Osler's Razor

I know nothing about intellectual property law, but as a musician, I think I would be pretty appalled if an organization or individual did something like this, legal or not. I'd be pretty happy if Heart decided to use their free speech and creative content rights to write a song about Palin, which I'm sure would probably be less than flattering given the current situation. Artistic expression is a balance of competing interests, and you can't expect to blatantly ignore some of those interests without a backlash, legal or otherwise.
 

(1) This is what happens when artists sell the rights to their songs to the big recording firms -- those firms get to "manage" their rights by licensing the songs, regardless of what the artists wish.

(2) In a perfect world, however, yes, artists would be able to, under their powers of free association, prevent this. Hell, if the Boy Scouts can use those rights to discriminate against homosexuals, surely artists can use them to prevent unwanted political speech.

(3) Apparently, Sarah Palin has never seen a barracuda.
 

yes
 

What I like about all of this is that four years ago the Bush campaign used some song by Brooks & Dunn (it is horrible) about America something and whatnot at the Republican convention. Brook & Dunn also played at several Bush campaign events in 2004 and another one of their songs was used in 2000 by Bush.

Obama used the same exact song at this years Democratic convention right after he gave his speech in the football stadium.

So, I'm sure Brooks & Dunn threw a fit right. Well, not exactly, they said this, "Seems ironic that the same song Bush used at the Republican Convention last election would be used by Obama and the Democrats now. ­Very flattering to know our song crossed parties and potentially inspires all Americans.”

Wish every artist could be as mature as that. But I guess that for Heart, using their song to advertise some Honda minivan is ok, and doesn't constitute a "soulless, corporate nature" in the same way that Palin does.

Get real. Grow up. Your revolution is dead Ann and Nancy!!!
 

I seem to recall that this happened to the Republicans in 2004 too. Or am I going crazy?

Anyway, I think musicians should have control over their music to a certain extent. Some of it, let's face it, they're just not going to be able to police. But I don't think this situation and their reaction is beyond reason. If you use someone's song or artwork, there's an undercurrent of "the person who wrote this song/made this artwork supports what I'm doing with it." They can't control if Sarah Palin plays that song at home, but I think it's fair if they don't want it played as she walks on and off the public stage.

There will always be people who feel things more strongly than others. And there are situations that bring out strong feelings even in the most placid of people.
 

Here's the legal answer: The Wilsons and their publisher have no recourse if indeed the McCain campaign paid for the rights to use the song. Just as the Wilsons (and other artists) can't stop bars or bar bands or radio stations or music services from playing their tunes, the Wilsons and other artists can't stop McCain or anyone else who pays for rights.

In Europe, the answer might be different. In Europe, the creator retains "moral rights" and can object to use by third parties of which it does not approve. This definitely applies to the visual arts. I am not sure about music though....

Personally, I think the Wilsons should be happy to have a song that is over 30 years old being played by a National political campaign.

The funniest thing politicization of a song HAS to be the way we've all turned Springsteen's "Born in the USA" into this pro-America rah rah tune. I guess most people aren't listening to the lyrics or just don't care.

Springsteen himself seems to have accepted this and lets everyone just shout along when he plays it live.

I also think McCain's campaign should bag the Heart crap and just play the other two "theme" songs "Johnny B. Goode" and John Rich's "Raising McCain."

--on a totally different note, I saw a post on the Hardball Times blog associating a song with each of the 30 MLB teams. Hilarious stuff if you're a baseball fan.
 

I don't know how you guys can think that the artist should be able to police who uses the song AFTER they give up that right.

It would be up to the agency or person that licensed the song to the McCain campaign to decide if they want the money or not. If THEY have policies in place they can prevent it. Or the artist can take actions preventing it. Of course Heart could have written it into their licensing contract that the song could not be used for Republican purposes or even campaigns in general. They also could have written it into the contract to where they have veto over licensing.

But if you ask me, once they put the song out there and want the world to listen, they can't complain when someone pays them to hear it.

As for who should control the songs once they are produced (record company, producer, artist), that is another question/argument.
 

If an artist sells the rights to his/her song and another person/entity pays the fees to use that song, tough cookies on the artist. One of the dangers of putting yourself out there as an artist is that people will hear, interpret and use your music anyway that they want to.

"And I feel like I'm naked in front of the crowd
Cause these words are my diary, screaming out loud
And I know that you'll use them, however you want to"--Anna Nalick, "Breathe" (lyrics)
 

No. We as a society want ideas and inventions out in the world, and through IP law, we have set up a system that provides an incentive for artists or inventors to do just that. Artists or creators shouldn't get to collect the checks and then yank back the idea or invention because you don't like how it gets used.

Lane- I reject your perfect world. You have neglected to mention that your perfect world places the artist's associational rights (assuming that the right in question is even really implicated) over the political party's right of free expression.
 

I think IPLAW Guy came closest to the crux of this debate, the recognition, or lack thereof, of an artist's Moral Rights (many a t.v. commercial has made me wish that the US recognized Moral Rights). My International IP law class delved into this, and it got pretty ugly, sort of capitalists vs. artists. I think it is ripe for discussion.

I also agree that this is a testament to how out of touch some (most) politicians are with what is cool and what makes a good theme song! Gold Dust Woman by Fleetwood Mac would have been much cooler. The Clintons could offer these folks some pointers on cool, Nina Simone, John Coltrane and Joni Mitchell = cool, Brooks and Dunn = not cool.
 

my bad. I meant in general, not if they sold it.
 

I think there is a difference between an artist being unable to control the interpretation of his or her work (which I agree with) and an artist not wanting their work to be used in a commercial. And a political convention and their ads are nothing more than a commercial. An artist should have the right to keep their song from being used as a marketing tool for someone else’s benefit.

To use the Born In the USA example... Bruce has no say one people using his song to bolster their patriotism despite the lyrics being pretty bitter. And, as you say, he’s okay with that. What he wasn’t okay with was Reagan using his song on his campaign, and he tried to stop him from doing so.

From an artistic standpoint, I think the artist should have the right to keep their song from being used as a commercial. Many bands have done so. From a commercial standpoint, I think the owner of the song has the right to contract or not to contract with anyone and can refuse to sell their song to a particular party. Why not? Why must we abridge their freedom of contract and force an artist to sell their song to benefit a group they oppose?

That said, screw Heart. They sold their song early and often, and its been used to sell just about every product under the song. For Heart to suddenly turn around and claim some sort of artistic integrity rings pretty hollow. Once you turn your song into a commodity, there’s no going back.

Heart should take a page from Moby's playbook and use the profits from selling the song to donate to the Democrats. Put your money where your mouth is.
 

I'm with Poseur, up until the "screw heart" thing. I love barracuda. It is an awesome song. I can get a "perfect" on it on guitar hero!

On a personal note, I hope all is well at the Razor HQ.


Love,
Matt
 

Ged, I do think associational rights of artists ought to trump political party's expressive rights. First off, individual rights should trump those of organizations. Second, political parties will be able to get their message across without co-opting the IP of others in doing so. So free speech isn't really impacted, but an artist's associational rights definitely are.
 

Yes.

RFDIII

BTW, Bush wanted to use "Born in the U.S.A." and Springsteen wisely refused. (Bush clearly had never read the lyrics.)

RRL -- so does the Boss need to get over the "revolution" as well?
 

Has anyone ever read these lyrics:

So this ain't the end - I saw you again today
I had to turn my heart away
Smiled like the Sun - kisses for everyone
And tales - it never fails!

You lying so low in the weeds
I bet you gonna ambush me
You'd have me down on my knees
Now wouldn't you, Barracuda?

Back over Time we were all trying for free
Met up with porpoise and me
No right no wrong you're selling a Song - a name
Whisper game

If the real thing don't do the trick
You better make up something quick
You gonna burn into the wick
Aren't you, Barracuda?

"Sell me sell you" the porpoise said
Dive down deep now save my head
You... I think you got the blues too.

All that night and all the next
Swam without looking back
Made for the western pools -silly fools


If the real thing don't do the trick No!
You better make up something quick
You gonna burn into the wack
Barra-Barracuda