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?
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.
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I'm an artist insofar as I produce hitherto-unpublished creative work in a variety of media, and if someone refered to "the artist" in the context of that work, it would be me they were talking about.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*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...
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.
That's right. Still, there are political or also religious groups one would not want one's brain children to advertise for. It is damaging to the artist if their intention is misread and misused. I would probably sputter venom if some extremist group would take one of my songs to further their cause. I know, McC is not extremist. It was just an example.
I suspect that, unless they specifically cleared the works in advance, rights for either intended rebroadcast or "advertising" - which a work intended to be part of a campaign would be in the "reserved rights" category.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
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?
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
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?
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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
no subject
Always loved the band anyway!
no subject
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
It's like Ronald Reagan praising Springsteen as a patriot for Born in the U.S.A. when the song was far from patriotic...
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject