.

[beansprouts]

I thought about that, too. And, as always, the flip side is that there are probably Christian republican supporters unhappy with secular choices. :tongue_smilie: There are some great Christian artists with cross-over songs that would be ideal choices.

 

Perhaps, but "real" Christians only listen to hymns...

 

:leaving:

[Slartibartfast]

I can't help that Ted Nugent might be considered crazy or that other options are limited and I'm not going to research options for the RNC either.

 

I have to agree that Ted Nugent looks crazy.

 

And apparently Toby Keith is a Democrat.

 

Which is somewhat surprising...

[Spy Car]

Well it turns out Toby Keith is a Barack Obama lovin' Democrat :D

 

So...let's say the Obama campaign wanted to use Charlie Daniels music, and they paid the proper fees, I still think it would be Mr Daniel's prerogative to say he didn't like it one darned bit.

 

Bill