politics
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
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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!
He's not violated any laws in this one specific case. When you are signed to a label or group under one of the major labels and members of the riaa. They offer blanket licensing for any music covered by their labels to restaurants venues etc etc etc. An artist can request their music be restricted. But that also impacts revenue and royalties for them. Which in this case Dave Grohl I'm sure is more than fine with. He's not one of The Starving Artists. And honestly his response realistically is the best that you Can get. Donating the royalties earned to their opponent is probably about the biggest thing you could get them to reconsider using the music LOL
It is a law. It's covered under copyright. Trump's just ignoring the law (as usual).
You know there’s an entire specialized subset of the legal profession that deals specifically with copyright law, don’t you?
In this case, the problem isn’t the law. It’s the judicial system.
There is no subset specific to politicians using copyright music.
Generally the venue or organizer purchases a generic performance license allowing them to broadcast most copyright music. This exempts them from needing to ask each specific artist.
That's why these artists are donating the licensing fees they're getting, because they WERE paid something.
It's just that artists can usually complain and terminate specific uses (after they know about them) for future performance.
I respectfully disagree.
We shouldn't be making laws about what artists mean because artists won't be alive forever to defend their works.
Edit: y'all are an interesting bunch.
It's even worse when an estate or a record company defends those works.
Oh you use a chord from a song I inherited the rights to? See you in court.
Generally the artists know enough about what went into making the art to know when they're getting ripped off or it's a new work that is coincidentally the same, or just inspired by their work, or maybe it is their work but being used in a cool way so it's fine by them. That's not the case with someone (or some company) that inherits the rights and are just milking it for what it's worth.
For example this video was taken down for copyright infringement. Luckily David Bowie was still alive then and noticed and told his lawyers to lay off.
Another example, John Carpenter told his lawyers to lay off the Metal Gear franchise because he liked the games.