A British newspaper notes that
The Rolling Stones have asked presumptive Republican US presidential nominee Donald Trump to stop playing their songs at his campaign events.
After effectively sealing the Republican nomination on Tuesday night, Mr Trump played the Stones hit Start Me Up as he left the stage following a victory speech.
However, the British rock band said in a statement on Wednesday: “The Rolling Stones have never given permission to the Trump campaign to use their songs and have requested that they cease all use immediately.”
I won't give the url! (Apparently, nobody's heard of Google yet ) I'm hoping to be sued; and I'll make a lot of money, for nothing!
Hey, Mick, Keith (and however many of you dumbshits are still alive…): You wrote, performed, recorded and released to the public some pretty good songs. (I like your earlier stuff… But that's probably just me.) Most public performances of your songs bring you money… Unless you released them via subscription only, that's all you get: You have no further "rights".
I'm reminded of the Crissie Hynde/Rush Limbaugh kerfluffle:
The opening bass riff from this song "was something that Tony Butler used to play just as a warm-up," said Steve Churchyard, the engineer for the record. It has been used as the opening theme 'bumper' for Rush Limbaugh's popular American talk radio program since 1984, during his days at KFBK in Sacramento, California. He didn't use the lyrics, but Limbaugh said in 2011 that he chose it because of the irony of a conservative using such an anti-conservative song, though he mainly liked its "unmistakable, totally recognizable bass line." In 1999, Rolling Stone magazine reported that, according to Hynde's manager, Limbaugh had neither licensed the song nor asked permission to use it. According to Rolling Stone, EMI took action after Limbaugh told a pair of reporters in 1997 that "it was icing on the cake that it was [written by] an environmentalist, animal rights wacko and was an anti-conservative song. It is anti-development, anti-capitalist and here I am going to take a liberal song and make fun of [liberals] at the same time." EMI issued a cease and desist request that Limbaugh stop using the song, which he did. When Hynde found out during a radio interview, she said that her parents loved and listened to Limbaugh and she did not mind its use. A usage payment was agreed upon which she donated to PETA. She later wrote to the organization saying, "In light of Rush Limbaugh's vocal support of PETA's campaign against the Environmental Protection Agency's foolish plan to test some 3,000 chemicals on animals, I have decided to allow him to keep my song, 'My City Was Gone', as his signature tune..."
What "rights" do you'all think "artists" have? What "rights" should they have?
Should we all become Galambosians? :)
I won't give the url! (Apparently, nobody's heard of Google yet ) I'm hoping to be sued; and I'll make a lot of money, for nothing!
Sorry, but the Scottish flair is not comme il faut.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/04/rolling-stones-ban-donald-trump-from-using-their-songs-after-he/
Hey, Mick, Keith (and however many of you dumbshits are still alive...): You wrote, performed, recorded and released to the public some pretty good songs. (I like your earlier stuff... But that's probably just me.) Most public performances of your songs bring you money... Unless you released them via subscription only, that's all you get: You have no further "rights".
They hold the copyright, unless they signed it off to some studio or other. Ergo, they decide who gets to play it. If the Trump campaign didn't pay money to the rightsholders, they can't play it.
I think they should essentially have the rights they have. It's merely the (especially American) implementation details that can be (pardon my French) idiotic, like the DMCA.
They hold the copyright, unless they signed it off to some studio or other.
And if the rights belong to studios, it's much tougher luck for Trump. Studios enforce their copyrights with absolute ruthlessness.
You guys are missing the point… (Although Frenzie added the relevant info, seemingly as an afterthought.) Copyright of music doesn't entail the "right" to say who can play it. But, of course, there's a cost!
Back when I was playing clubs (bars, ya know? :) ) I knew that ASCAP and BMI got their take — in a bizarre scheme, for sure! But copyright holders got paid for the songs I played; and for those songs the jukebox played. (The latter was surely more important for the copyright holders…)
Is there any contention that the Trump campaign didn't pay the usual fees?
As happens every so often, prissy artists seem to think they can have their cake and eat it too!
blah blah blah shit discusion
There's not too much of a diference between the rolling stones and rolling trumps.
So: You joined the discussion to say that you have nothing to say… How very European of you! :) Bet you still miss 1920s nihilism, Bel.
How very European of you! :)
Thank you.
In return you should try to maintain yourself as a simple American, instead trying to be what you are never able to be. :)
instead trying to be what you are never able to be. :)
And what, pray tell, might that be? :)
I told you before, you try to be the most wanna be European of Americans.
Then, you rest confused, naturally.
I'm pretty sure no American —and few Europeans— would think so… :)
I'm pretty sure no American
Oh... a refugee... :lol:
Your America doesn't exist anymore. Our Europe doesn't exist anymore.
Ah! "Enigmatic" is the way you roll! :)
You guys are missing the point...
There is no point besides you now having to support Trump's insanity instead of Cruz. If they didn't pay, they have no right to play it. If I decided to from a band and play covers of other artist's work, I would have to pay for that right as well. Politics has nothing to do with copyright.
Direct to the point Belfrager and spot on but the ex-colonies haven't grown up yet.
If I decided to form a band and play covers of other artist's work, I would have to pay for that right as well.
No, you wouldn't. The venue would…
Politics has nothing to do with copyright.
Yup! But some silly people think it does… If I recall correctly, it started with Jackson Browne!
There is no point besides you now having to support Trump's insanity instead of Cruz.
I'm not sure where you get this idea…
I am concerned about politics and copyright law.
My views about Trump are pretty straightforward: If he's elected, I expect him to be impeached within two years! (Or he'll simply quit. :) ) Failing that, the only way he gains a second term is by appointing Cruz to the Supreme Court; but Cruz is too principled to accept the nomination under such circumstances…
I
do like the fact that Trump came right out and said
he knows a lot of words! But, as far as I can tell, they're mere acquaintances; they're not "friends". :)
(In fact, the only ones he seems to be intimate with are "I" and "me"…)
Still, holding a copyright to a song does
not let one decide who can play it… You'd have to hold Trump-ist views about law to think it did! :)
No, you wouldn't. The venue would...
This (https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/royalties-for-cover-songs) appears to support your statement But note the modifier
However, the responsibility for procuring this license usually falls on the venue or organization hosting the band.
Usually, not always.
My views about Trump are pretty straightforward: If he's elected, I expect him to be impeached within two years! (Or he'll simply quit. :) )
First thing's first - preventing Hillary from winning the election. As I've said, there are avenues to get Trump impeached without even trying to dig deep into his past. This is not guaranteed by any means. I don't think the Republicans in the House have the guts.
As I've said, there are avenues to get Trump impeached without even trying to dig deep into his past.
Geez,
Sang, I wasn't referring to his past; I meant what he's likely to do…
Usually, not always.
I've never known it to be otherwise. But, again, my point is that the only reason for an "artist" to refuse "permission" is lack of payment.
In law, there's no other.
But, again, my point is that the only reason for an "artist" to refuse "permission" is lack of payment.
In law, there's no other.
Law is not the only point in life. In real life, anybody would voice their disagreement when their work is associated with something icky or false. For example, even when academics cannot appeal to "permission" when being quoted, they can point out being quoted out of context or being misinterpreted, and there can be legal consequences if the misinterpretation is intentional. The thing called "copyright" in arts makes it a matter of legal permission whenever the copyright holder wants it so.
Aristotle should sue you to stop you're mis-using simple logic, ersi! :)
It's quite true that "law is not the only point in life". But without law, much of life becomes pointless.
It is not the case that "the thing called copyright in arts makes it a matter of legal permission whenever the copyright holder wants it so".
Stick that in your "civil law" pipe, and smoke it! :)
The musicians are quite free to "disclaim" any political use of their works. But they can't retract their works… Nor withhold them from use. (Commercial use is another matter… If you think such is invoked here, you're a very fascist person!)
I'm (not too) surprised that no one addressed my Galambos reference… :)
(One of the most enjoyable books about politics -well, ideology- I ever read was It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand! Often factually wrong; but funny as all get-out! I highly recommend it.)
Is there any contention that the Trump campaign didn't pay the usual fees?
Either one of us is misreading the article you didn't link or it's badly written. Surely that's the meaning behind the phrase "never given permission"?
I doubt very much copyright to be a discriminatory power based at you can play my music, but you can not.
It's basically a fee applied to anyone because at the very essential of copyright it's the concept of public usage.
An artist certainly has the possibility of graciously give up from his rights (for some cause for example) but never to prohibit whoever pays for using it.
Trump at the sound of Start Me Up it's obscene, that's the real matter. He's allways obscene anyway.
Therefore, this is not a case of copyright but of public moral decency. The Stones defending moral decency... the world is lost.
It's quite true that "law is not the only point in life". But without law, much of life becomes pointless.
It's pointless for anarcho-libertarians to argue that laws give some meaning to life. Why? Because if they are consistent and logical anarcho-libertarians, they understand that they cannot argue anything about law and meaning because they presuppose that these things don't exist.
The fun and frustration about you is that you are neither consistent or logical. in the OP you imply that artists don't have rights. Apparently, nobody should have rights who is not mentioned in the U.S. constitution. Only Americans have rights, according to you.
It is not the case that "the thing called copyright in arts makes it a matter of legal permission whenever the copyright holder wants it so".
Actually, this is precisely the case in reality, if you read newspapers, which you do. You are just not consistent in putting one and one together.
The musicians are quite free to "disclaim" any political use of their works. But they can't retract their works… Nor withhold them from use. (Commercial use is another matter… If you think such is invoked here, you're a very fascist person!)
Maybe commercial use is the crux from your selective point of view. In reality, non-commercial individual file sharers go to prison every now and then for sharing something a big commercial corporation owns a copyright on. Which is the case here too without a doubt.
Not saying this is how it should be. Just saying this is how it is.
Here we go (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article75996512.html)
Political campaigns don’t need artists’ permission to play their songs at rallies as long as the political organization or the venue has gotten what’s known as a blanket license from the performing rights organizations ASCAP and BMI for all the music in the licensing group’s repertoire.
But artists do have some recourse. BMI, for example, has said it has a provision in its license agreement that allows BMI songwriters or publishers to object to the use of their songs and they have the ability to exclude those songs from the blanket license.
So the band prevent the campaign from using their songs, via their record label.
I'm curious: Does the removal from the the blanket license refer to individual licenses, particular events or licensees — or to all blanket licenses? :) (Any lawyers out there? And, yes, I know the laws are different in different places…) Of course, the complaining artists are all wealthy, so they won't suffer. But I'd like to think their "political" purity cost them something… :)
Well, I think I've waited long enough to mention the obvious:
Previous campaigns acceded to the requests of artists, to avoid negative publicity… For Trump, there is no such thing as negative publicity!
I look forward to his use of Sympathy for the Devil (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBecM3CQVD8).
(BTW: Can Mick and Keith tell me I can't use this YouTube link in my post? :) )
So the band prevent the campaign from using their songs, via their record label.
That merely states the obvious without giving any actual information. You can license a song and you can blanket license
all the songs — you don't say. :P But "Trump didn't pay the obligatory fees" is a very different story than "Stones don't like Trump to play their songs." The former says something about Trump, while the latter only says something about what the Stones think about Trump. The former is what I read; the latter is what @OakdaleFTL read.
But I'd like to think their "political" purity cost them something... :)
Of course it'll cost 'em a little something, but I fail to see why anyone should be interested in making more profit over anything else.
(Any lawyers out there? And, yes, I know the laws are different in different places...)
Maybe you vaguely know that there are differences, but you don't know what the differences are. You simply assume that everything different from American laws must be in error. You didn't even get the actual issue with the case between Rolling Stones and Trump that you got interested in enough to write about it here.
There was a case? (As usual, you don't know what you're talking about, ersi: There was no "case" in any court anywhere; there was PR, and PR only!)
There was no "case" in any court anywhere
It's just stoopid English equivocating between different meanings of "case" so miscommunication is guaranteed. Welcome to the world you live in. I'm lucky to know English only as a distant fourth language.
However, things have been close to that for Trump: "Aerosmith frontman Steven Tyler threatened to sue Trump if he did not stop playing the rock band’s song “Dream On” on the campaign trail." You can google that.
It's just stoopid English equivocating between different meanings of "case" so miscommunication is guaranteed.
Not really. Case means "the state of things" unless context makes it clear that it's a "court case". I'm pretty sure
@OakdaleFTL is just pulling your finger.
And now my finger has been pulled? English is stoopid...
What "rights" do you'all think "artists" have? What "rights" should they have?
In Europe there's a tendency for protecting "Rights of Authorship" for Artists. For example, here in Portugal, if you have a Bar you'll need to pay an annual fee to the Author's Society for playing recorded music in your bar. How that money is redistributed by all over the world authors I don't have a clue...
Literarian authors keep their rights for 100 years, after that the books turn public.
Regarding music it's my opinion that the digital world created a new reality whilst rights of authorship are still at pré digital time and the whole things turns conflictuous. Same goes for all the digital media.
But "Trump didn't pay the obligatory fees" is a very different story than "Stones don't like Trump to play their songs."
But it also say the band can do something about it going forward.
But it also say the band can do something about it going forward.
So might Trump. Discrimination lawsuit anyone? :)
Not discrimination, but maybe breach of contract. Trump claims to have purchased the rights (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-we-have-the-rights-to-use-rolling-stones-songs/) to use them. Of course, the Rolling Stones are just the latest in a growing list of bands and solo artists that don't want him to use their music. The record label might be in a catch-22. The Stones could sue them if if they allow Trump to use the music (note the link in my previous post.) but Trump could also sue them for not allowing him to use the music
Perhaps. The Stones aren't at BMI.
I just took that as an example. The Stones probably have a similar clause in their contract. I'm biased because I have published work myself and am preparing other books for publication (and republication) , but I feels artists need to have some control of how their works are used. If the Stones find Trump disgusting, their work shouldn't be used to promote him and they should have some say in the matter.
(I've always thought that copyright is the right to copy... not the right to play.)
In Dutch it's called author's right. Blame English, as
@ersi would say. Author's right is the right of an author/creator to decide if, where, and how their work is made public (e.g. played) or copied.
The author's law of 1817 was called the
Wet, de regten bepalende die in de Nederlanden, ten opzigte van het drukken en uitgeven van letter- en kunstwerken, kunnen worden uitgeoefend (Wikipedia (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteurswet_1817)). The law that decides who can print and publish works of print and art.
If the Stones find Trump disgusting, their work shouldn't be used to promote him and they should have some say in the matter.
If the Stones sold their work, they must shut up. Stones are so much prostitutes as the girl on the street. Probably even more.
If they have clauses in the contract that means nothing, only judges can judge it, not the public opinion.
Stones are so much prostitutes as the girl on the street. Probably even more.
How's that? Artists have to make a living, too. One of my computerized graphic design instructors put it very simply. The starving artist bit sounds romantic, but all that will happen is you'll wind up poor and bitter.
If the Stones sold their work, they must shut up.
In the realm of arts (and sciences), there's such a thing as authorship. You can turn over your work for public distribution. When it's a commercial transaction with a record company or a publishing house, it will look like selling, but you cannot sell your authorship, logically.
Legally, authorship is a title or certificate. It's a bureaucratic device which makes things tricky. Somebody may rush ahead of you to obtain it on your work.
"Copyright" originally concerned purely the distributors. These days the copyrightists openly talk about securing "the rights of authors" by means of copyright. Logically the line is quite clear, but in reality it gets blurred. Many bands establish their own record companies (like vanity press) or, when the band hits big, like Rolling Stones has, they contractually share the distribution profits.
Not that this clarifies anything. It's a legal and social mess where very few are unconcerned and can easily shut up.
This (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/05/the-rolling-stones-demand-trump-stop-using-its-music-at-rallies-but-can-the-band-actually-stop-him/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_mix) article provides multiple examples of artists preventing politicians from using their music. Most of the cases were settled out of court and the campaigns had to comply with the artist's wishes.
"Had to comply" doesn't mean "were compelled by law"… :)
Incidentally, I wonder what they thought of Angela Merkel using Angie a decade or so ago.
Edit: YT vid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5_EBAzIPJM
This (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/05/the-rolling-stones-demand-trump-stop-using-its-music-at-rallies-but-can-the-band-actually-stop-him/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_mix)article provides multiple examples of artists preventing politicians from using their music. Most of the cases were settled out of court and the campaigns had to comply with the artist's wishes.
Again, you can't deny anyone using your music because you don't like his political options. You're a musician not a politician.
If a politician you don't have copyrights, by the contrary, you offer your ideas.
If a musician, you play, receive your money and shut up.
Regarding the stones and prostitutes, the difference is that prostitutes are more honest and make less damage than any rock'n roll band.
Regarding the stones and prostitutes, the difference is that prostitutes are more honest and make less damage than any rock'n roll band.
Not always.
"HOLLYWOOD (CBSMiami) — Two women have been arrested for separate theft incidents at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino.
Makita Calhoun, 26, admitted to police she was paid cash to meet a man in his hotel room on September 8th, according to the Seminole Police Department arrest report.
Detectives said surveillance video showed her and another woman spend more than three hours in the room that night. Police said as the women left, Calhoun stole the man’s $8,500 Rolex watch and an $8,300 diamond pendant, and could be seen dashing from the hotel room where she was eventually picked up by an accomplice.
Calhoun was arrested eight days later while walking the casino floor and charged with grand theft."
Led Zeppelin has beaten a lawsuit claiming that the iconic guitar riff in "Stairway to Heaven" was copied from Spirit's 1968 instrumental "Taurus."
Led Zeppelin has beaten a lawsuit claiming that the iconic guitar riff in "Stairway to Heaven"
OMG the perfect song for you!
In fairness they prolly did steal it in the same way almost every song ever has ripped off "The Amen Break". (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac)That it's so obvious and all over the place almost anything relates.
As a guitar player, I can tell you that this riff is over a hundred years old; and Randy "California" never complained about Stairway to Heaven…
I was a fan of Spirit, and of Led Z. (although I still think Jimmy Paige one of the most technically inept lead guitarists ever to achieve success), but this battle over copyrights (after the writer has died…) is perverse.
Who holds the "copyright" on the chromatic scale? :)
Who holds the "copyright" on the chromatic scale? :)
That's a very good question. Not because of painting but because music to be such a basic art and musicians such insupportable characters these days.
How can these idiots claims for copyright about a three notes, four strokes "music"? I guess it is about "boys bands" and the such.