Mike Huckabee Settles For Five Figures With Survivor Over Copyright Infringement
from the just-ask-next-time dept
If you'll recall, back when the American presidential campaign was still in full swing and we weren't all left with only two candidates that basically distill the concept of the lesser of two evils argument for voter participation, Mike Huckabee held a rally for Kim Davis and played Eye of the Tiger by Survivor to introduce her. While there was enough wrong in the entire episode to fill up many, many pages, Techdirt focused first on Frank Sullivan of Survivor's lawsuit against Huckabee for copyright infringement. Most observers initially thought that the suit wouldn't go anywhere, as most of the time these politicians have the proper blanket licensing to play these songs as part of their campaigns. Upon further inspection, however, the Kim Davis rally couldn't really have been considered part of Huckabee's ill-fated campaign, which would render any license his people had obtained useless. This was confirmed when Huckabee bizarrely put forth affirmative fair use defenses, claiming that the use was non-substantial and non-commercial...because the Kim Davis rally was a religious rally.
I said at the time that the tactic was unlikely to work and, additionally, was quite a disgusting attempt, given the piety that Huckabee likes to portray. Debasing religious conviction to get out of copyright infringement is stunningly shrewd, even to a devout secularist such as myself. Especially when Huckabee could have simply found a band willing to give permission for the use, setting up some kind of God v. Copyright showdown seemed slimy.
But that's what the former candidate chose to do, which brings me to this strange string of words I never thought I'd put in this particular order: God lost to copyright.
Failed presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is paying $25,000 for playing "Eye of the Tiger" at a rally last year without the band's permission, CNNMoney has discovered. Huckabee never paid for the rights -- so his campaign got sued for copyright infringement. He recently agreed to a confidential settlement with Rude Music. That company is owned by the Survivor guitarist who cowrote the song, Frankie Sullivan.
The claim that the rally was a religious gathering and not connected to the Huckabee campaign reportedly fell apart because he had listed the rally as a campaign expense on his records. Interestingly, despite Huckabee's claim that it was not a campaign event, that it was so will allow him to use his campaign's warchest to pay off the settlement.
And thus comes to an end a politician's campaign infringing on copyright and trying to invoke religion to get out of it. Thy kingdom come...to a settlement with an 80s band, apparently.
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, kim davis, licensing, mike huckabee, public performance, survivor
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
uh, no.
Who said huckabee is God,
Or is Tim a closet evangelist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: uh, no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: uh, no.
No we don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the shrill of the right
Sinking down when the issue ends up viral
And the last known survivor
Sues his prey in this fight
And he's watching us all with the eye of his lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
editors being lazy again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: editors being lazy again...
Wasn't part of the settlement, but he wants it kept private?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is Awesome!!!!
Hope it makes him want to change the law. Who am I kidding, the MafiAA probably reimbursed the clown behind the scenes just to make sure an example was made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you, RainbowboomX
One of the two major parties will almost definitely win this election, and I really don't think that which one matters. Neither will get any cooperation from Congress and Senate, so both will be hobbled. However, if enough of us do vote for other parties, then they will start to receive more funding and visibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thank you, RainbowboomX
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh yeah. All non major party candidates would never ever use music without first obtaining a license to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, yes, but then again those two parties only count if one is actually silly enough to believe their candidates can do any better than being voted Dogcatcher!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
God lost to Copyright
Preferably along with all those who have abused it against others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could come back to haunt him again
That he reached a settlement does not automatically make it a campaign event. Interestingly, since he's using campaign funds to pay off an event he's stated repeatedly (and quote from page 6 of his court filing in doing so)
I don't think the FEC is going to be too happy with him using campaign funds to pay for an event that's been emphatically denied to be a campaign event in court motions. Now, had it gone to court, and a finding of fact happened that it was a campaign event, then that's one thing. However, as it's just a private settlement, then legally Huckabee still classifies it as a non-campaign event, and thus he's misusing funds.
He may face charges from misuse of funds as a result. You can't (as far as I know) make legal claims an event is not a campaign event in a lawsuit, then come to a private settlement and benefit from claiming it's a campaign event. You don't get to switch between them at will when it best suits you. Either he Perjured himself in his filing, or he's committing election finance malfeasance.
Hope he knows how to pray....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sooo
Way to not stick to principles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sooo
The article has nothing to do with 'defending' copyright or it's use, and everything to do with pointing out that Huckabee's attempt to defend his use of a song without paying the fees for doing so failed spectacularly, in large part due to his own claims/actions elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sooo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sooo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It just seemed that way? Did God petition to appear? If not it seems like a minor oversight compared to running the universe, but still sloppy.
K'Tetch wrote: "He may face charges from misuse of funds as a result. You can't (as far as I know) make legal claims an event is not a campaign event in a lawsuit, then come to a private settlement and benefit from claiming it's a campaign event. You don't get to switch between them at will when it best suits you. Either he Perjured himself in his filing, or he's committing election finance malfeasance.
"
Tsk, tsk, sir you are a doubter. Huckabee is sure to portray this as yet another instance where Bad Things Happen to Good People. God is with him, mere human laws are sent to let us all be victims of persecution and to gather in the votes of a righteous populace (and the judges they elect or otherwise appoint by blessing of a beneficent Lord, or as Mama June would say 'the sketti monster' where sketti is sketty & ketchup). Get with the program son, or you will never be in charge of this charming Southern town.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, the original story was about him portraying a woman being criticised for literally refusing to do her job as some kind of victim of religious persecution, so no doubt he'll find some way to spin it. The only problem is how many people are stupid enough to buy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...the lesser of two evils..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it's a campaign expense, and ruled as a part of his campaign, would he not then be able to counter-claim that it is therefore covered under the blanket licencing he most likely had?
If we're going to throw a bit of bible in there, I think the more appropriate one would be:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]