Realize there has been threads started and closed on this topic, but as these artists collectively published an open letter today that addresses both parties, it is a relevant discussion that hopefully can stay non-partisan.

(also- Love the pic they used on twitter and in the article of Mick in Chicago last year. Also Love that the Stones are used prominently for the promotion)




Need a Campaign Song? Mick Jagger, Sia & More Sign Open Letter Urging Politicians to Ask First


Stars of rock, pop and hip-hop have had enough of hearing their songs pumped at political rallies without the green light. So they’re standing up for their rights.

Today, the Artist Rights Alliance is demanding politicians on both sides get clearance on the music they plug at their events and in advertisements.

The ARA, a not-for-profit advocate for songwriters and musicians, is calling for the major U.S. national political party committees to "establish clear policies requiring campaigns to seek consent of featured recording artists, songwriters, and copyright owners before publicly using their music in a political or campaign setting."

An all-star lineup has signed an open letter, calling out both sides of politics in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election.

"As artists, activists, and citizens, we ask you to pledge that all candidates you support will seek consent from featured recording artists and songwriters before using their music in campaign and political settings," reads the letter, seen by Billboard.

"This is the only way to effectively protect your candidates from legal risk, unnecessary public controversy, and the moral quagmire that comes from falsely claiming or implying an artist's support or distorting an artists' expression in such a high stakes public way."

The letter is addressed to the Democratic and Republican National, Congressional, and Senatorial committees and is signed by the likes of Rolling Stones members Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, Aerosmith's Steven Tyler and Joe Perry, Sia, Regina Spektor, R.E.M, Lorde, Blondie, Elvis Costello, Sheryl Crow, Rosanne Cash, Lionel Richie, Pearl Jam and Green Day.

This is more than just politely asking permission, the letter explains. At its heart is the question of artistic integrity, and where a songwriter or artist’s music is used to falsely imply endorsement for one party or candidate, the situation can quickly turn legal.

"We've seen so many artists and estates dragged into politics against their will and forced to take aggressive action to prohibit the use of their music - usually songs that are broadcast during political rallies or used in campaign ads. It can confuse and disappoint fans and even undermine an artists’ long-term income – and mostly, it's just not right," explains the ARA in a statement.

The issue of consent is one that won't go away. As the presidential election draws nearer, The Rolling Stones, Neil Young and others have threatened the Trump campaign with lawsuits for playing their music without approval.

Signees have requested the parties respond by Aug. 10 on how they plan to "accomplish these changes."

The letter:
Dear Campaign Committees:

As artists, activists, and citizens, we ask you to pledge that all candidates you support will seek consent from featured recording artists and songwriters before using their music in campaign and political settings. This is the only way to effectively protect your candidates from legal risk, unnecessary public controversy, and the moral quagmire that comes from falsely claiming or implying an artist’s support or distorting an artists’ expression in such a high stakes public way.

This is not a new problem. Or a partisan one. Every election cycle brings stories of artists and songwriters frustrated to find their work being used in settings that suggest endorsement or support of political candidates without their permission or consent.

Being dragged unwillingly into politics in this way can compromise an artist’s personal values while disappointing and alienating fans – with great moral and economic cost. For artists that do choose to engage politically in campaigns or other contexts, this kind of unauthorized public use confuses their message and undermines their effectiveness. Music tells powerful stories and drives emotional connection and engagement – that’s why campaigns use it, after all! But doing so without permission siphons away that value.

The legal risks are clear. Campaign uses of music can violate federal and (in some cases) state copyrights in both sound recordings and musical compositions. Depending on the technology used to copy and broadcast these works, multiple exclusive copyrights, including both performance and reproduction, could be infringed. In addition, these uses impact creators’ rights of publicity and branding, potentially creating exposure for trademark infringement, dilution, or tarnishment under the Lanham Act and giving rise to claims for false endorsement, conversion, and other common law and statutory torts. When campaign commercials or advertisements are involved, a whole additional host of rules and regulations regarding campaign fundraising (including undisclosed and potentially unlawful “in-kind” contributions), finance, and communications could also potentially be breached.

More importantly, falsely implying support or endorsement from an artist or songwriter is dishonest and immoral. It undermines the campaign process, confuses the voting public, and ultimately distorts elections. It should be anathema to any honest candidate to play off this kind of uncertainty or falsely leave the impression of an artist’s or songwriter’s support.

Like all other citizens, artists have the fundamental right to control their work and make free choices regarding their political expression and participation. Using their work for political purposes without their consent fundamentally breaches those rights – an invasion of the most hallowed, even sacred personal interests.

No politician benefits from forcing a popular artist to publicly disown and reject them. Yet these unnecessary controversies inevitably draw even the most reluctant or apolitical artists off the sidelines, compelling them to explain the ways they disagree with candidates wrongfully using their music. And on social media and in the culture at large, it’s the politicians that typically end up on the wrong side of those stories.

For all these reasons, we urge you to establish clear policies requiring campaigns supported by your committees to seek the consent of featured recording artists, songwriters, and copyright owners before publicly using their music in a political or campaign setting. Funding, logistical support, and participation in committee programs, operations, and events should be contingent on this pledge, and its terms should be clearly stated in writing in your bylaws, operating guidelines, campaign manuals, or where you establish any other relevant rules, requirements, or conditions of support.

Please let us know by August 10th how you plan to accomplish these changes
[www.billboard.com]

very good

I wasn’t aware the Stones actually threatened a law suit against Trump. I thought they just requested the campaign to stop playing their songs.

On the 7th day God created The Rolling Stones

Quote
makemeburnthecandle
I wasn’t aware the Stones actually threatened a law suit against Trump. I thought they just requested the campaign to stop playing their songs.

I think first it was a request, then the threat of lawsuit

In the end politicians are down to playing classical music at their gatherings then? As far as I know there is a copyright law that lasts for 70 years after the death of the author.
After that anyone can do whatever they like with the music.

Quote
Stoneage
In the end politicians are down to playing classical music at their gatherings then?

Nah.. the answer to that question is in the headline, article, thread header, and their letter.
"...Sign Open Letter Urging Politicians to Ask First"

They are publicly asking the respective campaigns to seek permission.
Many will grant it based on history as they will support the cause. Seems more than reasonable, and by appealing directly to the both parties national committees as opposed to individual campaigns. This is an excellent way to try to stop the unauthorized use. It will be interesting to see if they get an official response by Aug 10th.

Quote
MisterDDDD

Quote
Stoneage
In the end politicians are down to playing classical music at their gatherings then?

Nah.. the answer to that question is in the headline, article, thread header, and their letter.
"...Sign Open Letter Urging Politicians to Ask First"

They are publicly asking the respective campaigns to seek permission.
Many will grant it based on history as they will support the cause. Seems more than reasonable, and by appealing directly to the both parties national committees as opposed to individual campaigns. This is an excellent way to try to stop the unauthorized use. It will be interesting to see if they get an official response by Aug 10th.

Okay, what are the odds on The Rolling Stones giving their permission to play their music to Mr Trump or, in that case, any politician at all?

Trump’s a billionaire.Maybe he can drop Mick a few million for Fingerprint File

Quote
Taylor1
Trump’s a billionaire.Maybe he can drop Mick a few million for Fingerprint File

Mick Taylor?

That would be something, Dutch. In Taylor's case the money would make a difference also...

You would think one would not even have to bring this up. They think they can just appropriate an artist's music without even asking? And I am not speaking of the big T, I would expect a person such as him to just think he were entitled to it somehow. I mean normal politicians (not to mention normal people).

jb

Quote
jbwelda
You would think one would not even have to bring this up. They think they can just appropriate an artist's music without even asking? And I am not speaking of the big T, I would expect a person such as him to just think he were entitled to it somehow. I mean normal politicians (not to mention normal people).

jb

In the past, as the letter infers, a public rebuke or a private request would suffice. Not the case currently.

Trying hard not to be partisan, but that is a fact.
Things have changed in that regard. The "embarrassment factor" doesn't work.

Please

Quote
jbwelda
You would think one would not even have to bring this up. They think they can just appropriate an artist's music without even asking? And I am not speaking of the big T, I would expect a person such as him to just think he were entitled to it somehow. I mean normal politicians (not to mention normal people).

jb

The thing is, the campaigns pay royalties through the usual licensing procedures. If there was a basis for a lawsuit, they would do that rather than publish a letter asking for cooperation.

I don't know, this sounds way to reasonable...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-07-29 22:19 by ryanpow.

This civil case should be interesting... good on ya' Neil.

Neil Young Sues To Stop The Trump Campaign From Using His Songs

"One of America's most beloved musicians, Neil Young, has filed a civil lawsuit against President Trump's reelection campaign. Young's mission: to get Trump supporters to stop rocking out to "Rockin' in the Free World" and "Devil's Sidewalk" at his campaign events and rallies.

The copyright infringement lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in New York, was first reported by The Hollywood Reporter and is available to read in full on Young's website.

Young's suit will serve as something of a test case for the copyright infringement argument, though his complaint also states that he "in good conscience cannot allow his music to be used as a 'theme song' for a divisive, un-American campaign of ignorance and hate." Along with barring the Trump campaign from using his music, Young is asking for statutory damages."
[www.npr.org]

Asking seems polite to me.

However, I imagine many people already know the answer is "NO"....so, they probably figure - why bother asking?

Also - isn't this issue complicated b/c there is the issue of the ARENA buying the rights to use the song(s) and not necessarily those who use the arena?

I mean....once the ARENA buys the rights to use it, can't anybody who then rents the arena use the songs?

lots of sports teams play all sorts of music before/during their games....does the team buy the rights to the song or is it the arena?

and, how does this differ from a bar playing CDs/MP3s they purchased (other than size of audience, of course)?

Unless someone is actively using the product to "sell" something, can one legally argue songs can't be used as "background music?"

I really have no idea, so maybe somebody who is a lawyer can clear it up?

Nah.. not the arenas.
The campaign bought the collective rights.

So the open letter "ask" that Mick, Keith, Rosanne Cash, et al wrote to Congress is a good move. Legally it will be tough to win, but rooting for Neil.

Likely result in changes down the road to these types of licensing agreements though. Who knows if it will be needed again though, as historically the "embarrassment factor" of an artist disavowing the use was enough to stop it.

From the article...
"Back then, however, Young told Reuters that he would have liked for Trump to have asked for his blessing. During that first campaign, Trump's organization had made licensing agreements with the two main performance-rights organizations, ASCAP (the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) and BMI (Broadcast Music, Inc.), which have traditionally covered the use of pop songs at political live events. (Songwriters and labels can prohibit the use of their music in political commercials.)

Young acknowledged that in the 2016 Reuters interview, saying: "He actually got a license to use it ... So I got nothing against him. You know, once the music goes out, everybody can use it for anything."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-08-05 02:11 by MisterDDDD.