this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024
1026 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19132 readers
4028 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Former President Donald Trump has drawn the ire of another musical group for unauthorized use of their music. This time, it's the Foo Fighters.

Trump played the band's song "My Hero" when he welcomed former independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to the stage at a rally in Arizona on Friday[...]

[...]The spokesperson added that any royalties received as a result of the Trump campaign's use of the song will be donated to the campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Tim Walz.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Thisiswritteningerman@midwest.social 88 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Is there not one? Seems like I, a person, can't just publicly use a song for my own gains if an artist really wanted to stop me. A politician, also a person (albeit a wealthy one) is still targetable by the artist right.

Like sure, rich asshole just gets a slap on the wrist fine and it gives their lawyers more more to do. But there is a law about this right?

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 78 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It is a law. That’s why he keeps getting taken to court to pay up.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 36 points 2 months ago

It is a law. That’s why he keeps getting taken to court to pay up.

Well I'm sure this slap on the wrist will be the one that causes him to mend his ways.

[–] Godnroc@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Generally the person who recorded the music would have a performance copyright on that recording. This is often sold, licensed, or otherwise given to another group to distribute that recording such as through CDs or streaming. That same performance can also frequently be licensed for use in videos, commercials, public displays, etc.

If the campaign purchased a license from the distributor to play the recording at a public event, there really isn't any consultation with the original artist. Hence, an artist's music being used for something they do not agree with.

If they did not purchase a license, that's when the lawyers are unleashed.

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I used to think the same, but ASCAP has a very nice, easy to understand page about licensing for political events that is super informative.

I posted this up a level, but being as you seemed to have a better understanding about this than most other commenters, I wanted to post this as a reply to you too so you would see it.

If the campaign events are properly licensed, can the campaign still be criticized or even sued by an artist for playing their song at an event?

Yes. If an artist is concerned that their music has been associated with a political campaign, he or she may be able to take legal action even if the campaign has the appropriate performance licenses. The campaign could potentially be in violation of other laws, unrelated to music licensing:

The artist’s Right of Publicity, which in many states provides image protection for famous people or artists The Lanham Act, which covers confusion or dilution of a trademark (such as a band or artist name) through its unauthorized use False Endorsement, where use of the artist's identifying work implies that the artist supports a product or candidate

As a general rule, a campaign should be aware that, in most cases, the more closely a song is tied to the "image" or message of the campaign, the more likely it is that the recording artist or songwriter of the song could object to the song's usage by the campaign.

[–] yeather@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I believe there has been a ruling on this though, it came up back in 2016. Trump used another artists music at a rally, and the artist couldn’t sue but could force the Trump campaign to stop using their discography. Only after if they used it again they could sue.

[–] anon6789@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

If you're thinking of the Neil Young case, it seems Neil dropped it, possibly after a settlement, but maybe not, as he doesn't sound mad in the article.

As the bit I posted said, if the artist objects, the campaign can't play it anymore, but Trump and Co ignored multiple cease and desist orders, and that is what brought the lawsuit. So we are both correct.

There's still a pending lawsuit over a campaign video that used Electric Avenue, but that hasn't gone to court yet.