Foo Fighters say they did not OK Trump using "My Hero" at Arizona rally, will donate royalties to Harris-Walz campaign - CBS News

politics @lemmy.world – 1022 points – 2 months ago

Foo Fighters say they did not OK Trump using "My Hero" at Arizona rally, will donate royalties to Harris-Walz campaign

Former President Donald Trump has drawn the ire of another musical group for unauthorized use of their music. This time, it's the Foo Fighters.

Trump played the band's song "My Hero" when he welcomed former independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to the stage at a rally in Arizona on Friday[...]

[...]The spokesperson added that any royalties received as a result of the Trump campaign's use of the song will be donated to the campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Tim Walz.

You are viewing a single comment

View all comments

This kind of bullshit needs a law to be honest.

Politicians should need direct approval before using copyright music in campaigns.

Is there not one? Seems like I, a person, can't just publicly use a song for my own gains if an artist really wanted to stop me. A politician, also a person (albeit a wealthy one) is still targetable by the artist right.

Like sure, rich asshole just gets a slap on the wrist fine and it gives their lawyers more more to do. But there is a law about this right?

It is a law. That’s why he keeps getting taken to court to pay up.

It is a law. That’s why he keeps getting taken to court to pay up.

Well I'm sure this slap on the wrist will be the one that causes him to mend his ways.

Generally the person who recorded the music would have a performance copyright on that recording. This is often sold, licensed, or otherwise given to another group to distribute that recording such as through CDs or streaming. That same performance can also frequently be licensed for use in videos, commercials, public displays, etc.

If the campaign purchased a license from the distributor to play the recording at a public event, there really isn't any consultation with the original artist. Hence, an artist's music being used for something they do not agree with.

If they did not purchase a license, that's when the lawyers are unleashed.

I used to think the same, but ASCAP has a very nice, easy to understand page about licensing for political events that is super informative.

I posted this up a level, but being as you seemed to have a better understanding about this than most other commenters, I wanted to post this as a reply to you too so you would see it.

If the campaign events are properly licensed, can the campaign still be criticized or even sued by an artist for playing their 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, unrelated to music licensing:

The artist’s Right of Publicity, which in many states provides image protection for famous people or artists The Lanham Act, which covers confusion or dilution of a trademark (such as a band or artist name) through its unauthorized use False Endorsement, where use of the artist's identifying work implies that the artist supports a product or candidate

As a general rule, a campaign should be aware that, in most cases, the more closely a song is tied to the "image" or message of the campaign, the more likely it is that the recording artist or songwriter of the song could object to the song's usage by the campaign.

I believe there has been a ruling on this though, it came up back in 2016. Trump used another artists music at a rally, and the artist couldn’t sue but could force the Trump campaign to stop using their discography. Only after if they used it again they could sue.

If you're thinking of the Neil Young case, it seems Neil dropped it, possibly after a settlement, but maybe not, as he doesn't sound mad in the article.

As the bit I posted said, if the artist objects, the campaign can't play it anymore, but Trump and Co ignored multiple cease and desist orders, and that is what brought the lawsuit. So we are both correct.

There's still a pending lawsuit over a campaign video that used Electric Avenue, but that hasn't gone to court yet.

This kind of bullshit needs a law to be honest.

It’s is a law.

Seriously, performers need to DMCA the shit out of him! He's no doubt received cease and desist letters and continues to violate copyright laws.

Even better, sue his ass and donate the money received to Harris in his honor!

He's not violated any laws in this one specific case. When you are signed to a label or group under one of the major labels and members of the riaa. They offer blanket licensing for any music covered by their labels to restaurants venues etc etc etc. An artist can request their music be restricted. But that also impacts revenue and royalties for them. Which in this case Dave Grohl I'm sure is more than fine with. He's not one of The Starving Artists. And honestly his response realistically is the best that you Can get. Donating the royalties earned to their opponent is probably about the biggest thing you could get them to reconsider using the music LOL

It is a law. It's covered under copyright. Trump's just ignoring the law (as usual).

You know there’s an entire specialized subset of the legal profession that deals specifically with copyright law, don’t you?

In this case, the problem isn’t the law. It’s the judicial system.

There is no subset specific to politicians using copyright music.

Generally the venue or organizer purchases a generic performance license allowing them to broadcast most copyright music. This exempts them from needing to ask each specific artist.

That's why these artists are donating the licensing fees they're getting, because they WERE paid something.

It's just that artists can usually complain and terminate specific uses (after they know about them) for future performance.

I respectfully disagree.

We shouldn't be making laws about what artists mean because artists won't be alive forever to defend their works.

Edit: y'all are an interesting bunch.

It's even worse when an estate or a record company defends those works.

Oh you use a chord from a song I inherited the rights to? See you in court.

Generally the artists know enough about what went into making the art to know when they're getting ripped off or it's a new work that is coincidentally the same, or just inspired by their work, or maybe it is their work but being used in a cool way so it's fine by them. That's not the case with someone (or some company) that inherits the rights and are just milking it for what it's worth.

For example this video was taken down for copyright infringement. Luckily David Bowie was still alive then and noticed and told his lawyers to lay off.

Another example, John Carpenter told his lawyers to lay off the Metal Gear franchise because he liked the games.