I don’t know much about copyright law, but it seems to me that if the writer(s) of that song don’t want it used to spread someone’s political message, they should have the right to disallow “No on Prop 64” from using it. Or at the very least, they should have to give credit where credit is due, with some sort of disclaimer on the site.
The more I think about it, the more certain I am that this is plagiarism. Right? And if so, is it worth worrying about, or is this sort of thing usually overlooked?
Basically, there’s no way for you to know if it’s a copyright violation without knowing whether or not the authors of the Flash animation have the copyright holder’s permission to use the tune.
The absence of any credits or acknowledgements really means very little. After all, most TV commercials don’t list song credits when they purchase the rights to some rock group’s music. In fact, the contracts that get signed in these sorts of deals usually state very explicitly whether or not actual credits are required to be posted.
To perform or record a song, a performer only needs to pay the copyright holder the standard license fee. This is known as a mechanical license. The copyright holder typically cannot prevent anyone from using the song or putting different words to it.
Think of all of Weird Al Yankovic’s parodies. IIRC, Michael Jackson tried to keep him from spoofing some of his songs, but couldn’t.
As long as the campaign paid the fee, there’s not much the composer can do about it.
Not entirely correct. The license fee applies to public performances of a musical work (like Not-very-weird Al), but if you use something in an advertisement, you also have to get permission.
For instance, Beatles songs were never used for ads until Michael Jackson got hold of them. But advertisers would have loved to have used them well before that. The artist does have the right to deny permission for advertising. If the song is used, the copyright holder has to agree to it.
Of course, there is no requirement that the person making the ad give credit to the songwriter.
Yes, but political advertisements are subject to a different set of laws. In general, they enjoy a looser interpretation of “fair use,” and a less restrictive burden of proof for claims made.
The right to play a sound recording is a separate right than the right to prepare a derivative work and is a separate right from the right of publicity (which is the right implicated when using a work in association with a commercial or political message).
Fair use might be implicated, but fair use is still a limited right. It would not allow for a complete work to be used in connection with a political message.
That would come as a big surprise to me. Yankovic has always sought approval from the subjects of his parodies, and Michael Jackson has always been one of the most cooperative artists. That’s one reason why the Jackson parodies are some of the best.
Well, I had a vague recollection that there had been a problem, but I won’t swear to it. It was late last night when I posted.
As for ascenray’s points, IANAIPL, but I would guess that the fact that it’s an original performance and they’ve put new words to the song mean that those restrictions don’t apply. Using the original artist’s recording might have required his permission, but I’ll bet this didn’t.
In any case, the fact that this was put up by an apparently above board organization with connections to major outfits like the American Lung Association and the Sierra Club implies that they had their lawyers do whatever was necessary. It seems unlikely to me that ElectionWatchdog.org would have intentionally or negligently broken the law.
If it’s a completely new recording and if what they’ve done can be classified as parody, then it’s a fair use. Weird Al generally does get permission for his parodies, but, technically, under the law, he doesn’t have to. Parody is fair use.
America (The Book) by Jon Stewart and the authors of the Daily Show has a hand-drawn rendition of the bill from the Schoolhouse Rock cartoon. The caption explains that ABC demanded ‘an exorbitant sum of money ($1000)’ to use the image, and so they used a hand-drawn facsimile. This might just be a joke, or it might be evidence that the Schoolhouse Rock cartoons are still actively protected by their original creators. This issue might have arisen in the ‘I’m an Amendment To Be’ song and cartoon in The Simpsons too – I haven’t heard anything about any legal issues related to that.
The Republicans have gotten into trouble before in using some pop songs for speech events (two separate incidents, I recall, though I can’t remember the tunes). The artists, opposed to their policies, demanded that the GOP stop it. And they did. Whether the GOP had to stop it by force of law, I don’t know. And whether this has anything to do with song re-writes/parodies, I don’t know.
I’m betting it’s a joke. First of all, I don’t think ABC owns the rights. “Schoolhouse Rock” is still marketed by its creators, so I’m sure they keep an eye on their copyrights; however, what I’ve read about the creators, I don’t think they would have put up that much of a fuss against Jon Stewart. Also that $1,000 bit – pretty sure it’s a joke.
That was a straight-out parody. There should have been no legal problems.