Oi, Republicans, no!

[karohemd]

Various musicians are suing the Republicans for use of songs during the election campaign

Comments

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

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

[pmoodie.livejournal.com]

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?

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

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I'm an artist insofar as I produce hitherto-unpublished creative work in a variety of media, and if someone refered to "the artist" in the context of that work, it would be me they were talking about.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.

[pmoodie.livejournal.com]

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.

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

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