<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;rallies&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:16:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Like Clockwork: Copyright Holders Mistakenly Freak Out About Presidential Candidates Using Their Music</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/00295417596/like-clockwork-copyright-holders-mistakenly-freak-out-about-presidential-candidates-using-their-music.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/00295417596/like-clockwork-copyright-holders-mistakenly-freak-out-about-presidential-candidates-using-their-music.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ 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 <i>Survivor</i>, Frank Sullivan, who <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/31/newt-gingrich-eye-of-the-tiger" target="_blank">co-wrote the song "Eye of the Tiger"</a> which Gingrich has apparently been using during presidential campaigns:
<blockquote><i>
The complaint states that the violation it alleges is intentional since Gingrich is "sophisticated and knowledgeable" concerning copyright laws. 
</i></blockquote>
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 <a href="http://www.suntimes.com/10332797-418/former-survivor-member-sues-newt-gingrich-for-using-eye-of-tiger.html" target="_blank">goes into more detail</a>, 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.
<br /><br />
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:
<blockquote><i>
&#8220;My wife is a big fan,&#8221; Peterik said. &#8220;I&#8217;m becoming a fan of Newt Gingrich. He has a mind of his own. He&#8217;s not a talking head. Originally, I didn&#8217;t like him, but look at the competition. He&#8217;s looking better and better.&#8221;
<br /><br />
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&#8217;s way when it comes to cracking down on infringers.
<br /><br />
&#8221;I hate suits,&#8221; Peterik said. &#8220;I hate being in court. I avoid that meticulously. When I [heard about the lawsuit on the radio Monday} I said I&#8217;m not surprised, but I&#8217;m surprised.&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
I say this every time something like this comes up, but even if politicians <i>can</i> 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.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/00295417596/like-clockwork-copyright-holders-mistakenly-freak-out-about-presidential-candidates-using-their-music.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/00295417596/like-clockwork-copyright-holders-mistakenly-freak-out-about-presidential-candidates-using-their-music.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/00295417596/like-clockwork-copyright-holders-mistakenly-freak-out-about-presidential-candidates-using-their-music.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>again?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120131/00295417596</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2010 01:13:59 PDT</pubDate>
<title>City Paper Mocks Competitors For 'Policies' Over Stewart/Colbert Rallies</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101026/17031311597/city-paper-mocks-competitors-for-policies-over-stewart-colbert-rallies.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101026/17031311597/city-paper-mocks-competitors-for-policies-over-stewart-colbert-rallies.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's been pretty amusing watching various journalism outfits issue official "rules" to their journalists about this weekend's "Rally to Restore Sanity/March to Keep Fear Alive" put on by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.  NPR specifically <a href="http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=192569" target="_blank">banned journalists from participating</a> while the Washington Post similarly <a href="http://www.tbd.com/blogs/tbd-arts/2010/10/washington-post-newsroom-bans-stewart-colbert-rally-participation-3121.html" target="_blank">warned reporters</a>, that they could "observe," but "cannot in any way put themselves in a position that could be construed as supporting (or opposing) that cause."  Yes, how dare reporters be seen supporting sanity!  
<br><br>
Now, as a bunch of folks have sent in, the much smaller Washington City Paper has issued an amusing <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2010/10/26/washington-city-paper-staff-memo-on-stewartcolbert-rallies/" target="_blank">satirical memo to its own staff</a>, mocking the leaked memos from those other news organizations:
<ol><i>
<li>You may attend the rallies in a non-participatory fashion.</li>
<li>However, because the rallies are comic events, you may not laugh.</li>
<li>The act of <em>not</em> laughing, though, can be just as politically loaded as the act of laughing. Therefore, staffers are advised to politely chuckle, in a non-genuine manner, after each joke.</li>
<li>To avoid any perception of bias, please make sure to chuckle at <em>all</em> jokes, whether or not you find them funny. As journalists, we must make sure to not allow our personal views of "humorous" or "non-humorous" to affect our public demeanor.<span id="more-63757"></span></li>
<li>Likewise, it could be devastating to our impartial reputation if our staffers were seen laughing at something that was not intended as a joke, thereby appearing to mock the entire event. If we are lucky, the comedians will have a drummer on hand whose rim-shots may be used as a cue for when to politely chuckle.</li>

<li>If no non-verbal cues for laughter are available, please observe audience members around you. If they are laughing, imitate their laughter with a non-genuine polite chuckle. If they are not laughing, remain stone-faced. Whatever you do, do not apply your own personal cognitive skills to determining the humorousness of any particular clip. Such an approach exposes us to charges of bias.</li>
<li>On the other hand, a situation could arise where partisan foes of the Comedy Central hosts laugh at them in a derisive manner unrelated to the timing of their on-stage jokes. In this case, your failure to join in the mockery could potentially be interpreted as a sign that you disagree with the derision--an equally distasteful indication of bias. Please follow the above guidelines and also chuckle politely, but not genuinely, at any instances of counter-comedy.</li>
<li>In our experience, public appearances by comedy figures also draw audiences whose members frequently make jokes amongst themselves. These attempts at humor might not necessarily fit into the rational example of protesters versus counter-protesters outlined in the guidelines above. However, you could nonetheless indicate a great deal about your personal biases via your decision as to whether or not you laugh along when the person next to you riffs about, say, marginal tax rates. Please make sure to follow the above guidelines and respond via polite, non-genuine, mild guffaws to the jibes of amateur comics in the audience.</li>
<li>We're also aware that the large crowds expected at the rallies could produce a cacophonous din, one in which you are unable to discern which jokes are being made by audience members, counter-protestors, or the day's main attractions--and, worse still, where observers may think you are laughing at an anti-Republican joke when you are actually laughing at an anti-Democrat joke. To protect our cherished reputation against such a danger, I have arranged for each of you to be issued a pair of earplugs. Should the event grow too raucous, please insert these earplugs immediately. Once you have inserted the earplugs, please chuckle politely, and non-genuinely, every 74 seconds, to maintain the appearance of non-biased and appropriate responses to the event.</li>
<li>You are free to laugh heartily and genuinely at any jokes that target the terrorists.</li>
</i></ol>
Separately, it should be noted that the Washington City Paper was kind enough to publish this memo itself.  The similar memos from NPR and the Washington Post were, instead, published by competing outfits that had the memos "leaked."  Kinda makes you wonder why those news outfits leak internal emails for others to report, rather than reporting on such things themselves...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101026/17031311597/city-paper-mocks-competitors-for-policies-over-stewart-colbert-rallies.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101026/17031311597/city-paper-mocks-competitors-for-policies-over-stewart-colbert-rallies.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101026/17031311597/city-paper-mocks-competitors-for-policies-over-stewart-colbert-rallies.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>restoring-sanity</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101026/17031311597</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>