Exactly what I was thinking. If the Republicans respected copyrights and asked first, the answer would be "no" 99% of the time. And they know it. Unless it's a Ted Nugent song, they're pretty much f**ked. ;)

They already got what they wanted. Always easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission.

Maybe McCain/Palin can get permission to use the Surfaris song, Boss Barracuda.
Or The Barracuda by the 5,6,7,8's?

Yup. If I restricted my intake of media to that produced by Reps and Indies I might as well be deaf, dumb and blind:cool:

I've got the dumb part down pat. :cool:

always interesting to see where people's relative moral compass points on various topics. Life is full of gray areas, though this one is pretty clear cut to me. The arena having a license doesn't cut it as a rationalization (or legally) - there is much more at play here.

They should have just asked Ted and then played "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang" and called it good...

Of course the other irony is that "Barracuda" is about oppression of women in the industry, and "Born in the USA" (used by Reagan campaign) was a scathing commentary on the country. Then again maybe not everybody thinks that art has meaning, and isn't just "pretty pictures" and "catchy music." To each their own...

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The rock group Heart, angry that its '70s hit "Barracuda" is being used as the unofficial theme song for Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, is taking aim at the Alaska governor.

The song, a nod to the "Sarah Barracuda" nickname Palin earned on the basketball court in high school, was dusted off for her appearance at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul on Wednesday.

Heart singers Ann and Nancy Wilson said a "cease-and-desist" letter has been sent to the Republicans asking them not to use the song.

"The Republican campaign did not ask for permission to use the song, nor would they have been granted that permission," according to a statement issued late on Thursday on behalf of the sisters.

The McCain campaign said it had obtained the appropriate licenses to play the song.

"The McCain campaign respects intellectual property rights," spokesman Brian Rogers said. "Accordingly, prior to using 'Barracuda' at any events, we paid for and obtained all necessary licenses."

Last month, rocker Jackson Browne sued Republican presidential candidate John McCain, the Republican National Committee and the Ohio Republican Party, accusing them of using his 1977 hit "Running on Empty" in a campaign ad without permission.

Copyright law may not be on the Wilsons' side as the song is licensed for public performance under a blanket fee paid by the venue to ASCAP, the firm that collects royalties on behalf of composers and copyright owners.

Despite the Wilson sisters' objections, one of the song's co-writers said he was "thrilled" that the song was used.

In an e-mail to Reuters, the band's former guitarist, Roger Fisher, said it was a win-win situation. Heart gets publicity and royalties, while the Republicans benefit from "the ingenious placement of a kick-ass song," Fisher said.

But in a subsequent email, Fisher said he strongly endorsed the Democratic ticket, and would donate a portion of royalties he receives from the Republicans' airing of "Barracuda" to the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama.

"With my contribution to Obama's campaign, the Republicans are now supporting Obama," he said.

Fisher and the Wilsons wrote "Barracuda" with drummer Michael DeRosier. It appeared on the group's second album, "Little Queen" in 1977. The song was inspired by the band's anger over an obnoxious record label executive.

I just wonder how either Palin or McCain feel, being indirectly compared to barracudas via the song.

All I see here, really, is the sad (out) number of creative people who care about how art art is used, compared to the wealth of defensive schmucks who believe anything and everything should be utilized for their own unsavory purposes.

I agree dd. Given the subject as described in the lyrics it was a bad choice.

Guess the the morons should have thought about that before they took the money for it.

"The McCain campaign said it had obtained the appropriate licenses to play the song.

The McCain campaign respects intellectual property rights," spokesman Brian Rogers said. "Accordingly, prior to using 'Barracuda' at any events, we paid for and obtained all necessary licenses."
...
Copyright law may not be on the Wilsons' side as the song is licensed for public performance under a blanket fee paid by the venue to ASCAP, the firm that collects royalties on behalf of composers and copyright owners."

The Repubs should get a cover version done...so the band does not get a cent.

"Despite the Wilson sisters' objections, one of the song's co-writers said he was "thrilled" that the song was used."

It also illustrates how ignorant the Wilson's sisters are concerning intellectual property. Running out to find a lawyer (who gladly took their money) to send a cease and desist order on something they don't own and probably haven't owned for decades.

It adds to my belief that artists are immensely talented but not very bright. Little wonder that many end up destitute in the later years. Easy targets for agents that can easily take advantage of their naivete.

Jim S.

my artist g/f says, "kudos to you on this point."

As I stated earlier, there is more at play here. Does the convention constitute "advertising"? If so then just having a license for performance is not sufficient. If this were a tv commercial we wouldn't be having this argument - you either get a license for the song in that context or you don't use it (or you get a band to cover it if you have the publishing but not performance license iirc).

There is a whole subtext about the value of art in society and levels of engagement and understanding. It is clear that different people have different levels/types of appreciation for the arts, and that is reflected in how they believe artists should be compensated and treated. Most artists would argue that the money is only part of the point.

For instance, if my g/f sells a sculpture and the buyer smashes it, she will be upset but has no legal recourse. But if the buyer smashes it and then tries to put it in a show, there will be trouble. While it might not be "legal" issues, the reality is that the community will not allow this type of behavior. The museum/gallery will attempt to get permission from the artist before showing, and if they don't the peers will likely protest and ostracize the buyer and/or exhibitionist.

The point being that law is not really a very good arbiter of artistic issues...sadly it is the last avenue of recourse. Many communities will "self-police" on what is "right". But when it gets into the broader society at-large, that doesn't really work.

This says it all, and if it is a major venue, so as stated, blanket coverage, works for advertising as well.
Now you have been in the biz long enough to know that this is BS, just a reach.

"This says it all, and if it is a major venue, so as stated, blanket coverage, works for advertising as well."

What part of your own message do you consider a reach?

You think the blanket music license applies to campaign advertising as well? E.g. If they repurpose segments of the convention with the soundtrack on a TV adv, they can do so freely? I guess they can try w/o asking like they've done already.

Sherwood

Someone correct me if i'm wrong here, :cool: but hadn't the formal part of the convention ended when the whiners song played? --I just remember hearing in the background once the talking heads started giving their spin.

Not a very good analogy. They did not change or destroy the song or make it any less artistic...they just paid for the rights to play it...just like the folks who play it in the elevator...or mens room. Once you sell a product, it belongs to the person that purchases it. You can take all the "artsy" nude photos of your wife that you want...but once you sell them to Penthouse, you pretty much loose control of what is done wit it and shouldn't be surprised to find out that greasy old men are reading it in the bathroom...

Context matters.

Just like some of the pictures of "ghetto" Porshes" we see posted here...It may not be what Ferry envisioned, but once he sold the car...

Playing a song does not imply the artist has simialar values or approves the message.

Your analogies are whack, Fintstone, but if I'm ever on trial for murder I want you to help my lawyer w/ his closing statement. Such tenacity in the face of logic I've never seen. Truly brilliant.

you dont see the difference between a license which grants a venue the right to play a song to a limited audience vs a song played in a venue but which is broadcast over multiple television networks to many millions of people? Such an exposure of one's song without adequate compensation is improper without a license for such a specific and peculiar event

also, an artist who owns their copyright and does not want to be associated with a particular party has every right to prevent it if they own their rights, especially when that party is not favored or liked by the artist's market base or demographic

perhaps some dont see the harm that could be done. here is an extreme example. Say Adolph Hitler was alive and well and a US citizen and running for some office and chose a song by a popular recording artist. Would you not expect that artist's sales to be affected?

Same thing here, though I am no way comparing the Republicans to Hitler

very interesting thread btw