Karohemd&#39;s World

That doesn't mean it's right. See

pmoodie's comment.

From:

emperor

Oh, agreed. But suing people is not the way to stop them doing something wrong but legal.

From:

They could sue them for defamation of character or something like that?

From:

undyingking.livejournal.com

In this case, just getting some good publicity for their disapproval is probably success enough -- making the Republicans look bad.

From:

That might well be their intention and to my mind they've succeeded already.

From:

Hmmm. It may be legal, but maybe there should be special rules about songs, or any works of art, being used as part of political campaigns.

Or maybe this is something that should be written into a record contract - no use of the song for political purposes, without the approval of the artist?

From:

Where do you draw the line? If The Who decided they didn't want to be associated with the CSI franchise, should that be grounds for legal recourse?

From:

Yeah, why not? Why should artists have their work used for things they don't want to be assiciated with?

That's what copyright is all about of course, and if they sign that away to someone else then that's their own look-out, but if it was me, I'd want a contract with a clause about what the work could be used for.

From:

Cool. I'm going to write a book that dwarves won't be allowed to read :-)

From:

No. Obviously, you can't control who reads your book.

But I don't think it's unreasonable to want some say in who publishes it.

Might I ask - are you yourself an artist of any kind?

From:

Depending on how I distribute it, I could have a surprising amount of control over who legally reads my book. The way I see it, distribution and property rights are the issue, rather than usage or consumer base.

If I want to enjoy the benefits of putting a product on an open marketplace, I shouldn't complain because it's bought by people I don't like, (or dwarves). It shouldn't matter whether it's songs or software or shaving foam; if I don't want to lose control of what I create, I shouldn't sell the rights to it.

I'm an artist insofar as I produce hitherto-unpublished creative work in a variety of media, and if someone refered to "the artist" in the context of that work, it would be me they were talking about. I'm not an artist in the sense that I don't actually call myself an artist.

From:

We seem to be talking about two different things. The issue here is not who buys the work, it's who can use it, and what for.

Buying a piece of art does not entitle someone to then use it as part of a political campaign, or an advert, or anything else. That's breach of coyright.

In the case of a recording artist, they may sign over copyright of their work to the record company, and then they lose control of what use the company puts it to, or who it licenses it out to. If they want to keep control over that, then they should ensure that their contract contains a clause to that effect.

I myself am an illustrator and have had my work used by people without permission on more than one occasion, for commercial purposes. That's bad enough, but I'd be angry as hell if someone used my work to represent some political ideology that was not my own. I might end up being associated with the ideology in question, and that could have a very grave impact on my career and reputation.

From:

I don't think we are talking about different things. The rights to use a product are just as much a tradable commodity as the product itself, and I don't see why art should get special treatment if its creator does decide to sell them. Any creation can be used to further agendas the creator disagrees with, political or otherwise.

We seem to essentially agree that unreservedly selling the rights to a creation is a bad idea if we wish to retain control over what is done with it.

Edited for clarity and gimpy language use

Edited Date: 10/10/08 12:28 pm (UTC)

From:

morthrai.livejournal.com

If I recall, at the last US election the Foos were playing at rallies for Senator John Kerry. I wonder if this might be a personal thing rather than a general statement from Dave Grohl? Just thinking out loud really.

Always loved the band anyway!

From:

undyingking.livejournal.com

If the artist has agreed with their performing rights organization to make the licence available to anyone who wants it, they can't really complain.

It's easy enough for the artist to instead require individual approval of such licence applications, but for popular artists it would be a lot of work so (understandably) they can't usually be bothered to.

From:

bateleur.livejournal.com

they can't really complain

Or to be more precise, that's exactly what they can do!

In particular, these lawsuits seem designed not to be winnable so much as to generate press coverage of the artists' disapproval of the Republican cause.

From:

*nods* I know they have little legal grounds to go on. It just smacks of the ignorance of the McCain team again. If I were to look for music to support my campaign, I would not just look for songs that say what I like but I would also choose artists who share my views.
It's like Ronald Reagan praising Springsteen as a patriot for Born in the U.S.A. when the song was far from patriotic...

From:

undyingking.livejournal.com

There was either a very funny or a very strange example of this recently from McCain's daughter's blog -- Stereolab's Ping Pong, a rather harsh critique of the capitalist system.

From: