John Oliver's Story On Campaign Music And Copyright Is... Wrong
from the this-again? dept
Yes, let's start with the obvious: John Oliver's "Last Week Tonight" is a comedy program meant to entertain and is not meant to be journalism. It's a point that Oliver himself has made repeatedly. But others disagree with him, pointing out that his show regularly does actual journalism. The fact that he's hired a bunch of journalists on his team kind of says a lot. Also, according to multiple people I know who have been interviewed for stories on his show, while his focus is on making things funny, his team also spends a lot of time making sure they get the details right. It's why we so frequently end up posting his videos on stories that relate to Techdirt topics -- because they're not only entertaining, but are also generally dead on in accuracy. It's why we've posted his videos on net neutrality, corporate sovereignty, encryption, surveillance, civil asset forfeiture and patent trolls.But this past weekend, he not only covered last week's Republican National Convention, but also, separately, the fact that representatives for both Queen and the Rolling Stones complained publicly about the RNC using their music in prominent parts of the convention. Oliver got together a bunch of famous musicians (many of whom have protested politicians using their music) to sing a song telling politicians not to use their songs, claiming that it's "stealing" and unauthorized because the politicians didn't reach out to get permission.
There are instances, occasionally, where politicians ridiculously don't have such a license, but it's pretty rare. And there may be a few other narrow exceptions, such as if there's an implied endorsement by the musicians, but that's rarely the case.
Unfortunately, the song from John Oliver and friends ignores all of that, even stating directly at one point that for a politician to use music, you first have to call the publisher. That's wrong. ASCAP and BMI already have taken care of that.
Perhaps this isn't a huge deal, but one would hope that Oliver would actually get the basic facts right on this too, because every election season this issue comes up and spreading more misinformation about it doesn't help.
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, john oliver, licensing, music, performance license, political campaigns, politicians
Companies: ascap, bmi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Maybe it's time for that overhaul?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pick your targets better
To be sure with copyright constantly trumpeted as being 'To protect the artists(the public can get bent)', the idea that an artist could have no say in who uses their music, even if it's someone or some group that they vehemently disagree with or flat out loathe does seem rather contradictory, but such is music licencing, and if certain individuals, musician or otherwise have a problem with that they they need to address mandatory music licencing, not the people they don't like using their music after they pay for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pick your targets better
If they want ASCAP and BMI to withhold licenses for politicians they don't like to use their works without their approval they'll have to bake that into their agreements with those agencies. Until then, they need to stop whining.
I appreciate that they don't want to be seen to endorse politicians they don't like, fair enough, but they're going about expressing their disapproval in entirely the wrong way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pick your targets better
Copyright was originally intended (and really should be) about wresting works away from the creator and forcing them into the public domain so anyone can use them.
Copyright law provided a limited time period during which the author has some control and monetization over the work. Copyright, to get back to the real purposes, needs to be a set number of years, not a nebulous life + 50, or 70, or 90, or whatever politicians get paid for that sessions. Ideally, works continue to come up for renewal, but renewals shouldn't be automatic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A supposed short copyright actually helps illustrate the meat of the matter.
The matter remains that Mr. Mercury would b marginalized by Trump / RNC policy so using his work to promote such a platform would be regarded in bad taste. (Then again -- and I'm guessing here -- Freddie, were he alive, might have enjoyed the irony, so long as Trump didn't actually win.)
Though, also, bad taste seems to run epidemic in polotics in general, let alone the GOP and its bedfellows.
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought so...
The musicians can't stop you from using their song, but they can certainly give you bad publicity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I thought so...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I thought so...
oh, wait, i forgot about greedy heirs, how will they be incentivized to, um, to um sponge off more of their parents creativity, or something...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I thought so...
The real amusing part of the whole video is the choices of music & performers by the RNC. Queen? Rolling Stones? Can't they at least support _American_ musicians? "Can't get no satisfaction"?? Really?? Was that a prediction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like saying that just because you paid for that dinner..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correct me if I am wrong here, but I thought the ASCAP or BMI licenses covered music being played at the specific venue only and that a completely different license must be negotiated for the rights to play the song on a TV broadcast.
Now I realize that there wasn't a "RNC Convention" show per se, but I would assume that the RNC provided some of the video feeds, especially during the speeches, to eliminate the need for multiple cameras everywhere. So wouldn't the RNC be considered a producer of the video and therefore without the a fair use defense, like the news organizations reporting on the event would have?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This covers the actual RNC convention gathering.
ASCAP covers transmission via broadcasting. This covers televised broadcasts.
If the RNC got both licenses, then they were covered, no matter how the artists feel about "their music" being used.
Sadly, its not "their music" for many of them of course, they signed their copyrights in most of their performances away to the record labels long before they became popular. If more of these artists understood this, they would understand how fucked up the music biz really is and might actually be able to start coming together to change it.
Still, they'd never want to let go of that life+ heat death of the universe term on copyrights of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's the good thing when selling your soul:
Your signature in blood means what's written in the contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the embarrassment that needs addressing...
Really, these guys should have enough interns and enough clout to be able to contact the artist or his / her representation to make sure he / she personally won't object.
...or, of course, risk scandal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think the embarrassment that needs addressing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The last time[I]saw an artist crying actually have any impact on a campaign?
But generally, using an artist's work without their permission will make a politician look like he thinks he's privileged, that he can take the little folk for granted. Even in the cases of popular music artists who aren't really all that little.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The last time[I]saw an artist crying actually have any impact on a campaign?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The last time[I]saw an artist crying actually have any impact on a campaign?
I'd rather Bush interpreted the question as his favorite book for kids (rather than his favorite book when he was a kid) than consider the implications that he had literacy problems or just lied for sake of lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think the embarrassment that needs addressing...
Plus of course the purpose of copyright is not and has never been to prevent usage by someone in some cause that the creator disagrees with. It is designed to protect their financial/commercial interest only.
Even in the extreme case where one might successfullly argue that the usage had damaged the artist's public image and hence impacted his/her sales it would be a case under trademark or publicity rights law and most definitely NOT under copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poe of the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Poe of the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Poe of the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Playing a song is not an endorsement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Playing a song is not an endorsement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Playing a song is not an endorsement
The artist is not required to say anything, and the whole point of the article is to point out that in most cases the artists can't truthfully claim the use is unauthorized, illegal or infringement. They're more than welcome to yell from the rooftops that the use is not approved by them, they hate the person using it and the song means the opposite of what the person using it thinks. But that's all.
Having said that, I'm constantly amazing by politicians using songs without first checking to see if the artist is going to publicly shame them as a result. Some clearly don't even read the lyrics beyond the catchy main chorus line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Playing a song is not an endorsement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Playing a song is not an endorsement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confusing "legal" with "right"
Not sure that TechDirt article was written by a lawyer. Couldn't find the attribution, but it sure reads like a legal shill working for Trump.
The opinion of the creator should count. The fans like music because they agree with the creator's message, and the creator has every right to be angry when the music is used to fluff up propaganda. Even angrier when the creator knows the propaganda is a passel of lies (AKA "Trump said it").
Trump has ridden free publicity to the door of the White House, but now he wants to block anyone else from using free publicity against him? If hypocrisy was fatal, the so-called Republican Party would have died out a long time ago. Con Man Donald has NO connection to Honest Abe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confusing "legal" with "right"
From the Berne Convention:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confusing "legal" with "right"
Not sure that TechDirt article was written by a lawyer. Couldn't find the attribution, but it sure reads like a legal shill working for Trump.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah.
The opinion of the creator should count.
Sure. It counts for some things. But not for whether or not you can play their songs at an event.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confusing "legal" with "right"
Further, I don't know how this sounds remotely like shilling for Trump, regardless of how much you dislike Trump or the facts about copyright. A Trump lawyer could shill or not all they want, the musicians have zero case. They are certainly free to say how much they dislike having their music used. I mean, I'd probably be irritated.
The attribution is on the immediate left,with the posting time, for every article. In this case, it is Mike Masnick, the man who "hates it when copyright law is enforced", according to the wisdom of some Annoynymous Dude. So you will probably find him shilling for the public against wholly ridiculous copyright laws which benefit large corporations and rarely benefit creators much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confusing "legal" with "right"
I think it is funnier that candidates play music without first understanding the meaning of the song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confusing "legal" with "right"
Nothing in this article claims otherwise, just like in the many other articles Techdirt has written on this topic over the years.
"The opinion of the creator should count."
Legally it should not count. That would be a terrible slippery slope to head down.
"The fans like music because they agree with the creator's message, and the creator has every right to be angry when the music is used to fluff up propaganda."
Thank you Captain Obvious. Nobody here has ever claimed otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confusing "legal" with "right"
No, it sure doesn't. What is neither right nor moral is to sell the rights, then go around pretending that you didn't do so and accusing others of dishonesty when it in actuality it is you that is being dishonest.
That may not be "illegal", but it sure isn't right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confusing "legal" with "right"
No, he has not cause he cluelessly has sold his rights to the music industry and now has to suffer the consequences. Tough luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confusing "legal" with "right"
And it does count.
"The fans like music because they agree with the creator's message"
This is a very shaky assumption. Lots of fans of particular music are fans despite not agreeing with the message. Lots of fans of particular songs don't even understand what the songs are actually saying (e.g. "Born to Run", "Every Breath You Take", etc.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Confusing "legal" with "right"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confusing "legal" with "right"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the list of stupid behaviors indulged in a typical campaign rally were sorted by potential for negative PR, it's possible "serving Nabisco crackers when the Nabisco CEO hates your guts" might appear somewhere on the list. But ... I can't imagine why anyone other than the gruntled CEO would care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WeirdAlGotItRight
Mike, it's not about legal entitlement, it's about respecting the artist and their contributions, something Weird Al gets right and most politicians don't get at all - you know that little word with so much power: respect!
I would hate to live in a world where every artist would need to consult IP lawyers before they they wrote their first song, before they even had a label's backing.
It's about a lack of respect for Artists.
Those in power don't give a damn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WeirdAlGotItRight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Weird_Al%22_Yankovic#Negative
Also, while I generally try to respect the art and the work that went into it, I don't think there's any reason to respect how the artist feels about how I use the art. If you bought a painting and hung it in your bathroom, then found out that the artist hated it when his painting was in bathrooms, would you have the same reaction? What if you bought it in order to burn it? Surely that would hurt the artist's feelings.
You make things, you express things; sometimes they get used or interpreted in ways you can't imagine. Sometimes they get used in ways that would shock you, or that you would despise. I can't see that it matters when it's art any more than I would care that an architect objects to someone filming pornography in a house he designed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WeirdAlGotItRight
After selling their work I don't care what the artist thinks I will do what I want with the content other than copy it and try to profit off the copies.
If the content was leased then the artist might have some say in who it is leased to. However in the case of music the recording studios bought the work from the artist and can/will lease it to anyone with money. Law also forces the music of be licensed in certain cases.
Artist can scream all they want about respect for themselves but unless they retain full ownership of the music they can go blow it out their twitter account all day long.
Now is it a nice courtesy to gain support from the artist, sure. But it is not required under law today. So until they show more respect for themselves b retaining ownership control I will have no respect for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WeirdAlGotItRight
If you choose to respect an artist less because of their business decisions, good or ill, that's your decision, but it doesn't have any bearing on how we should treat the usage of a work of art or how the artist feels about that usage. Personally, my respect for an artist or their works has little relationship to how I perceive their business acumen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WeirdAlGotItRight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WeirdAlGotItRight
But this article clearly is about legal entitlement, and when artists falsely claim it. Respecting the artist and their contributions is a completely different story (one Techdirt entirely agrees with you on). Being respected doesn't allow you to make legally false claims. Why is that so hard for many to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WeirdAlGotItRight
For example, if I build and sell a house, should I then, out of "respect", get to say who gets to use it afterwards? If "artists" get to, then why not everyone else? Lemme guess, "artists" are "special", right? Pfft.
(aside: Some builders tried that by putting in legal deed restrictions that prohibited their houses from ever being sold to a black person, for example. Luckily, that kind of crap was outlawed.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WeirdAlGotItRight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WeirdAlGotItRight
It's hard to respect artists who willingly sign oppressive contracts and bitch about their terms when it's too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WeirdAlGotItRight
Our entire society is all about circumventing informed consent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WeirdAlGotItRight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WeirdAlGotItRight
Those in power don't give a damn.
and it is up to the voters to vote in someone who does.
The fact is that not everything that is immoral is illegal - and with good reason.
The moment you start to confuse the two then you are in worse trouble than you could possibly arrive at by simply not being very moral.
As C.S. Lewis wrote “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
where are the journalists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oliver should know better...
Oliver is usually good about nuance, but not this time. If can pull in that many music stars on short notice, surely he also has the resources to talk to an IP attorney about how blanket licenses work. This is my first disappointment with Oliver.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oliver should know better...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
any refunds?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: any refunds?
You're assuming ASCAP actually paid them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not exactly.
I saw the segment last night, and not once was I given the impression that the campaigns were engaging in illegal behavior, despite not knowing about the licensing deals at all. (Though I would have liked to find out about that in the segment.) The song did get a bit heavy handed with using "stealing", but I thought it was a bit of deliberate satire, and, if not, I've learned long ago to read between the lines whenever anybody talks about theft of IP.
The artists in question are unhappy about unwillingly "supporting" candidates they don't like, understandably. Yes, their deals with the record labels and publishers enable this, but they put enormous pressure on artists to sign up. Many don't know what they're getting into. The record labels prey on artists, yet people keep blaming the victims.
So, they can't pursue legal action. They can't revoke their license. What can they do? Make an appeal to emotion to a receptive audience, which might make politicians think twice before using a song without the artist's support, or potentially face some negative publicity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not exactly.
The simple fact of the matter is you don't have to sign your life away. You can create your music yourself and put in on itunes and cut out the middle men. If you do sell your soul, don't bitch about what happens to that music down the road. It's no longer yours, it's the labels!!!
Simple fact of the matter is the Artists rarely make anything from Album or song sales anyway. They make their money Touring and selling merchandise.
Once you sell your Art, be it a SONG, PAINTING, STATUE, whatever, it's no longer yours. I can have my dog crap on it. Hang it in the bathroom. Burn it. What you say no longer matters and I could care less.
John Oliver finally got a topic completely WRONG!!! How that happened?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not exactly.
Still far too many idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not exactly.
Say, what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not exactly.
While the word 'stealing' has different interpretations depending on which side of the argument you're on, the 'sue', as in bring legal action, does not. It didn't seem satirical to me, it seemed ignorant. I'm a huge fan of Oliver's work, and Last Week Tonight in particular, but this seems like a real clanger to me.
"Many don't know what they're getting into. The record labels prey on artists, yet people keep blaming the victims."
Between Michael Bolton, Cyndi Lauper, John Mellencamp, the Wilson sisters, Sheryl Crow and the others, there are many, many decades of music industry experience involved here. They're not they noobs you speak of, they know exactly what the situation is. I wouldn't call them victims either, they're the very lucky winners of the music industry lottery.
"So, they can't pursue legal action. They can't revoke their license. What can they do? Make an appeal to emotion to a receptive audience, which might make politicians think twice before using a song without the artist's support, or potentially face some negative publicity."
That's exactly what they can do, and if Oliver's story had not used the words 'unauthorized', 'illegal', or 'sue', it would've been perfect. I loved it, it was hilarious even though I knew those aspects were completely wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not exactly.
Yeah, they are the ones who generally get at least some royalties out of the bizarre calculations of various collections societies. The far greater number of "lesser artists", on whose work performance royalties are paid, but who are "too small" to be paid themselves, effectively additionally subsidize the big names. Hm, who are the victims here. Do many of the big ticket winners ever whine much about that?
Never mind some of these acts could buy back their copyrights. That doesn't alter mechanical rights, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not exactly.
At the same time, the article is right. It would not "stealing" even if copyright infringement were stealing, which it ain't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well then if the law doesn't matter
Tell me again why I should give a shit about it being "illegal" to download and provide for download music and movies online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On another note his wife is a legit humanitarian and military hero. Not to mention a dirty Republican who are always his punchlines because they can't figure out common sense. Quite an odd couple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So...
If you're going to suggest that they didn't then you might want to cite your source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think they are out right wrong...
They are incorrect in the part that they are unauthorized at all. I am not going to dig into this because my sanity can't take the hit of the record label logic or anything like that but I will give them the benefit of the doubt.
As for them not doing the background work, eh, everyone is gonna screw up from time to time, they are however, more right, more often, than the big media places like FOX and MSNBC. THEY out right lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stance on Right of Publicity
Do those alter the perception of whether or not John Oliver's rant is misguided?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stance on Right of Publicity
No. The publicity rights claims are very fact specific and almost certainly DO NOT apply to cases like this. The only cases where it might matter is if the music is used in a manner that directly suggests an endorsement by the musician. If they're just playing it at a venue there's no publicity rights claim at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dis 'em hell yeah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dis 'em hell yeah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dis 'em hell yeah
I don't think that was his intention (I prefer to think he was honestly misguided on this), but if it was then I would absolutely call him out on that kind of bullshit.
You don't fight lies by telling more lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stealing the Music
It must be this way that the artists get that word out that they didn't authorize this and have no belief in or support for these politicians who are playing their music at these conventions and rallies.
If the politicians would only ask the musicians if they don't mind, most of the artists might allow them and that is the way it should be written in law. ASCAP / BMI should not be allowed to lease the music politically without artists' consent because of the automatic inference of association that has.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some clarification...
It's very disingenuous and insulting for the Republicans to play a song written by a gay man (Freddie Mercury) when their policies are so anti-gay.
But this goes back to the idea of politicians using songs that sound good without knowing the meaning of the song. Does anyone remember when Reagan used "Born in the USA" during his campaign without realizing it was a Vietnam-protest song?
And even though Freddie Mercury may have passed away, the rest of Queen can certainly complain about using their song for political purposes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some clarification...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sync licenses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the Horse's Mouth...
http://www.ascap.com/~/media/files/pdf/advocacy-legislation/political_campaign.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the Horse's Mouth...
Argh. People keep pointing to this and they're confused (or wrong) about it. ASCAP is saying that there may be other causes of action under Lanham Act or publicity rights. As I said in the article and again in the comments, those situations are very fact specific and *very* rare and DO NOT apply to merely using music at a political event.
So. No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]