Settlement, pretty likely. Judgment, no way. If you refer to your PDF link above, since this is a federal suit, the last two potential violations apply: the Lanham Act and False Endorsement. 99% of people who hear the song associated with the campaign will either not know who Frankie Sullivan or Jim Peterik are, or they will already know that playing the song doesn’t imply endorsement. All the Hucksters have to do is say, “Did Survivor receive any hate mail or tweets for the song playing during that rally?” Eye of the Tiger has played at hundreds of sporting events. No one assumes that Sullivan is a fan of their team because of it.
Let’s keep in mind that Sullivan is the guy who tried to sue the TV show Survivor. He’s got more money than brains.
If you sue for copyright infringement do you have to prove the person was making money, or trying to make money, using your song? I can’t understand how these lawsuits could be successful other than to make some noise and throw a little bad PR at your opponent.
There is damage to image.
Example:
Jackson Browne is quite liberal and objected to McCain’s use of “Running On Empty” in an anti-Obama ad.
He did not want his fans to think he supported McCain in any way.
That link has nothing to do with this issue and doesn’t support your claim at all. The cite you provided concerned a dispute about rights to the bands name. It had nothing to do with an improper use of one of their songs. Don’t you even bother to read things before you link to them?
So nice try, but complete fail. What campaign gave the artist the middle finger and the artist then backed off as you claimed in point #3 above?
My cite was to show that Sullivan is no stranger to stupid copyright lawsuits.
As for campaigns refusing to stop playing the songs, it’s in the Rolling Stone link earlier in the thread that Running Coach posted. About a third to half the campaigns kept using the song, saying, “We bought the license” and the artist never went past the bitching stage.
Campaigns using a song is not the same as buying. If you read the link, having a license does not allow unlimited use. The artist still has some control over how their work is used…
Sure, under very limited legal circumstances, such as if it could damage their image or give the false impression that they are endorsing something they are not. No reasonable person would assume that playing a song at an event implies artist endorsement of that event or the organizers of the event. In the end of course, it’s up to a court to decide, but as of yet no artist has been brave enough to risk their money on such a course of action. Frankie Sullivan apparently is willing to take such risks, so maybe we’ll finally get a precedent established.
Basketball teams play music all the time to introduce their players. If one person in the television or arena audience thinks that this means Frank Sullivan is a Miami Heat fan because they played Eye of the Tiger during introductions, I’d like to meet that person.
BTW, does this concept of yours, where artists get to control how their products are used, is this strictly a music thing, or would it also apply to wedding cakes?
Having lived under Huckabean Rule (sp?) in my beloved state of Arkansas, I would hope that we will discuss his other faults in the faint hope that me may prevent someone from voting for him.
So you don’t understand how endorsements work or the public perception of endorsements.
A wedding cake is sold. The baker retains no rights to it’s use.
Just like Campbell’s Soup can’t stop you from using their minestrone as a sexual aid.
However, they do retain control over the use of their company name, can and label design, logo, etc.
Endorsements work by someone saying, “I endorse” or something similarly definitive, like Sara Evans playing at the RNC. She’s there, she’s singing, she probably endorses the Republican Party.
So an artist cannot control who the license to play the song is sold to. Thanks for clearing that up.
If an artist shows up at an event, that’s clearly an endorsement. Not so if the song is used without a request being made or without permission.
It’s called false endorsement and is actionable even with a license.
Basically, the image of the artist is still protected.
If you had read the link, you would have seen that.
I read the link and that’s a possible lawsuit. And eventually, we’ll find out if one can succeed. But given Sullivan’s record, I wouldn’t put too much faith in his judgment of his chances.
Gingrich chose to settle. Huck doesn’t seem intimidated. I hope this does go to court, I’ve been waiting for the answer to this question for a long time.