Artists and Politicians Face Off: Nine Contentious Campaign-Song Battles

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Artists and Politicians Face Off: Nine Contentious Campaign-Song Battles
15
Thu, 06-30-2011 - 7:58am
Have none of these politicians heard of copy right?

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
It does make me wonder. When someone plays music in a public place, they must pay royalties, that's pretty much the main issue historically with the use of someone's music and copyright. The musicians want their money, and rightly so. I don't recall news stories about bands complaining about the exposure in venues like stadiums, elevators, offices, restaurants, and other public speeches where music is often played.
Most likely these conservative politicians that have received complaints have paid their fees to services that lease the rights to use music. (http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties7.htm). It would seem that the issue here is that these artists don't want their music, or name, connected with a conservative politician. I can't help but notice the absence of liberals in this article considering that they also use songs during their campaigns.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
"It would seem that the issue here is that these artists don't want their music, or name, connected with a conservative politician."

I agree with you. Given the controversy about this in the past one would think they'd take more care & ask permission before using an artist's music.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
You are missing the point. Haven't the musicians already given permission for their music to be played in a public venue when they sign a contract with a service that in turn contracts with individuals and groups that wish to use music?

They only seem to have an issue with conservatives, do you think that they have contracts written "no conservatives can play my music without my personal ok"? Of course not.

You also missed the other point. There is two sides to this story, but of course the bias is to only tell one side and make conservatives look bad. No surprise there.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007

I beleive most musician control who can play their music.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-05-2011
Politicians should adhere to the law. If a law was broken, the victim should sue for damages.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Yes, I know. I discussed that and provided a link as to how it works in an earlier post.
The article is not about conservatives not paying royalties, the article is biased and doesn't really tell the entire story. Since the article does not mention failure to pay royalties, I can assume that they are being paid, and most likely through a service that most use when they are playing music frequently in public spaces. You don't need musician permission to do that, it is granted by the contract the musicians have set up with the service. It's the easiest way for groups and individuals as well as the musicians to deal with the royalty issue.
The problem here seems to be that the musicians don't want their name hooked up with a conservative politician, or the author is even more biased than the article demonstrates and is only noting complaints toward conservatives that use music in their campaigns and ignoring complaints made against liberals.

Which then gives rise to the question, if these politicians have gained the legal rights to use the songs played at their rallies, what ground do the musicians really have to complain? Seems like it's the conservatives that are taking the high road.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002

http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/music-rockersvspoliticians/14/
Foo Fighters vs. John McCain
Dave Grohl and company were upset to learn presidential candidate John McCain had been using their hit “My Hero” as his campaign theme songs. The republican nominee had apparently neglected to ask for permission first. "The saddest thing about this is that `My Hero' was written as a celebration of the common man and his extraordinary potential," the band said in a statement. "To have it appropriated without our knowledge and used in a manner that perverts the original sentiment of the lyric just tarnishes the song." —Jeff Royer

Also, John Mellenkamp gave the Edward's campaign permission to use "Little Pink Houses" & one of his other songs.

 nwtreehugger  

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
I understand this part of it. However, I also know for a fact that permission is gained to use music in a public venue through the agencies that perform this service and people are not contacting the musicians that use these services.

What you posted is just more of the same and it leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
My top two.
1. Did these conservatives gain the right through a service and it's just sour grapes with the musicians b/c they are liberal?
2. Is there a difference when it's a political campaign and simply using music in a public venue that requires individual permission that no one else is required to get as long as they pay royalties through a service?

Again, with the additional articles it sounds even more like a case of "I don't want my music associated with that person", the part that is missing is did they pay for the right?
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002
I know a few musicians, I'll see if they can answer that. I've read that the Foo Fighters won't let "Glee" use their music. Now that could be because it would be 'rerecordable' because it's a TV show (it's because Grohl doesn't like glee club type music, actually)...but the same can be said of any recording of a political campaign speech whether or not someone else is singing the songs. That makes me think that there may be more to some of the 'service contracts' than we know about.

I did note that the 'liberals' seem to be asking permission first & we have no idea how many performers/composers have said no to them because they didn't use the music..... I would hate to assume that all performers are 'liberal'.

I can find no mention of whether or not royalties were paid. Even on the 'conservative leaning' sites. And to me, that makes no difference. They should still ask permission because this is a very public association.

As an artist myself, I am very protective of how my artwork is used. It's my creation & it's my right. I'd never sign a contract that didn't give me some control.

As for question #2 - Yes, I think there is. Whether they paid royalties or not, I think that something like a poiltical campaign is different. And again, I find it quite likely that many performers have retained much more control over their music.

 nwtreehugger  

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Maybe what these politicians need to do then is start commissioning song writers to produce campaign songs for them instead of trying to adapt what is already produced.

Pages