Can an artist choose where, and in what context, his song/recording may be played?

[rasputin1963]

Michael Stipe of REM thinks so. What say YOU?

 

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/07/r-e-m-uses-some-not-so-pretty-persuasion-against-fox-news-for-misuse-of-their-song/

[Mark L]

I say no

[Anderton]

The only possible issue is if the performance devalues the song in some way. For example, if the KKK adopts your song as a theme, I think you could probably get a cease-and-desist.

[Lawrence Farr]

if the KKK adopts your song as a theme, I think you could probably get a cease-and-desist.

 

Yeah, those Krispy Kreme Kids are bad news.

[Zooey]

In the US? No remedy as long as the performance royalties are paid (I'm assuming a live event here, not video or anything like that). In Europe, Canada, and other countries that recognize moral rights, there could be a claim.

[JeffLearman]

Not true, zooey, at least, regarding PA rights. For example, google Tomita Planets. Holst's heirs decided that Tomita's rendition was not appropriate for the work, as was their right by US copyright law.

 

I don't know whether there's a similar caveat for SR rights.

[JeffLearman]

Not true, zooey, at least, regarding PA rights. For example, google Tomita Planets. Holst's heirs decided that Tomita's rendition was not appropriate for the work, as was their right by US copyright law.

 

I don't know whether there's a similar caveat for SR rights.

[Zooey]

 

Not true, zooey, at least, regarding PA rights. For example, google Tomita Planets. Holst's heirs decided that Tomita's rendition was not appropriate for the work, as was their right by US copyright law. I don't know whether there's a similar caveat for SR rights.

 

 

I can't find any reliable legal source on the dispute, but if I had to guess, Holst's heirs were claiming that Tomita's rendition was not a cover, but an unlicensed derivative work. I'm not even sure their claims were ultimately successful--it appears that they were not.

 

Also, my comments are limited to playing the artist's own original recording at a venue which is covered by a performance license. Not recording a cover version.

[MargeHowel]

 

Not true, zooey, at least, regarding PA rights. For example, google Tomita Planets. Holst's heirs decided that Tomita's rendition was not appropriate for the work, as was their right by US copyright law. I don't know whether there's a similar caveat for SR rights.

 

 

Are you talking about the recording?

 

It looks like zooey is talking about a public performance, not a derivative work

 

I'm assuming a live event here, not video or anything like that).

[MargeHowel]

oops - crosspost

[JeffLearman]

 

Are you talking about the recording? It looks like zooey is talking about a public performance, not a derivative work I'm assuming a live event here, not video or anything like that).

I'm not sure what you're talking about: Stipe or Tomita.

 

Tomita's recording was suppressed. I believe it's no longer so, but it was pulled from the shelves, in the years when it would have sold. It may be that Tomita didn't contest it, but copyright holders do have the right to prevent an interpretation of the work for artistic reasons.

 

In Stipe's case, it was playing a recording. Whether there's a similar clause to cover this case, I don't know. Stipe claims that Fox was unlicensed, meaning Fox didn't even pay the mechanicals.

[ggm1960]

It's mountains from mole hills. I'd bet that, not only does the song go in and out of the ears of most viewers so quickly they don't even realize what the lyrics are, most don't know, or care, who Stipe or REM are (or perhaps more appropiately, were).

 

I was always a big fan of REM and still consider a few of their songs to be amogst my favorites, however, it always saddens me to see musicians and actors throw themselves into the political moshpit where scum sucking is the name of the game. They just plain make themselves look silly!

[blue2blue]

R.E.M., who I'm not particularly a fan of, hardly 'threw themselves into the political moshpit' -- their song was appropriated by Fox news to reference the plank controversy with the apparent intent of implying that the Democrats are 'godless.' It perverted the meaning of the song and appropriated it for commercial and political purposes.

 

Whatever the songwriters' legal recourse is/was, as an artist, I think they have plenty of right to be plenty ticked off from the standpoint of having one's artistic work misappropriated and perverted for purposes the artist finds repugnant.

 

Should an artist just shuck and jive and shuffle off into the shadows when his own creative efforts are perverted and misappropriated for crass political and commercial purposes? As a songwriter, I find that attitude deeply offensive.

 

 

And if an artist does want to 'throw himself into the political moshpit' -- doesn't he have as much right to do so as any other citizen?

 

Call me old-fashioned, but I think citizens have a responsibility to take politics seriously.

[sailorman]

 

Not true, zooey, at least, regarding PA rights. For example, google Tomita Planets. Holst's heirs decided that Tomita's rendition was not appropriate for the work, as was their right by US copyright law. I don't know whether there's a similar caveat for SR rights.

 

 

Same thing happened to King Crimson. The song "Devils Triangle" on "In the Wake of Poseidon" sounds very similar to Holst's "The Planets". Apparently they were refused the rights for their original rendition, so had to change it enough that it didn't fall under the copyright for the Holst work.

[Hard Truth]

My understanding is that once an authorized recording of a song is made, anyone can make another recording as long as they pay the mandatory mechanical fees. Using a song or recording along with visuals requires a synchronization license that is subject to artist/record company/composer permission. There may be special rules for use of a composition in a commercial also, separate from the synchronization license requirements.

[ggm1960]

 

R.E.M., who I'm not particularly a fan of, hardly 'threw themselves into the political moshpit' -- their song was appropriated by Fox news to reference the plank controversy with the apparent intent of implying that the Democrats are 'godless.' It perverted the meaning of the song and appropriated it for commercial and political purposes. Whatever the songwriters' legal recourse is/was, as an artist, I think they have plenty of right to be plenty ticked off from the standpoint of having one's artistic work misappropriated and perverted for purposes the artist finds repugnant. Should an artist just shuck and jive and shuffle off into the shadows when his own creative efforts are perverted and misappropriated for crass political and commercial purposes? As a songwriter, I find that attitude deeply offensive. And if an artist does want to 'throw himself into the political moshpit' -- doesn't he have as much right to do so as any other citizen? Call me old-fashioned, but I think citizens have a responsibility to take politics seriously.

 

 

In my opinion you're being HIGHLY overly dramatic. I'd be surprised if you could find a single 'man on the street' that would suddenly associate REM with Godlessness, the republican party or Wisconson cheddar cheese after hearing a 3 second clip of that song on the outro to, or return from commercial advertisements.

As a songwriter myself I'd be estatic if I could get such a spot on ANY nationally broadcast program! Just pay the royalties!

 

If other songwriters are this sensitive perhaps it would be better to keep all those songs inside their heads where they couldn't possibly be exploited by the great unwashed masses.

[MargeHowel]

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about: Stipe or Tomita.

 

 

I'm talking about the context of zooey's statement (the two issues you mentioned there are two different types of issues - zooey was addressing only one type)

 

Zooey specifically pointed out "I'm assuming a live event here, not video or anything like that)." (that's a zooey quote)

 

 

 

Tomita's recording was suppressed.

 

 

which wouldbe preparation of derivative work

 

 

 

In Stipe's case, it was playing a recording.

 

 

which is a public performance OF a work

[JeffLearman]

Hard Truth: you're right, as long as they paid the mechanical royalties and notified the copyright owner before publishing. If they didn't, then the copyright owner can refuse permission. Stipe claims the use was without being licensed. If he's correct, then he can refuse, and has a valid claim. However, Fox News would only be liable for statutory and actual damages, probably small enough not to contest, so it's a tempest in a teapot.

 

My claim about Tomita above is true but doesn't apply. In that case, the reason was that Tomita's work was considered a "derivative work" since it significantly changed the nature of the work. He didn't follow the score literally, for example. There are different rules for derivative works. But I was wrong to bring it up here, as it doesn't apply.

[Beck]

This is nothing more than Stipe making a political statement. Any organization can choose songs to play out of a catalogue when the proper fees are paid, unless the artist has some special control over his work. Tom Scholz did the same thing with a Boston song four years ago, again aimed at someone whose political views they oppose. All they are basically doing is taking political sides. Well, they

[JeffLearman]

which is a public performance OF a work

No, it's a broadcast, not a performance. Not that it matters; the issue is whether Fox paid royalties and notified the copyright holder before broadcast, and also whether it meets the criteria for Fair Use. I agree that the Tomita example doesn't apply here, my bad.

[JeffLearman]

So, if it's true that anyone can use any published/copyrighted song in any context, how come we complain about artists "selling out" when their music is used in advertisements? If there are no rules other than paying the mechanical licenses, then can't any advertiser use any song to pitch any product?

 

I suspect there's more to it, but I can't find anything solid. I thought I'd learned about restrictions on mechanical licenses at http://copyright.gov , but I can't find it now.

[MargeHowel]

 

No, it's a broadcast, not a performance.

 

 

zooey was initially talking specifically about the difference between live performance and preparation of derivative work

 

but digital broadcast is a type of performance right (it's different than duplication, preparation of derivative work, etc) like in the US code where it's ...perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

 

 

the issue is whether Fox paid royalties and notified the copyright holder before broadcast to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

 

 

It looks like from the original question the Topic poster was asking more about if the USA has the same kind of moral rights as a lot of the civil code countries for instance

 

 

 

I agree that the Tomita example doesn't apply here, my bad.

 

 

yeah, it's really a different thing Zooey is an IP attorney so his points have that sort of more focused precise-usage, scope-limited thing going on

[blue2blue]

 

In my opinion you're being HIGHLY overly dramatic. I'd be surprised if you could find a single 'man on the street' that would suddenly associate REM with Godlessness, the republican party or Wisconson cheddar cheese after hearing a 3 second clip of that song on the outro to, or return from commercial advertisements. As a songwriter myself I'd be estatic if I could get such a spot on ANY nationally broadcast program! Just pay the royalties! If other songwriters are this sensitive perhaps it would be better to keep all those songs inside their heads where they couldn't possibly be exploited by the great unwashed masses.

 

Well, if I'm passionate about my music and the ends it is put to, I guess that's my right. And if I want to commiserate with another songwriter whose efforts have been malappropriated in such a way as to pervert their meaning and to support political propaganda he finds offensive, I can be passionate about that, too.

 

Legalities aside, I think the artist should make a big stink and make it clear that the people so misusing his creative work are doing it against the artist's wishes.

 

 

If you can't understand that or you think that's over-dramatic, that's your perception and, of course, you're welcome to it.

 

 

Something can be legal and still be an ethical provocation or violation.

 

If I wrote an op-ed opinion that was quoted in such a way as to attempt to make it appear that I was in favor of something I was actually opposed to, I don't think too many people would fail to understand the ethical issues there.

 

And, again, why shouldn't musicians have EVERY right to have and express political opinions?

[blue2blue]

Here's a Bill Moyers piece on the general issue. He doesn't weigh in with an opinion but he briefly surveys recent events, notes that, in general, as long as blanket license fees are paid,* pols can typically use recorded music at their events -- but notes wryly that it's become increasingly difficult for Republican event planners to avoid music by musicians opposed to the party -- unless they want to program all Nashville Pop (which he calls country & western) with a side of Kid Rock and Ted Nugent.

 

http://billmoyers.com/2012/08/26/artists-to-politicians-stop-the-music/

 

 

 

* He does suggest that there may be some trademark issues that -- in light of the recent Apple v. Samsung ruling -- may come into play, since that case seems to have expanded the jurisprudential overlap between IP and trademark/business identity issues.

[nat whilk II]

it's become increasingly difficult for Republican event planners to avoid music by musicians opposed to the party -- unless they want to program all Nashville Pop (which he calls country & western) with a side of Kid Rock and Ted Nugent.

 

 

NUGENT/ROCK 2016 GOP TICKET!!!!!

 

nat whilk ii