But Hitler would have probably liked the same songs. :)

I think he was more of a Wagner man

---

That dog don't hunt, as this isn't a small bar, but the Xcel Energy Center


And since it is licensed, as they use many songs for hockey games and other televised events. If you are going to compare to hitler, then the racist obama is you man, he is singing the same song, using the same tactics that hitle used to get elected, including his own hitler youth on face book.

i wasnt comparing to hitler or implying that they share any common ideas as hitler. i was stating an extreme example so one could see how if a song or artist gets associated with a political party, that its possible the artist's business could suffer. some artists willingly give their music to a party because they are proud of the association others do not and the reasons should be obvious

I have no idea about Obama and his methods because i could really care less about him, perhaps your right about that..i dont know. never said i was an obama supporter

"And since it is licensed, as they use many songs for hockey games and other televised events. If you are going to compare to hitler, then the racist obama is you man, he is singing the same song, using the same tactics that hitle used to get elected, including his own hitler youth on face book."

Bone up on copyright issues.

The political trash talk is tiresome. Try the Getapo forum for less discussion, more encouragement.

Sherwood

yea, and your contract law. the licensor contemplated that music would be played during hockey games and "tv" events as you say..which i suspect refers to monster truck rallies, but i would be willing to bet that the licensing contract did not contemplate a political convention

So.... the RNC claims to believe in PROPERTY RIGHTS????


Yet They STOLE intellectual property from the authors???


NICE!!

So.... the RandyWebb claims to believe in FACTS????


Yet he feigns a FALSE understanding in an effort to distort and LIE???


NICE!!

I assume you've been on the creative side of a pen, keyboard (computer or piano), camera, paint brush or hammer & chisel. Because if you have, as an artist, you know your job is to create art, and to not wrangle out legal issues involving copyrights. That's what lawyers are for.

What you need to do, Jim, is ask an entertainment attorney how many of their clients get ripped off as the Wilson sisters purportedly have. You'll find that it's rare, because most entities strongly regard copyright laws in circumstances where art can be used beyond its intended purpose. The fact that this breakage of law is so rare is partly why so much attention has been given to the GOP convention using "Barracuda." Plus the fact that it doesn't help that the GOP convention is such a highly visible venue.

Anyway, those same entertainment attorneys will tell you that what causes an artist (whose not so bright) to become destitute, is they spend money beyond their means - just like anyone else can/does. It's not because they don't continually bone up on copyrights regarding their properties.

can you explain what you wrote??

or do I just put your gibberish on Ignore?

So...what part about them paying for the right to play the songs didn't you understand?

But they can. There are a LOT of artists who refuse to sell the rights of their music to various entities because they do not like what that entity represents.

I also wondered if the Wilsons were Republicans when I heard the song played so they were justified in worrying about the association in at least one case. I thought it strange at the time (and a poor choice of music), but I guess no more weird than Ted Nugent being a Republican.

Why would they need "rights" to play the song at an event? It is not like they used it on a commercial enterprise (TV show, movie, or commercial).

Palin & co. are trying to benefit/profit from using Heart's song, without permission. This is a violation of copyright / usage laws and yes, they should be held accountable. Kudos to Heart for standing up to them.

Maybe their next step will be to use "Magic Man" for McCain or something...seeing he probably used his magic hands well when cheating on his wife.

Im Not a political person, but the hypocracy of it reeks, by both parties and they need to be called on it.

I think there might be limited rights in the contract Heart agreed to, which would not cover events like the GOP Convention. I don't know. It'd be interesting if someone posted a music contract...or Heart's contract for "Little Queen." Then we could attempt to more accurately decipher all this.

Yes, which is why you hear classic Beatles songs used to sell products on TV all the time these days, thanks to hurtin for money Michael Jackson who owns most of the catalogue and is pimping it out.

There is a chance that Hart's record co. still owns the Mechanical Rights to the song, but Hart probably owns at least 50% of the publishing and are entitled to synchronization rights at the very least for a broadcast of their song. But really the issue is whether the RNC has attempted to benefit from the song by using it, in which case they probably were and certainly Heart has the right to say no.

They were probably trying to show what a "Barracuda" that Palin chick is... whatever.

Sheesh! They played it at a feakin convention...they did not reproduce or broadcast it. The Wilsons are either just trying to get a little publicity...or are just plain stupid...maybe both. If the use was actually improper, they would have sued instead of asking for an injunction.

Only as far as Mechanical (recording) rights would VH be screwed in the above situation, but if they own the publishing, which they may...they would be entitled to something even if imitators covered the song note for note.

I know I shouldn't get involved here but I will share this. First of all, let me say that most of my income is derived from music royalties and that I am not siding with the RNC (or anyone for that matter).

An example:

The hockey arena in Tampa holds a blanket license with ASCAP and BMI. They can play any music in those repertoires during the course of an event at that venue as long as the music is incidental to said event. If the event is televised, and if the music is incidental to the event, that public performance is licensed under the blanket agreement for tv as well. ASCAP and BMI hold an agreement with authors, composers, and publishers to collect public performance royalties on their behalf.

If you're in attendance at a hockey game, it is your birthday, and the Tampa Bay Lightning is so disposed, they can play "Happy Birthday"to you and the Hill Sisters will get compensation through ASCAP. However, I was once asked to re-lyric and produce a version of "Happy Birthday" to play in the arena as part of a McDonald's ad campaign on the occasion of the 50th birthday of the Big Mac. That performance required an additional license because that use of the song went beyond "Public Performance". They also needed publishing rights and synchronization rights. The cost? $200. If that performance in the arena had been carried on the television broadcast, the cost would have been substantially higher.

The writers of "Barracuda" and the publishers probably collected several hundred, if not thousands of dollars from that performance as the fee is determined by the size of the market (world) and time of broadcast (prime) as well as duration of the cue.

Whether they have further recourse against the RNC is a matter for more informed legal minds (read lawyers).

As far as "The Star Spangled Banner", FS Key has relinquished his right to that copyright by virtue of being dead longer that fifty years from the original date of publication.

-e.

But it was 'broadcast' on TV right? I didnt see it but if it was, then they are entitled to synch rights if they own the publishing... but at the very least, they are entitled to speak up if they dont like their song to be used as a political promo.