God v. Copyright: Mike Huckabee Invokes Religion In Copyright Suit
from the holy-fair-use,-batman dept
Strap in, folks, because we've got quite a battle brewing. You may recall that Mike Huckabee recently found himself the subject of a copyright dispute with Frank Sullivan, a member of Survivor, over the use of the band's hit song Eye of the Tiger at a rally for the release of Kim Davis. Davis was the county clerk who asserted that her right to express her religion -- in the form of denying same sex couples the right to marry -- overrode the secular law of the land, which is about as bad a misunderstanding of how our secular government works as can be imagined. Sullivan's filing indicated that the rally was conducted by the Huckabee campaign and that the use of the song had been without permission, therefore it was an infringing use. Left out of the filing was any indication of whether the Huckabee campaign had acquired the normal performance licenses.
Based on Huckabee's response, it seems like no license was ever obtained, as Huckabee is instead claiming the use was fair use, and that the use was exempt from copyright law to begin with because the Kim Davis rally was a religious assembly.
The fair use claims are pretty simple, though I'm not sure they're particularly likely to succeed. Huckabee claims the use was non-commercial (relating back to the nature of the rally as a religious gathering), that the amount of the work he used was non-substantial (something like a quarter of the entire recorded song was used), and argues that the effect of it being played was essentially one of free advertising for the band, and so there was no harm done in the marketplace. We've seen those affirmative defenses raised in the past, with varying degrees of success, but this doesn't ring as a case where the copyright holder is reaching as far as in other cases we've covered.
And, ultimately, part of Huckabee's fair use defense - in particular that the use was non-commercial and, as Huckabee goes even further to state, had nothing to do with election campaign -- relies on the notion that the Kim Davis rally was an independent religious gathering, not any kind of campaign stop.
His campaign also invokes a rarely used limitation to a copyright owner's rights — one that exempts "performances of a nondramatic literary or musical work ... in the course of services at a place of worship or other religious assembly."From the filing itself:
Notwithstanding the provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 106, 17 U.S.C. § 110 (3) provides in part that the performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work in the course of services at a place of worship “or other religious assembly” is not an infringement of copyright. Although not explicitly defined in the Copyright Act of 1976, the term “nondramatic musical works” refers to musical works, such as popular songs, not incorporated and performed in an opera or theater musical. Based on the averments of paragraph 7 of the Complaint, “Eye of the Tiger” is a popular song and a “nondramatic musical work” within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 110 (3).Drink it in. The claim is a stunning one, where Huckabee, ostensibly a man who holds faith and religion in high regard, is suddenly willing to degrade the concept of a religious gathering simply to support his use of a popular song at a rally for someone he supports. One wonders exactly how the claim might work, what with the wide swath of gatherers at the rally, located outside the jailhouse for a secular government, on public land, and attended ostensibly by enough people that it strains credulity to even imagine that they might all be from one church or one faith. Nowhere is it asserted that anyone was referring to the Kim Davis rally as a religious gathering before this filing.
The September 8, 2015, assembly for Mrs. Davis was, in view of all the surrounding circumstances, a “religious assembly” within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 110 (3) and the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
But think of the possibilities if the court buys this argument. Suddenly, loosely-defined religious grounds can be asserted as an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. The very idea of public performance licensing largely goes out the window, as one can imagine all kinds of gatherings suddenly proclaiming religiosity. Keep in mind that our government is not permitted to distinguish between the faiths, so any faith would do. Hell, one enterprising Techdirt writer such as myself might take up the mantle of L. Ron Hubbard and simply whip up a religion out of whole cloth, calling it the Fairusenalists, replacing the prayer rug, the eucharist, or the kippah with loudly-blasted recordings of Justin Bieber. Were Huckabee's argument to be accepted, who could stop us?
That said, I doubt it will be accepted, largely because Huckabee's claims that his campaign had nothing to do with the rally are blatant lies, given the attendance by his campaign staffers and the blatant promotion of the rally on the Huckabee campaign site. Still, the thought is tantalizing, to say the least...
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: copyright, eye of the tiger, fair use, frank sullivan, kim davis, mike huckabee, public performance, religious assembly, survivor
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Church of the BitTorrent
True zealots of the religion would continue to participate in the torrent long after they themselves have achieved the downloaded revelation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Church of the BitTorrent
Let us play.
*♪♫ "It's the... eye of the tiger, it's the thrill of the fight..."🎶*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Church of the BitTorrent
Missionary Church of Kopimism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Step up RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Step up RIAA
Honestly... who gives a shit if someone used that song. Isn't that the purpose of music... to be shared with people?
I disagree with the meaning behind their rally but I also think crying copyright for using a song in public should get people punched in the dick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Step up RIAA
And it has nothing to do with whether someone agreed with the point of the rally or not. OK, actually, i don't understand any of your response with respect to the comment to which you are apparently replying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Step up RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PASTAFARA!!!!
Why didn't the great noodle touch you BEFORE you posted!!!
:P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- Huckabee throws money in the air.
- Huckabee collects money on the ground.
- What God grabbed is for charity, the rest goes on whatever Christian politicians do.
Win!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://imgur.com/gallery/bCqRp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Already exists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kim Davis and her ilk have already pirated one religion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Throw in religion and suddenly Timmy is for copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Throw in religion and suddenly Timmy is for copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Throw in religion and suddenly Timmy is for copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Throw in religion and suddenly Timmy is for copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Throw in religion and suddenly Timmy is for copyright?
But it's funny how apparently one can throw in religion and one is exempt from copyright. That's cool. No one benefits in cash or warm bodies by using other people's work to make your religious cause seem cooler and more entertaining*.
* Musical taste: YMMV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is exactly what I was thinking as I read the article. Imagine the holes this could poke in copyright enforcement if he actually won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Church of Sporting
Offerings to our god, bar tab, often results in free flowing beer and for very generous donations bar tab is known to provide worshipers a nice steak dinner.
So if you worship sports and love beer, head on down to the Church of Sporting!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does God own the Copyright on the BIble
1) God wrote the bible
2) God is not dead.
Since copyright is something like life + X years, the copyright should still be valid and therefore anyone publishing or reading out loud from the Bible needs a license.
Let their be litigation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does God own the Copyright on the BIble
Since many passages from The Bible are set to music, which collection societies would represent the copyright interests of Him who wrote the lyrics?
Since copyright, collection societies, and lawyers tend to originate in the infernal nether regions, it could be interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does God own the Copyright on the BIble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does God own the Copyright on the BIble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does God own the Copyright on the BIble
So, still not covered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does God own the Copyright on the BIble
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drop copyright to 56 years
Now, if you can't even specify the number of years that a copyright exists, that is not a limited time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reasonable accommodation is given throughout government offices for people with religious beliefs. Women are allowed to wear a burqa in some instances even though other women in the same position aren't allowed to wear a scarf for non-religious reasons. Muslims are allowed breaks and rooms to pray at the appropriate times. Other employees may not get these breaks.
All Kim Davis was asking is for her assistant to be able to sign these marriage certificates that she does not agree to instead of being forced to sign them herself. Reasonable accommodation is what her lawyer argued and they ended up winning the case on its merits. They ended up doing EXACTLY what she asked for when she was thrown in jail. Her assistant is now allowed to sign the marriage certificate when she cannot in good conscience.
So actually, the only one misunderstanding how secular government works is you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I seem to recall that Kim Davis was announcing that these marriage certificates were not valid without HER signature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How convenient that her religious beliefs are so strong NOW after 3 marriages and having at least 2 children out of wedlock.
Does she also refuse to sign marriage licenses for couples who decide to remarry after divorce, or who have children out of wedlock, or is her "faith" confined just to same-sex couples?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, not even close. Let me show you the difference.
"Women are allowed to wear a burqa in some instances even though other women in the same position aren't allowed to wear a scarf for non-religious reasons. Muslims are allowed breaks and rooms to pray at the appropriate times. Other employees may not get these breaks."
Neither example has anything to do with a public employee's application of their government duty with regards to a valid citizen of the nation within their purview.
"All Kim Davis was asking is for her assistant to be able to sign these marriage certificates that she does not agree to instead of being forced to sign them herself. Reasonable accommodation is what her lawyer argued and they ended up winning the case on its merits. They ended up doing EXACTLY what she asked for when she was thrown in jail. Her assistant is now allowed to sign the marriage certificate when she cannot in good conscience."
Excuse me, but that kind of revisionist history ain't going to be tolerated around here. What Davis did was REFUSE marriage certificates to citizens whom the government in charge of such things had deemed qualified for them. She directly inhibited the rights of others under the law of the land as part of her pout for her own religious views. As a public employee, she may not allow matters of faith to prevent her from completing her duties as a secular representative.
Try again, sir....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Big difference between refusing to do a job you don't believe in, and sabotaging everyone's ability to do the job you disagree with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's your fodder, Survivor...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Religious assembly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bieber and the Fairuseanalists
I suggest instead you go with Aqua's megahit "Barbie Girl". You know:
I'm a Barbie girl, in the Barbie world.
Life in plastic, it's fantastic...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyhrYis509A
Their copyright/trademark fair use cred was established when Mattel sued MCA records over dilution of the Barbie trademark. Mattel's claim that the song made Barbie into a sex object was especially funny considering Barbie herself is closely based on the German "Bild Lilli" doll. In the cartoon strip in which Bild Lilli first appeared she was very much akin to a call girl. The judge cemented the claim to fame for this case by dismissing the suit, and the counter suit, while saying "The parties are advised to chill."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- follow long established doctrine
- suspend logic
- seem to be endlessly open to re-interpretation by the practitioners
- require blind faith
Let them slug it out. Popcorn ready :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HMMM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HMMM I'd join that one
hollowed be thy bits;
Thy seeders come,
Thy will be done,
on internet as it is in the cloud
Give us this day our daily seeders,
and forgive us our leechers,
as we forgive those who leech against us;
and lead us not into tor,
but delivers us from the NSA. Bittorrent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"God wills it!"
Impeccable logic. God wills it! (Yep, they just make it all up as they go along.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kim Davis
The Kim Davis Rally was not a Political Rally !
The Kim Davis Rally was about Freedom of Religion.
State Law said marriage was between a man and a woman.
Supreme Court does not write laws for a state. They only ruled one law unconstitutional. They did not write a new law.
Kim Davis had a God-Given Right to believe Marriage is ruled by her God who clearly states in Genesis 1 that marriage is between a man and a woman.
The Rally was a religious rally about Freedom of Religion.
Using the song was a Religious Rally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kim Davis
But amazingly the teachings that involve treating everyone around you even the ones you don't like always seem to be forgotten when it comes to denying others the same rights you have.
It used to be viewed that owning slaves was a god given right. Didn't make it right.
The fact she sabotaged anyone else attempting to do this job instead of just refusing to do her job is why she is in jail. Has nothing to do with her religious beliefs. Unless those same beliefs teach her to destroy the rights of anyone that believes in something different from her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kim Davis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kim Davis
'Freedom of religion' just means you can believe whatever you want, it doesn't grant you the right to force others to live by your beliefs, especially if your position is taxpayer funded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kim Davis
But you already destroy your own argument, which is more amusing.
Um... lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hilarious. I've used this defense too, BTW
And I've used this defending copyright infringement claims before. It's legit and fantastic. And most folks forget about it.
That is until some copyright troll comes after a church organization or vet organization with a shakedown. (Vet organizations are covered too. Because Foreign Legion Dances.)
Then BAM, no infringement. Then I et to explain to the troll the fee shifting provision of copyright law. "In this circuit, loser pays the winner's attorney fees. I think I just got an hourly rate raise."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Establishment clause violation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]