Has an artist/group ever stopped a Democratic candidate from using their music?

[HeyHomie]

Every election cycle we hear of artists/groups telling political candidates not to use their music, often rather … strongly (Jack White told Trump off pretty royally for using “Seven Nation Army”). Almost always, it’s directed towards Republicans. The list of artists who have told Trump to knock it off with their music grows by the day, for example, but I know other Republican politicians have gotten told off by artists for using their music as well.

Does this ever happen to Democrats? I can think of a couple of examples:

1. Apparently the Rolling Stones don’t want any candidate, of any party, using their music, according to a conversation I just had with ChatGPT.
2. Ditto Prince/his estate, per the same conversation.
3. DJ Snake took exception to “Turn Down for What,” although, as seems to be the case with Prince and the Stones, it’s not Kamala/Democrat specific but just a generalized ban on their songs being political props.

Anyone else? I imagine, among others, that Kid Rock, Ted Nugent, and Charlie Daniels would object to Democrats using their music, but AFAIK no one has tried.

[Elmer_J.Fudd]

That’s a tough challenge. I can’t find any evidence of an artist objecting specifically to a democrat using their songs. I’d probably start by looking at fringe Democratic primary candidates, but that’s too much work for me.

[Velocity]

Sam Moore objected to Obama using his music.

Musicians who banned presidential candidates from using their songs

Sting objected to Al Gore using his music.

The Many, Many Musicians Who Have Told Politicians to Stop Using Their Songs

Cyndi Lauper objected to the DNC using her music.

35 Musicians Who Told Politicians to Stop Using Their Songs

[Llama_Llogophile]

One of many hilarious moments on Veep was when Jonah was running for Congress (though we never really knew which characters were Dems or Republicans on that show, Jonah was probably the dumbest of them all, so…).

Anyway, Richard is helping with his campaign and tells him one day, “We just got a letter from the band Rush. They said we can’t the song ‘Working Man’ anymore because they find you, um, odious.”

[Atamasama]

@Velocity

Sam Moore objected to Obama using his music.

And Obama was classy so stopped using it, and the issue was resolved amicably.

[DrDeth]

@Atamasama

And Obama was classy so stopped using it, and the issue was resolved amicably.

Right, so AFAIK, yes, the Dems occasionally use a tune without getting full Okay (legally, you only have to get it from the company that owns the music rights, but it is classy and cool to get it from the artist also- this is what happened with Weird Al and Gangsters paradise- his people wrote, got the Okay, then Coolio objected). But they they stop using it after the request.

[kayaker]

@Atamasama

And Obama was classy so stopped using it,

Why wouldn’t the candidate/entity enquire prior to using a song? Seems the simple thing to do.

[PhillyGuy]

Has an artist/group ever stopped a Democratic candidate from using their music?

As noted, by asking nicely, yes.

But stopping them legally — probably not. In general:

If a song is played in a public venue like a stadium or arena that has a public performance license, no permission is needed. . . .

savvy campaign managers typically purchase the rights to play music in public for their events. These licenses grant broad access to thousands of songs which a politician can use at rallies and conventions, as long as the music is not used digitally without permission

[PhillyGuy]

@kayaker

Why wouldn’t the candidate/entity enquire prior to using a song? Seems the simple thing to do.

Is it? Is is clear who to send the letter to? ASCAP or BMI? And how long until they forward the letter to the artist? How long until they answer? And if the artist doesn’t like you, they can publicly object to your letter just as they would if you played their music.

[Atamasama]

@kayaker

Seems the simple thing to do.

It might be a time constraint.

Weird Al, for example, always checks with the artist for permission before making a parody song. He doesn’t have to, since parody falls under Fair Use, but he doesn’t want a feud with other (much more wealthy, popular, and powerful) artists.

A miscommunication with Coolio’s management led to some bad feelings when “Amish Paradise” was released. He thought he’d received permission to do the parody, but apparently not, and so Coolio very publicly admonished Weird Al. They did eventually settle it and ended things on good terms, because it really was just a misunderstanding.

But a campaign is under a time crunch. You have a specific schedule and a ton of things to do and manage in that tight schedule. Maybe there isn’t time to ask for permission. Or maybe there are misunderstandings as there was with Weird Al and Coolio. I’m not sure we know the details with the Obama incident, I surely haven’t seen them.

[Kent_Clark]

It gets really murky. Technically, the rights to the song belong to the publisher, not the composer, or the performer. But what if the publishing company is owned by the composer or artists? They may not want their voice used, but be okay with just the music being used. Or they may get permission from the performer, but the performer may not technically own the song. Or three of the band members may approve, but the other two don’t want to be associated with the politician.

[DrDeth]

@kayaker

Why wouldn’t the candidate/entity enquire prior to using a song?

Well, they often do. But the corporation that owns the rights is not often the artist. Did you not read when i posted about Weird Al and Gangsters Paradise? Al got the rights, but Coolio, the artist objected.

@Atamasama

A miscommunication with Coolio’s management led to some bad feelings when “Amish Paradise” was released. He thought he’d received permission to do the parody, but apparently not, and so Coolio very publicly admonished Weird Al. T

Al absolutely did get permission- from the corp who owned the rights. Coolio objected. See post 5.

[Q.Q.Switcheroo]

@Atamasama

They did eventually settle it and ended things on good terms, because it really was just a misunderstanding.

And Coolio must have realized that standing his ground would have looked a tad hypocritical, since “Gangsta’s Paradise” is itself a reworking of Stevie Wonder’s “Pastime Paradise.”

[ParallelLines]

Of course, there’s the added niggle that as reported, in one or more instances, they also played a visual recording of the artist performing the song, which is a bit different than just playing the music. So the venue contracts may not provide much protection there.

And of course, the same applies when well known artist’s music are applied to videos uploaded to various flavors of social media, which is to me at least would require licensing from the rights holding individuals, albeit not absolutely the artist itself.

[commasense]

@PhillyGuy

But stopping them legally — probably not. In general:

If a song is played in a public venue like a stadium or arena that has a public performance license, no permission is needed. . . .

savvy campaign managers typically purchase the rights to play music in public for their events. These licenses grant broad access to thousands of songs which a politician can use at rallies and conventions, as long as the music is not used digitally without permission

However, the article you cite also includes the following, which I have pointed out previously, and that people often seem to forget:

Even so, ASCAP still recommends [PDF] that political campaigns seek out permission from the musicians or songwriters, as these licenses exclude music played during conventions or campaign events.

Emphasis mine. “These licenses” refers to the standard public performance licenses.*

So I think your initial statement is probably incorrect. And since this kind of thing has happened so often, there seems to me to be no excuse for any competent** political campaign not to be fully aware of the situation. Even if the rights holder is not going to sue, and apparently they have the right to do so, it’s never a good look.

For anyone interested in these issues, the ASCAP PDF linked in my quote above has some information that was new to me. For instance,

IF THE CAMPAIGN EVENTS ARE PROPERLY LICENSED, CAN THE CAMPAIGN STILL BE CRITICIZED OR EVEN SUED BY AN ARTIST FOR PLAYING HIS OR HER 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.

The other laws in question are the artist’s right of publicity, the Lanham Act, and False Endorsement.

Threre is also something called a Political Campaign License.

The ASCAP Political Campaign License agreement provides a blanket license to perform any or all of the millions of compositions in the ASCAP repertory. However, ASCAP members may ask ASCAP to exclude specific songs from a particular political campaign’s license. In that event, ASCAP will notify the campaign of the excluded works.

*Ironically, either the lawyer in your cite or the Mental Floss writer that she linked to is guilty of plagiarizing several sentences that are identical in those two articles.

**Hence the reason Trump has come up against this so often.

[PhillyGuy]

@commasense

IF THE CAMPAIGN EVENTS ARE PROPERLY LICENSED, CAN THE CAMPAIGN STILL BE CRITICIZED OR EVEN SUED BY AN ARTIST FOR PLAYING HIS OR HER SONG AT AN EVENT?

Yes.

Anyone can criticize anyone, I hope.

And you can sue for almost anything if willing to lose.

Has a candidate ever been successfully sued for this? Maybe the answer will be that it is always settled out of court. For how much? Anyone know?

[HeyHomie]

@PhillyGuy

Has a candidate ever been successfully sued for this? Maybe the answer will be that it is always settled out of court. For how much? Anyone know?

As far as I’ve been able to discern, all candidates (save for tRump) have simply ceased and desisted when given a cease & desist. I read that tRump has continued to use songs of artists that have told him not to, and I read a headline somewhere that he either dared the Foo Fighters to sue him, or he threatened to counter sue, or what have you.

Basically, this matter is waiting for a court to decide it. That would take an artist telling a politician to knock it off, the politician saying “neener neener” and continuing to play it, and one side or the other taking matters to court. It hasn’t happened yet. Whether it will be brought to court before 5 November 2024 – to say nothing of it being decided by then – remains to be seen.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

The Trump Administration, no surprise given what his campaign did so often, uses a song without the band’s permission:

Rock Band Makes Bold Move After Iconic Song Used in Political Message

And see:

Is permission required from musicians for political rallies?

It seems that whenever a political campaign plays music at a rally, you hear from the artist seeking that it stop, particularly if the views of the politician are not shared by the artist. While I get the desire for an artist to call out a politician when they use their music… I have doubts as to whether the artist has any legal leg to stand on. After all, a political rally usually doesn’t involve admission, so there is no profit being made, and while it may get free broadcast on the news netw…

[Son_of_a_Rich]

I’m really out of it. TIL that there is an artist named DJ Snake who is in the same league as Prince and the Rolling Stones.

[Babale]

@Atamasama

A miscommunication with Coolio’s management led to some bad feelings when “Amish Paradise” was released. He thought he’d received permission to do the parody, but apparently not, and so Coolio very publicly admonished Weird Al. They did eventually settle it and ended things on good terms, because it really was just a misunderstanding.

And he was forbidden from making a parody of Live and Let Die called Chicken Pot Pie because Paul McCartney is vegetarian.