Like Clockwork: Copyright Holders Mistakenly Freak Out About Presidential Candidates Using Their Music

from the again? dept

This seems to happen every four years like clockwork during Presidential elections. Some musician gets upset about a politician he or she disagrees with, making use of his or her music during campaign rallies. This time around the candidate is Newt Gingrich, and the upset musician is songwriter and member of the band Survivor, Frank Sullivan, who co-wrote the song "Eye of the Tiger" which Gingrich has apparently been using during presidential campaigns:
The complaint states that the violation it alleges is intentional since Gingrich is "sophisticated and knowledgeable" concerning copyright laws.
That strikes me as interesting, because I would have to assume that the campaign has paid for standard ASCAP performance license (either that or the locations they use almost certainly have such a license). And if that's true, then Sullivan has no case. If the venue has a license, they can play whatever they want. Full stop. "Eye of the Tiger" is registered to ASCAP, so that's all that's needed. The campaign doesn't need permission of the copyright holder. The Chicago Sun-Times goes into more detail, where Sullivan insists this isn't political, he just doesn't like the song being used without him getting paid. Perhaps he should check his ASCAP statement. If he's not getting paid, he might want to take it up with them.

That same article also notes that Sullivan co-owns the copyright along with his song writing partner/bandmate, Jim Peterik, who seems to both (sorta, kinda) like Gingrich and not like legal actions:
“My wife is a big fan,” Peterik said. “I’m becoming a fan of Newt Gingrich. He has a mind of his own. He’s not a talking head. Originally, I didn’t like him, but look at the competition. He’s looking better and better.”

Peterik is not a party to the suit that Sullivan filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago. They share the copyright, but tend to stay out of each other’s way when it comes to cracking down on infringers.

”I hate suits,” Peterik said. “I hate being in court. I avoid that meticulously. When I [heard about the lawsuit on the radio Monday} I said I’m not surprised, but I’m surprised.”
I say this every time something like this comes up, but even if politicians can make use of such songs without getting permission from the artists, thanks to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC performance licenses, it still surprises me that the campaigns don't seek out musicians who support them in the first place to get their "okay" just to avoid embarrassing situations like this. Either way, it seems almost certain that this lawsuit is going nowhere fast.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    icon
    Skeptical Cynic (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 9:34am

    The lawsuit is not the point

    It has always been about getting more money. I dare anyone to prove me wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 10:20am

    Most campaign stops do not occur in locations that would have ASCAP licensing in place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 10:27am

    Re:

    Does the campaign itself have a license? From the above article:

    "That strikes me as interesting, because I would have to assume that the campaign has paid for standard ASCAP performance license (either that or the locations they use almost certainly have such a license). And if that's true, then Sullivan has no case."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 10:30am

    Eye of the Tiger...sigh. Really?

    I'm waiting on the candidate that uses Head Like a Hole for their campaign theme song.

    [disclosure: it's my own personal theme song.] ;D

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Nathan F (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 10:30am

    Does Newt have videos on his webpage that include the song, either for streaming or as a short demo clip to entice a purchase of a DVD? If so then that could very well run afoul of both performance and streaming rights..

    My my.. copyright sure is complex.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    John Doe, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 10:32am

    Don't bite the hand that feeds you

    The movie and music industry is spending heavily on paying the government to write protectionist laws, so they better play nice with the politicians if they want them to sign the bills.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 10:35am

    "If the venue has a license, they can play whatever they want. Full stop"

    Well, it's not necessarily that simple.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Nathan F (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 10:35am

    Re: Don't bite the hand that feeds you

    This isn't the major studios (BMI, Sony etc) doing this, this is the individuals who wrote and composed the song doing this on their own behalf (they managed to keep the copyright on their stuff, I suspect many lawyers lost their heads the day that contract was signed..)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 10:37am

    Re:

    Well, it's not necessarily that simple.

    Isn't it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Rob, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 10:40am

    "I would have to assume that the campaign has paid for standard ASCAP performance license"

    Why? It's something I can easily see falling through the cracks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 10:42am

    so, have i got this right? the music and movie industries want politicians to introduce, then bring into law, Bills that help those industries to keep their old business models and not have to adapt to the 'digital world', and at the same time enable them to close down competing websites and sue anyone they feel like for copyright infringement. at the same time, they then force those politicians to stop using music or whatever that will help them in their campaign to get (re)elected and help get those Bills passed. so, are these the right people to piss off, do you think? i think those industry execs must have the word 'STUPID' tattooed across their foreheads!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    John Doe, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 10:44am

    Re: Re: Don't bite the hand that feeds you

    Yes, but since he is suing I can only assume that he is for SOPA and therefore would want Newt to sign the bill if he becomes president. So suing him now won't make Newt to friendly to the industry later.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Nathan F (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 10:44am

    Re:

    Again, this isn't the major studios (Sony, BMI, et al), this is two individuals bringing forth suit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 10:46am

    Re: Settle

    Really, I'd settle for one that uses any song from the NIN Pretty Hate Machine album...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 10:49am

    Re: Re:

    No, for a number of reasons. First, ASCAP licenses are limited, and the manner in which the song is used might not fit limitations of the license. One example could be use of the song in connection with a "dramatic" use (i.e. the telling of a story). Are they using the song while telling Newt's life story? That could create a gray area as to whether the use is covered by the license.

    Second, repeated use of a song as a "theme" could imply some sort of endorsement, which may implicate rights that ASCAP does not have the power to grant.

    Now, those are hypotheticals that may have no basis in the real facts, but they are examples of how an ASCAP license *might* not give all the protection needed for certain uses of songs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 10:49am

    Re: STUPID tattoo

    Seeing as most of those guys cannot tell their head from their ass--the 'STUPID' tattoo which was supposed to be in mirrored letters on their forehead somehow ended up tattooed across their buttocks, I imagine.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Geed (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 10:50am

    Frankie Sullivan's been down since he lost in court over the name Survivor vs. the tv show.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 10:58am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Perhaps. But those really seem like reaches. This clearly falls smack dab in the middle of what ASCAP licenses are intended to cover. And endorsement wouldn't be a copyright issue at all. But, fair enough: it's not always that simple "full stop."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    zegota (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 10:59am

    Really?

    I would have to assume that the campaign has paid for standard ASCAP performance license

    Newt Gingrich's campaign failed to file the paperwork in time to qualify for the Virginia ballot. You really can't fathom them forgetting an ASCAP license?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Another AC, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 10:59am

    Re:

    Then they pay it after the fact and we all move on with life, no need to sue! :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 10:59am

    Re: Re: Re:

    why the fuck should you need three middlemen just to play a song in a venue?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:01am

    Just to be clear, Mike. You have no evidence that the distribution, reproduction, or public performance were licensed, but you're willing to declare the defendants the probable victors. Hell, your headline declares that the suit was brought "mistakenly."

    And obviously you didn't bother to read the complaint (took me three seconds to find it on Google), or else you'd know that one of the claims is that the defendants took videos including the copyrighted songs and posted them on the internet.

    Why is it you demand other people's claims to be fact-based, but then you write complete faith-based FUD like this? What gives, Mike? I don't get it.

    And, honestly, if you're too lazy to do the least amount of journalistic legwork with an easy story like this, why shouldn't we all just assume you're being doubly as lazy with the hard stuff? Sigh.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I didn't say you should.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:03am

    Re:

    [Citation please]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I seem to recall David Byrne bringing some sort of implied endorsement claim against a politician doing the same sort of thing, but maybe the facts were different.

    Anyway, you're right that these theories may not be applicable at all, but the "full stop" certainty may be misleading.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Robert (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:06am

    Getting paid?

    Well Frankie Sullivan, how about writing something new that sells if you want to make money. You know, work for your income like the rest of us.

    No other industry gets paid for past work and people who think that's a business model, especially in this day and age, have no clue how to survive.

    Sullivan, you are not a Survivor, pun intended. Get over it. You should be thankful they chose your song Eye of the Tiger, as that gains popularity for your music. Yeah, some will download, but others will search for their cassettes, realize they don't have a functioning tape deck, and possibly buy it on iTunes.

    That's free advertising for your old work. Maybe drawing attention to yourself in the process and maybe, just maybe, people will look at what new material you've written.

    Or are you just like Novel and Kodak? Can't innovate and create, so your tired old butt decides to litigate!

    Get over yourself man, grab your guitar, tease your hair, and write something new! Continue working if you want to be paid!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:07am

    Re: Re: Settle

    I would prefer some "Smiths".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:08am

    Re:

    What do distribution and reproduction have to do with anything involved here?

    If you're so quick to judge here, why shouldn't we all just assume you're being doubly as much of an asshole as we think you are?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:11am

    Near time to wind the alarm clock.

    The label is getting paid, who cares what the artist thinks?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:13am

    Re:

    "Most campaign stops do not occur in locations that would have ASCAP licensing in place."

    Not that it would matter. When was the last time ASCAP paid someone that isn't a top 200 artist, and lets face it Sullivan isn't. Perhaps he should take the lack of compensation up with ASCAP.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:14am

    Re: Re:

    Now that they have "fixed" all the laws so we can't build things anymore, so what else is there to do? Theres always a "need" to sue nowadays. Always. Mostly because it keeps us from making stuff.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:15am

    Re: Re:

    and by two individuals, you mean those the major studios always claim they represent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:18am

    Re: Re:

    The complaint alleges unauthorized/unlicensed distribution, reproduction, and public performance. I have no idea if the suit has merit, but obviously the attorneys representing the plaintiff think it does.

    But that's beside the point. The point is that Mike is just regurgitating what he read from other sites that have "real" reporters, and he's not even bothered to read the complaint before declaring that the defendants will win. It's a complete joke, and I'm calling him out for it--again. He just assumes that the defendants probably have a license and therefore all is well.

    And if he's this terrible with the really easy stuff, God knows how many intellectual corners he cuts with the hard stuff.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:21am

    Re:

    Don't just read the headline, man. The article mentions directly that the reason Mike believes the lawsuit to be a mistake is based on the reasonable assumption that the politician is licensed with asshat for the performance.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:27am

    Re: Re: Re:

    It's no secret that Mike makes assumptions that jive with his worldview and demands the utmost rigor from those he disagrees with.

    The thing is, the TD commentariat mostly doesn't care, because they are on the same page.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:27am

    Re: Re:

    "the reasonable assumption that the politician is licensed with asshat for the performance."

    Why is that a reasonable assumption?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You are right, it is no secret.. Particularly when you directly state your starting assumptions in the article.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:32am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Because it's common practice to do so, but whether it is reasonable or not doesn't really matter as long as the assumption is declared as a starting point.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    W Klink (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:35am

    Synchronization rights

    My understanding is that "synchronization rights" are not covered under the standard ASCAP license, so you can't make a video with your ASCAP-licensed music as a soundtrack and then show that video. And that appears to be exactly what they did.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    icon
    Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:36am

    Re:

    You don't think March of the Pigs would be more appropriate?

    Also, the voters theme song would probably be Hurt...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yah I had forgotten about that - unfortunately Byrne, like many artists, seemed unclear on the difference between copyrights and publicity/endorsement rights (which don't even exist most of the time)

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100525/0237319558.shtml

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    identicon
    Jim_G, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:38am

    What I find strange is that Frank Sullivan doesn't demonstrate the most basic understanding of ASCAP licensing and how it works. Virtually every news report I've read mentions "of course ASCAP licensing might take takes care of this." Is Frank really that clueless about fundamental legal issues? Does he think that every person who buys an old copy of Rocky is going to send him a check for $.00012?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Jeremy Lyman (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:43am

    Re: Re: Don't bite the hand that feeds you

    But that may be a really interesting public demonstration or protest; being extremely diligent and litigious concerning copyright infringement by legislators. How many representatives would land on the hook for almost two million dollars in mp3 download infringements before the call to action was heard?

    Anyone out there hold a copyright they can exercise? (raise your hand if you've taken a picture or composed an email.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:43am

    In the current climate I say this is an embarrassment alright but not for Newt Gingrich(Who I don't like by the way).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    fb39ca4, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:43am

    Oh no! You can read a book on a computer! It's the end of the world!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    identicon
    fb39ca4, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:43am

    Oh no! You can read a book on a computer! It's the end of the world!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    identicon
    todd smith, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:44am

    Re:

    I prefer "Let it Rain, Bitch" :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:45am

    Re: Don't bite the hand that feeds you

    You do realize this was the ARTIST not the record label, riiiiight?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    icon
    Alessar (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 11:56am

    Savvy Artists

    Just once I'd like an artist to issue a press release: "We have heard that such-and-such candidate is using our song as part of their campaigning. We just want to make it clear that the use of the song is under the auspices of the standard blanket licensing system that lets music be played at public events, and should not be considered an endorsement by us.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 12:07pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It's no secret that Mike makes assumptions that jive with his worldview and demands the utmost rigor from those he disagrees with.

    You can't fire off 60K+ blog posts AND do your homework, that's for sure. Strange that someone so obsessed with facts himself has little use for them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    identicon
    Loki, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 12:10pm

    Re: Re: Settle

    Even if they were a democrat or republican, I'd personally be tempted to vote for anyone who had the balls to use Kid Rock's American Bad Ass uncensored.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 12:13pm

    Re: Re:

    Don't just read the headline, man. The article mentions directly that the reason Mike believes the lawsuit to be a mistake is based on the reasonable assumption that the politician is licensed with asshat for the performance.

    Those types of licenses wouldn't necessarily or likely license the defendants to make videos including the copyrighted work and then distribute those on the internet. All I'm saying is that Mike could have done even the slightest bit of digging around before jumping right in and calling it for the defendants. Talk about faith-based "reporting." Sigh.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    The eejit (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 12:19pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    My bad. I'm really sensitive to certain anonymous morons.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Someantimalwareguy (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 12:27pm

    Re: Re: Settle

    Really, I'd settle for one that uses any song from the NIN Pretty Hate Machine album...
    I lean old school with Comfortably Numb from the Wall album - at least it would have some truth in it if it was played at a Romney rally...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 12:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I, myself, love lawsuits like this, and this one in particular since the artist freely admits this isn't about politics but about him getting paid (which is the argument we hear again and again and again from both the industry and the politicians about why these bills they push are needed).

    I would love for a case like this to make it to court (it wouldn't, somebody would pay the artist off to go away) for him to win, and for Newt to have to pay the sort of "damages" your typical "joe nobody" would have to pay. Then we'll see how Congress feel about current copyright law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 12:33pm

    This is exactly how a law like SOPA would be (ab)used. It could easily stop political ads and websites because of some bogus copyright infringement claim.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 12:33pm

    Re: Getting paid?

    Agreed

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Loki, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 12:34pm

    Re: Re: Getting paid?

    Seconded

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 12:39pm

    Re: Re: STUPID tattoo

    Ha, maybe it was a transfer image from forehead to asscheeks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 12:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Where's YOUR homework, son?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 12:41pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    New tactic now?
    You want to discredit Mike so your claims of harm to monopolies can be viewed as valid?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    identicon
    ookboo, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 12:45pm

    War Pigs!

    I think I'll put together an election 2012 video now with "War Pigs" playing in the background. Mixing music and poligimatics. I like it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 12:52pm

    It's that time of the year again.

    Quote:
    Come on, let's twist again, like we did last summer
    Yeah, let's twist again, like we did last year

    Do you remember when, things were really hummin'
    Yeah, let's twist again, twistin' time is here

    CHUBBY CHECKER - Let's Twist Again

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 12:54pm

    Re: Re:

    I prefer THE MARCELS - Blue Moon(capital letters due to copy&paste)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 12:57pm

    Re: Re:

    My grandma still gets regular checks from ASCAP based on my grandpa's old works. He certainly isn't, and never was, a top 200 artist.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 12:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    What suggests that he was unclear on the difference between the two?

    I mean, Mike *says* that, but Mike's gloss on actual facts isn't worth much (in my opinion), and the quote doesn't really suggest any confusion. I mean, saying it's about copyright "and" something else doesn't imply conflation of the two.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 1:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I can't answer for the other AC, but I'd rather see Mike stop posting misleading, shoddy stuff than just discredit him for his misleading, shoddy stuff.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 1:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I guess I'll just title this post "Response to a Child Molester", since I assume you are a child molester.

    That doesn't detract from the worth of my post, though, right? Since I'm declaring my assumptions?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 1:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Hmm... I suppose that's another way of reading it, yeah. As in, he is saying he would not license the copyright BECAUSE he doesn't want to endorse them - but not actually claiming that copyright includes endorsement rights. You may be right - it's hard to say with only a single edited quote, and unfortunately the Billboard piece doesn't offer much more. It still looks to me like he is a little unclear on the difference, though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 1:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Settle

    Better yet "So Hot".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    DH's Love Child (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 1:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Settle

    I think Welcome to the Machine from Wish You Were Here would seem more appropriate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 1:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Part of the problem might be that the typical guy doesn't know much about the intricacies of ASCAP licensing and whatnot, so they might assume that anyone playing Byrne's music got permission from Byrne himself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 1:30pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, in that case it wasn't even specifically an ASCAP thing since the actual lawsuit was over use in a commercial that was definitely unlicensed.

    But I think what you say about ASCAP is more or less the point Mike made in the Byrne post: that thinking copyright licensing is the same as endorsement is simply incorrect, since there are significant ways (like ASCAP, mechanical licenses for covers) that people can legally use a copyrighted work without any endorsement from or even any contact with the creator. So while it may bother Byrne that some people are confused on that issue, the fact is that a license does not imply endorsement - and it's not helping anyone to further that myth, nor is it helping him to think he can rely on copyright for that purpose.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 3:39pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "So while it may bother Byrne that some people are confused on that issue, the fact is that a license does not imply endorsement"

    I don't think that's an accurate conclusion to draw. While a valid license doesn't actually require any endorsement in many cases, the perception of endorsement is what matters.

    So, if, hypothetically, 75% of the population thinks the license is tantamount to endorsement, then I think it does "imply" endorsement in a descriptive sense (as opposed to a prescriptive sense), even if it shouldn't.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Jan 31st, 2012 @ 4:36pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah, there's definitely a sense it which it is an implication of endorsement. But the flipside is that copyright is no protection against that, nor is it supposed to be. So while Byrne can be annoyed, and he can sue for copyright infringement, he can't (for example) present "implied endorsement" as evidence of damages or anything like that - though there may be damage, it has nothing to do with the rights being infringed. So that's what I mean when I say endorsement is a non-copyright issue, and that he's not really doing himself or anyone else any favours by acting as though it adds weight to his claim.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    identicon
    Ryan Farmer, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 4:58pm

    If anyone deserves to choke on ridiculous copyright violation "damages"...

    it is the asshole politicians that passed the laws that brought it about.

    I'd enjoy watching Newt get slapped with the kind of $200,000 per incident fines that the law slaps Joe Citizen with all the time.

    If it happens more, maybe they'll stop passing stupid laws.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2012 @ 5:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "he can't (for example) present "implied endorsement" as evidence of damages or anything like that "

    Sure he can. He can do so by bringing claims other than copyright infringement (e.g., unfair competition, right of publicity, etc.), which is exactly what he did.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Feb 1st, 2012 @ 6:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Clearly I meant *in a copyright suit*

    His statement shows that he thinks the whole endorsement issue lends weight to his copyright claim. It doesn't. That's all I'm saying.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    icon
    crade (profile), Feb 1st, 2012 @ 7:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    lol, no, it doesn't. There is no detracting from the worth of your post :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 1st, 2012 @ 10:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think we have different interpretations of his statement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), Feb 1st, 2012 @ 11:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think that became clear quite some time ago :P

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This