Pharrell Is Not At All Happy About Trump Using 'Happy' At His Rally... And He Might Actually Have A Case
from the didn't-see-that-coming dept
It happens basically every election cycle: at a political event or rally a politician that a musician dislikes uses one of that musician's songs to get the crowd excited. The musician gets upset and speaks out about it, and maybe even sends a legal threat letter. We've written about this many, many times before going back many years. And in most cases, the complaints are bullshit. Most event venues and and most competent campaigns have the appropriate blanket performance licenses from BMI and/or ASCAP, and that allows them to play whatever they want at the events, and the musicians really can't do much about it (other than complain publicly, which makes lots of news -- and which is why we're still amazed that campaigns don't first check to make sure they play music of musicians who support them).
But... there are some rare exceptions to this general rule, and not only have we found one, but it involves quite an impressive legal threat. It appears that on Saturday evening, just hours after 11 people were murdered in Pittsburgh, President Donald Trump decided to still hold a political rally, because when the choice is put in front of Trump between "appropriate silence" and "pointless spectacle that makes Trump feel worshiped" he will always choose the latter*. But at this highly inappropriate rally, Trump apparently played Pharrell Williams' incredibly upbeat earworm of a pop song "Happy."
* Hey, I get that some of you are going to be upset about this line, and will come up with all sorts of bullshit rationalizing and excuses for why the rally was appropriate, and all I will say to you is: make better life choices, and maybe, take a serious look at yourself in the mirror and ask "what the fuck happened to me?"
And, yes, such a song on such a day at such a stupid rally certainly feels inappropriate to anyone with even the slightest sense of decorum or empathy. But, for Williams, it went a bit further. Because, as reporter Eriq Gardner notes, unlike most popular musicians, Pharrell ditched ASCAP four years ago and moved all his music to Irving Azoff's "Global Music Rights" organization (GMR). GMR is kind of sketchy, and feels like a giant shakedown play for internet sites, but, ignoring that, what is known is that neither the venue nor the campaign have a license from GMR.
And that enabled Pharrell's lawyers to send quite the letter to President Trump. It doesn't just talk about the infringement, but the sheer insanity of playing such a song on such a day.
WOWZA. Check out this cease and desist sent by Pharrell Williams to Donald Trump for using “Happy” on “the day of the mass murder of 11 human beings,” as the letter puts it. pic.twitter.com/Mst83Vp0kO
— Eriq Gardner (@eriqgardner) October 29, 2018
If you can't read that, it says:
Dear Mr. Trump:
We write you on behalf of our client, Pharrell Williams, composer and performer of the hit song "Happy." On the day of the mass murder of 11 human beings at the hands of a deranged "nationalist," you played his song "Happy" to a crowd at a political event in Indiana. There was nothing "happy" about the tragedy inflicted on our country on Saturday and no permission was granted for your use of this song for this purpose.
Pharrell Williams is the owner of the copyright in "Happy," with the exclusive right to exploit same. Pharrell has not, and will not, grant you permission to publicly perform or otherwise broadcast or disseminate any of his music. The use of "Happy" without permission constitutes copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501. This also violates Pharrell's trademark rights under the Lanham Act.
I guess it's possible that Trump could claim fair use in the use of the song, but I doubt that would fly. The trademark claim seems incredibly unlikely, but if the lawyers actually pursued the copyright claim, it seems like they'd have a chance to make it stick.
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: campaigns, copyright, donald trump, happy, music, performance license, pharrell williams, political rallies, rallies, trademark
Companies: global music rights, gmr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Who puts on the event?
Why are they sending it to the President? Presumably, the people sponsoring and supporting the would either be the Republican party or the President's election campaign. They surely must put some firewall between the campaign and the candidate? Then again, they surely should pay attention to venue licenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who puts on the event?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who puts on the event?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who puts on the event?
Why are they sending it to the President? Presumably, the people sponsoring and supporting the would either be the Republican party or the President's election campaign.
It's the campaign, but it's pretty standard to send notifications about a campaign to the politician the campaign is about. That's fairly typical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He may be willing to accept a settlement, or he may refuse and demand a trial. Ultimately it's up to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you want Standing in a case and want to win it, you've gotta file against the correct entities.
This is no different than suing the Bride at a wedding because her wedding planner didn't get permission from the copyright holder to play the particular song used for the first dance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Assuming you’re correct, and Trump wasn’t responsible, the fact is that most people wouldn’t know who was responsible, but Trump, presumably, does. Therefore, sending a letter to Trump is probably the best way to find out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The letter was a publicity stunt. The law firm that sent it has the resources to find out exactly who is liable in a suit over it.
It's also a simple Cease and Desist letter, not a Filing.
So long as no Republican uses any of that guy's songs for public consumption, there will be no law suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At this point, it should be obvious who to send the C&D to, as they've said who they are.
If this didn't happen at THIS rally, then it would be the office of the person who's name is on the bill that they contact, in this case, the office of Donald Trump.
However, if Trump uses Williams' IP again in the future, this can result in lawsuit as they can definitely say that his campaign was previously made aware of the situation.
So... stunt, yes; but also sets some legal groundwork for potential future abuses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a C&D. Which is basically a warning that you'll be sued if you do it again.
Since it's such an obvious publicity stunt, expect ANYTHING by the performer to be flagged in the Do Not Use column.
I'm kinda wondering if the original performer even holds the copyright - as the article mentioned, it was pulled from ASCAP / BMI and turned over to a "shady" organization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As to Pharrell's ownership, the copyright was not pulled from ASCAP/BMI, the licensing rights were pulled. The licencing of music through an intermediary is done without relinquishing the copyright, rather you contract ASCAP/BMI to licence music on your behalf for a cut of the royalties.
GMR is an ASCAP/BMI alternative, and many including Techdirt believe that one of the purposes of it's formation was to once again renegotiate Internet Radio 'market rates'. That is the only shady thing going on.
Yes, its designed to draw eyeballs. Thats the point, he wants everyone to know he does not support Trump or his politics. It does serve as valid legal notice the the Donald Trump Presidential Campaign, 2020.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is no different than suing the Bride at a wedding because her wedding planner didn't get permission from the copyright holder to play the particular song used for the first dance.
Except, of course, that the Bride has no other relationship with the wedding planner, whereas Trump is quite literally in charge of the Trump election campaign. Best practice, of course, would be to direct the cease and desist letter to the Trump Campaign's legal department, but that's a courtesy rather than a legal requirement and directing it to the CEO equivalent is perfectly acceptable. Honestly, the entire cease and desist letter is basically a courtesy, and is barely related to any theoretical court filing.
Or in other words, this type of letter is normally a courtesy, sometimes a PR stunt, and never a legal document which contains specific information about real or theoretical court filings. So yes, suing "Donald Trump, Individual" won't go anywhere, but informing "Donold Trump, head of the Trump Election Campaign" that he does not have permission to make use of your work is a normal opening move (with no other legal significance).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 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: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Full letter URL
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5024418/Copy-of-Pharrell-Williams-cease-and-desist.pdf
(It really only adds a one-sentence demand to the twitter-pic of the first page... but hey, for completeness...)
Ehud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Full letter URL
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Between the campaign trail and the golf course, Obama and Trump obviously had little time left to be actually working and earning their pay. It's amazing that more people are not outraged when their president (or "not my president") turns out to be such a freeloader.
Hopefully it would not take a Constitutional Amendment (or even a pretty, young intern) to get the president to spend more time in his White House office and less on the golf course and campaign trail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about we don’t pass a law that would infringe upon the Constitutionally-protected right of an elected official to speak freely to the general public on practically any given subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that is a fair point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As if no other president had ever done such a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Even Obama-friendly ABC News called his guerilla campaigning "unparalleled in modern U.S. history."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obamas-campaign-blitz-hillary-clinton-histo ric/story?id=43249593
[ 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: Re: Re:
The word "guerilla" does not appear in that article.
However, you are correct that it describes Obama campaigning for Clinton as "unparalleled in modern U.S. history."
And right after that, it says this:
And this:
And the last time before 1988 that a president was term-limited out of office was Eisenhower.
So of course Obama campaigning for Clinton was "unparalleled in modern U.S. history" -- it was only the fourth time in the past 50 years that a president was term-limited out, and the other three times, the nominee for the president's party asked the president not to campaign for him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ButObama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about we pass a law that says a sitting President is barred from campaigning except the year of his re-election?
The 1st Amendment would like to have a word with you.
Obama started a terrible trend when he spent most of his last year in office traveling across the country in Air Force One campaigning for Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, and this past year Trump has been as bad or worse with his constant barnstorming on the public dime.
Sure. And the proper response is to (a) call that out and (b) make your voice heard at the ballot box. Not pass an unconstitutional law that restricts freedom of expression, no matter which party is in control.
Hopefully it would not take a Constitutional Amendment (or even a pretty, young intern) to get the president to spend more time in his White House office and less on the golf course and campaign trail.
Of course, there are some who will argue that having the President doing non-Presidential things... may actually be good for the country in the long run....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for the C&D, it is surprising that counsel does not appear to have considered either the proper legal party (as already noted almost certainly a corporate entity) or the possibility that the event was arguably for a dual purpose (I.e., to rally voters and communicate with the public on a matter of national importance...the latter raising the question of 28 USC 1498 applying).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That said, the ignorance of how the legal system in the US work, from arrests, bail, civil filings, etc. that I see here daily is, to coin a phrase, "deplorable".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The event was set up weeks ago, and the playlist probably hasn't been gone over since.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm suggesting that the GOP does/did not care.
I'll try that "oversight" excuse next time my ignorant self indulgence causes me to "overlook" something that I should've known was important to the populace but I really don't give a shit about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh please...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh please...
Yeah, the one that says what kind of person you are, what you care about and to whom you show empathy - which apparently many politicians lack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"A shame there is no option to flag the article as “abusive/trolling/spam”."
Indeed, I had to scroll up to the top of the page to re-check to see who wrote the article, as it didn't seem at all like the Mike Masnick I once knew to be so brazenly attacking his own fans and supporters like that. But unless this page was somehow hacked, those comments were indeed his. Sad.
Maybe it's a symptom of living in the Age of Trump, when civil, level-headed people are increasingly becoming more and more uncivil.
Also, it's generally unwise to reveal that you're being upset by critical comments. That's the very thing that trolls hunger for more than life itself. Of course we've all heard that a million times over, and sorry, but it's still worth repeating. Injecting snarky trollbait comments into the body of an article is more likely to draw flack than silence dissenters.
While that's often the whole intent of baiting the audience, and a common tactic of young upstarts to get a flurry of page views and instant popularity (or notoriety, either way the pays the same), it's simply out of place for a respected author with an established history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A shame there is no option to flag the article as “abusive/trolling/spam”.
Is it really?
As for the C&D, it is surprising that counsel does not appear to have considered either the proper legal party (as already noted almost certainly a corporate entity)
Sending a C&D to the politician for a campaign is not surprising. Any lawsuit (if there is one, which there may not be) would certainly be against the correct entity.
the possibility that the event was arguably for a dual purpose (I.e., to rally voters and communicate with the public on a matter of national importance...the latter raising the question of 28 USC 1498 applying).
OMG. You're not serious, are you? This would get laughed out of court so fast...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Playing unlicensed music at his rally is just icing on the cake. I hope the RNC gets sued hard. Our political leaders need to be held to a higher standard than the public they supposedly serve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
TD would be wise to stick with what it has some measure of expertise in, and to avoid partisan political statements that denigrate members of its community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ButbutbutBengazi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which is of course ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why would anyone be happy after having heard of such a horrific needless slaughter of innocent lives. Because they are demented soul less little people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People are killed every day, and it is tragic, every time. What about those people, who aren't killed in so-called mass shootings?
What about them?
What is the line? How many people have to die in a place at a time for it to be inappropriate?
If you can't tell when it is and when it is not appropriate to hold a celebratory rally, you don't belong in politics. Full stop. It does no good to play the trollish game you are playing, other than make you look like a rationalizing asshole.
It is not merely the fact that people were killed, but the facts surrounding the murder. Most people get that. Rationalizing assholes don't.
Don't be the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"You don't belong in politics" is the history of the Trump campaign, isn't it? He and his followers feed off stuff like that. There's no such thing as bad publicity anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does Mr. Williams believes his music can never be played again, since it dishonors the memory of those murdered?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There *is* a problem....
Automobiles, suicide by gun, alcohol, drug ODs...heart disease, cancer....
But if you agree we are going to share this outbreak of terrorism, it is nothing to be happy about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There *is* a problem....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
* Hey, I get that some of you are going to be upset about this line, and will come up with all sorts of bullshit rationalizing and excuses for why the rally was appropriate, and all I will say to you is: make better life choices, and maybe, take a serious look at yourself in the mirror and ask "what the fuck happened to me?"
this is exactly the sort of tone modern media needs to start taking towards trump supporters non-stop, because holy shit, look what you idiots did to the country
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't even go there.
That's just how you offend my liberal values. I haven't even gotten started about issues of self interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't even go there.
What happened to me? I was alienated by people who will call me all sorts of foul names for not supporting each and everyone of their candidates or policies.
And do you also criticize all the people who attack non-Trump/non-GOP candidates? Because that happens on both sides of the traditional political divide.
I was alienated by people who embrace censorship when they think it suits them.
Like Trump calling for media to be shut down, or costs increased, as punishment for covering him accurately?
I was alienated by people who practice racism disguised as identity politics.
Really?
I was alienated by people that advocate Jim Crow style lynchings. I was alienated by people that advocate political violence against people they will casually hang a dire label on.
Like the Proud Boys?
I mean, look, you can point to people like that on either side. There are crazy, stupid and violent people all over the place. The sick thing is when you define your own political views on hating just one side acting dumb. That suggests it has nothing to do with the reasons you state, and everything to do with rationalizing your own silly views.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He points out in addition the inappropriateness however that isn't against the law
If the campaign were to use the song or any of his songs again without licensing the response might indeed come in the form of a lawsuit. One that might be very difficult to fight given the cease and desist letter for the previous use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#OrangeManBad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I hate trademark bullshit unless it's against someone I dislike" - Mike Masnick
Huh? Where have I ever said that. Indeed in this very post, I point out that the trademark claim is clearly bullshit. And, in the past, we supported Trump's claims when other artists (who were covered by ASCAP/BMI) made similar complaints. In this case, that's not the case.
That's all. It is not a commentary on Trump to point out which side has a stronger legal argument. The commentary about Trump being an inconsiderate asshole is entirely separate from the legal analysis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Apparently it doesn't matter. If you didn't say it, the Trumpers will be more than happy to make shit up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it?
Sure, the President was the speaker of honor, but it seems that perhaps the letter should be directed at the organization that put on the rally, instead of making a political statement and sending it to the president himself.
Also, if the campaign, RNC, or whatever, licenses it through GMR, does the artist have any say? Seems like that's not the case with other "rights" organizations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get real, they don't. The establishment doesn't like him because he isn't part of it (that and he is a fucking idiot.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They like him for the fact that he will give them conservative judges on federal courts. Combined with the (possibly soon-to-be former) full control of Congress, the GOP currently controls practically all three branches of the federal government.
Besides: If they did not like him, they would be doing to him what they did to Obama after the 2010 midterms. I have yet to see them stonewall and hamstring the entirety of Trump’s agenda regardless of what it is, so…yeah…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]