Like Clockwork: Copyright Holders Mistakenly Freak Out About Presidential Candidates Using Their Music
from the again? dept
This seems to happen every four years like clockwork during Presidential elections. Some musician gets upset about a politician he or she disagrees with, making use of his or her music during campaign rallies. This time around the candidate is Newt Gingrich, and the upset musician is songwriter and member of the band Survivor, Frank Sullivan, who co-wrote the song "Eye of the Tiger" which Gingrich has apparently been using during presidential campaigns:The complaint states that the violation it alleges is intentional since Gingrich is "sophisticated and knowledgeable" concerning copyright laws.That strikes me as interesting, because I would have to assume that the campaign has paid for standard ASCAP performance license (either that or the locations they use almost certainly have such a license). And if that's true, then Sullivan has no case. If the venue has a license, they can play whatever they want. Full stop. "Eye of the Tiger" is registered to ASCAP, so that's all that's needed. The campaign doesn't need permission of the copyright holder. The Chicago Sun-Times goes into more detail, where Sullivan insists this isn't political, he just doesn't like the song being used without him getting paid. Perhaps he should check his ASCAP statement. If he's not getting paid, he might want to take it up with them.
That same article also notes that Sullivan co-owns the copyright along with his song writing partner/bandmate, Jim Peterik, who seems to both (sorta, kinda) like Gingrich and not like legal actions:
“My wife is a big fan,” Peterik said. “I’m becoming a fan of Newt Gingrich. He has a mind of his own. He’s not a talking head. Originally, I didn’t like him, but look at the competition. He’s looking better and better.”I say this every time something like this comes up, but even if politicians can make use of such songs without getting permission from the artists, thanks to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC performance licenses, it still surprises me that the campaigns don't seek out musicians who support them in the first place to get their "okay" just to avoid embarrassing situations like this. Either way, it seems almost certain that this lawsuit is going nowhere fast.
Peterik is not a party to the suit that Sullivan filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago. They share the copyright, but tend to stay out of each other’s way when it comes to cracking down on infringers.
”I hate suits,” Peterik said. “I hate being in court. I avoid that meticulously. When I [heard about the lawsuit on the radio Monday} I said I’m not surprised, but I’m surprised.”
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: eye of the tiger, frank sullivan, newt gingrich, performance licenses, presidential campaigns, rallies, songs, survivor
Companies: ascap, rude music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The lawsuit is not the point
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"That strikes me as interesting, because I would have to assume that the campaign has paid for standard ASCAP performance license (either that or the locations they use almost certainly have such a license). And if that's true, then Sullivan has no case."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm waiting on the candidate that uses Head Like a Hole for their campaign theme song.
[disclosure: it's my own personal theme song.] ;D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My my.. copyright sure is complex.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't bite the hand that feeds you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well, it's not necessarily that simple.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Don't bite the hand that feeds you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Isn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why? It's something I can easily see falling through the cracks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Don't bite the hand that feeds you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Settle
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Second, repeated use of a song as a "theme" could imply some sort of endorsement, which may implicate rights that ASCAP does not have the power to grant.
Now, those are hypotheticals that may have no basis in the real facts, but they are examples of how an ASCAP license *might* not give all the protection needed for certain uses of songs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: STUPID tattoo
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Really?
Newt Gingrich's campaign failed to file the paperwork in time to qualify for the Virginia ballot. You really can't fathom them forgetting an ASCAP license?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And obviously you didn't bother to read the complaint (took me three seconds to find it on Google), or else you'd know that one of the claims is that the defendants took videos including the copyrighted songs and posted them on the internet.
Why is it you demand other people's claims to be fact-based, but then you write complete faith-based FUD like this? What gives, Mike? I don't get it.
And, honestly, if you're too lazy to do the least amount of journalistic legwork with an easy story like this, why shouldn't we all just assume you're being doubly as lazy with the hard stuff? Sigh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyway, you're right that these theories may not be applicable at all, but the "full stop" certainty may be misleading.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Getting paid?
No other industry gets paid for past work and people who think that's a business model, especially in this day and age, have no clue how to survive.
Sullivan, you are not a Survivor, pun intended. Get over it. You should be thankful they chose your song Eye of the Tiger, as that gains popularity for your music. Yeah, some will download, but others will search for their cassettes, realize they don't have a functioning tape deck, and possibly buy it on iTunes.
That's free advertising for your old work. Maybe drawing attention to yourself in the process and maybe, just maybe, people will look at what new material you've written.
Or are you just like Novel and Kodak? Can't innovate and create, so your tired old butt decides to litigate!
Get over yourself man, grab your guitar, tease your hair, and write something new! Continue working if you want to be paid!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Settle
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If you're so quick to judge here, why shouldn't we all just assume you're being doubly as much of an asshole as we think you are?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The label is getting paid, who cares what the artist thinks?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Not that it would matter. When was the last time ASCAP paid someone that isn't a top 200 artist, and lets face it Sullivan isn't. Perhaps he should take the lack of compensation up with ASCAP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
But that's beside the point. The point is that Mike is just regurgitating what he read from other sites that have "real" reporters, and he's not even bothered to read the complaint before declaring that the defendants will win. It's a complete joke, and I'm calling him out for it--again. He just assumes that the defendants probably have a license and therefore all is well.
And if he's this terrible with the really easy stuff, God knows how many intellectual corners he cuts with the hard stuff.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The thing is, the TD commentariat mostly doesn't care, because they are on the same page.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Why is that a reasonable assumption?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Synchronization rights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Also, the voters theme song would probably be Hurt...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100525/0237319558.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Don't bite the hand that feeds you
Anyone out there hold a copyright they can exercise? (raise your hand if you've taken a picture or composed an email.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Don't bite the hand that feeds you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Savvy Artists
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't fire off 60K+ blog posts AND do your homework, that's for sure. Strange that someone so obsessed with facts himself has little use for them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Settle
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Those types of licenses wouldn't necessarily or likely license the defendants to make videos including the copyrighted work and then distribute those on the internet. All I'm saying is that Mike could have done even the slightest bit of digging around before jumping right in and calling it for the defendants. Talk about faith-based "reporting." Sigh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Settle
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would love for a case like this to make it to court (it wouldn't, somebody would pay the artist off to go away) for him to win, and for Newt to have to pay the sort of "damages" your typical "joe nobody" would have to pay. Then we'll see how Congress feel about current copyright law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Getting paid?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Getting paid?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: STUPID tattoo
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You want to discredit Mike so your claims of harm to monopolies can be viewed as valid?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
War Pigs!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Quote:
CHUBBY CHECKER - Let's Twist Again
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I mean, Mike *says* that, but Mike's gloss on actual facts isn't worth much (in my opinion), and the quote doesn't really suggest any confusion. I mean, saying it's about copyright "and" something else doesn't imply conflation of the two.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That doesn't detract from the worth of my post, though, right? Since I'm declaring my assumptions?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Settle
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Settle
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I think what you say about ASCAP is more or less the point Mike made in the Byrne post: that thinking copyright licensing is the same as endorsement is simply incorrect, since there are significant ways (like ASCAP, mechanical licenses for covers) that people can legally use a copyrighted work without any endorsement from or even any contact with the creator. So while it may bother Byrne that some people are confused on that issue, the fact is that a license does not imply endorsement - and it's not helping anyone to further that myth, nor is it helping him to think he can rely on copyright for that purpose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think that's an accurate conclusion to draw. While a valid license doesn't actually require any endorsement in many cases, the perception of endorsement is what matters.
So, if, hypothetically, 75% of the population thinks the license is tantamount to endorsement, then I think it does "imply" endorsement in a descriptive sense (as opposed to a prescriptive sense), even if it shouldn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If anyone deserves to choke on ridiculous copyright violation "damages"...
I'd enjoy watching Newt get slapped with the kind of $200,000 per incident fines that the law slaps Joe Citizen with all the time.
If it happens more, maybe they'll stop passing stupid laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure he can. He can do so by bringing claims other than copyright infringement (e.g., unfair competition, right of publicity, etc.), which is exactly what he did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
His statement shows that he thinks the whole endorsement issue lends weight to his copyright claim. It doesn't. That's all I'm saying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]