Or he didn’t want the publicity.
And Jackson Browne did beat McCain in court.
They settled too. If you read your link, McCain did keep using quite a few songs, as did Palin, based on the defense that they bought the license.
You’re right. It said Browne won a cash settlement.
Just proves McCain and Palin are assholes and have no regard for others.
Probably why nothing makes it as far as court. No politician wants to be the one to end the party.
Nothing can touch the classic, St. Ronnie of Bakersfield using* Born in the USA*. I got caught unawares, the TV was on, and there it was. And I sat there, and I stared, and I thought “Christ, what an imagination I’ve got…”
It’s good to know now that artists can sue people who hold gay weddings and play their music without authorization since it might give the false impression that the artist supports gay marriage.
And once again you prove how deliberately ignorant you are about how endorsement works and public perception.
A wedding is not a public event but a campaign rally would be a public event. That would be the distinction there.
Btw, are you going for some sort of world record for being wrong about stuff? Because that would explain a whoooooole lot of things.
Oh I remember that thread, I just didn’t think he had officially declared yet.
There are public wedding ceremonies and public receptions. If it’s at a public venue, then the music would be a “public performance”, and so the artist’s permission would be needed to use the song, which could be denied if the artists disapproved of the wedding.
No, a wedding is still a private, one time event. Most public halls/buildings that rent out to host such events have a license and the music is chosen either by the bride/groom/wedding organizer or the band if there is one.
Now, if there’s a business that organized only gay weddings, any given artist might have a case for objection.
A political campaign is an entirely different animal. Using a specific song to symbolize a candidate is not a performance, it’s using a song for a commercial purpose which requires permission despite any purchased license.
The use of an artist’s likeness or works is considered by the public as an endorsement since it’s usual (or should be)to get the artist’s permission.
I’d like you to explain why you’re so supportive of politicians stealing the works of others.
Don’t make it personal, please. If you must, the BBQ Pit is a few short clicks away.
Stealing? they paid for it. Do you call Blizzard and ask them if they approve of you playing Warcraft? No, it’s in the store, you buy it. Likewise, ASCAP sells licenses to play music. You buy a license, you can play the music.
Now if no one bought a license, then Sullivan will win his suit, depending on what he’s suing for, which isn’t clear yet(thanks media!) The way Huck is talking, he’s claiming he “allowed” it to be played, which means that it might not have been his team that played the music, but some other organizers, maybe people affiliated with Davis? Again, would be nice for the media to better explain this stuff.
The artist said they didn’t want to sell it. In what world can someone be forced to sell something to someone?
(Oh, and before you bring up gay wedding cakes, which I am sure you think is an awesome “Gotcha!” moment for you, Republican politicians ain’t a protected class and the songwriters aren’t discriminating against them because of their race, gender or sexual orientation, they are not selling it to them because they are assholes.)
Copyright law world, which contains the notion of the compulsory license:
The law itself, which contains a caveat which renders Huckabee a weak and stupid loser:
The law is sometimes verbose and opaque. That, however, is fairly clear. In fact, there’s more.
More on how Huckabee is toast:
So, in a narrow sense, there is a law relevant to this case which does mandate that people can be legally forced to sell things to others. In a broader sense, Huckabee is screwed, because the law explicitly forbids doing what he did, and the courts apparently agree with my legal analysis, as the previous posts in this thread have shown.
The artist did want to sell it. That’s why ASCAP is authorized to sell licenses for the song. He just wants to be able to discriminate. And yes, I know political parties aren’t a protected class. i would never claim that Huck could use that as a legal defense. However, he can use these as legal defenses:
-
I bought the license, if I wasn’t authorized to buy it, then ASCAP is subject to lawsuits for selling a product they weren’t authorized to sell.
-
Sullivan’s reputation is not threatened because no one knows who the hell Frank Sullivan is.
-
No reasonable person could think that Frank Sullivan endorses my campaign or Kim Davis because no reasonable person thinks that a song played at an event implies endorsement by the songwriters, the record company, or the performers.
So when you buy a song license from ASCAP that gives you permission to do what, exactly? On the other hand, if you have written permission from the artist to use a song, can you bypass ASCAP entirely?
Which of the following words is unclear to you?
-
I’m unsure of this one- does buying the license give one carte blanche to play it at any gathering? I should think that one has the right not to have one’s music played at a Nazi meeting, cockfight, or Huckabee rally.
-
So Frank Sullivan has fewer rights than someone well known?
-
I don’t buy this. Having your music played at the event of a despicable organization will associate you with said organization, whether you want it to or not.
Huckabee would be well served by advice to drop it and use someone else’s music.
This is actually his strongest argument, in my opinion. I’ve never heard someone play a CD at an event and drawn the conclusion that the artist must be a supporter of said event.