oohhh, barracuda

[speeder]

Originally Posted by srandallf

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

very interesting thread btw

But Hitler would have probably liked the same songs.

[ramonesfreak]

I think he was more of a Wagner man

---

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by srandallf

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


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

very interesting thread btw

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

Minnesota Sports and Entertainment (MSE) is a premier sports and entertainment provider of unique sporting, entertainment and business experiences with several avenues of business operations. The limited partnership owns the NHL’s Minnesota Wild, along with the AHL’s Houston Aeros, and Saint Paul Arena Company, which operates Xcel Energy Center, Saint Paul RiverCentre and The Legendary Roy Wilkins Auditorium. Along with the Wild and Saint Paul Arena Company, MSE has extended its business interests into the hospitality realm through its majority stake in Wildside Caterers. MSE also owns and operates 317 on Rice Park, the former historic Minnesota Club, which is an intimate venue for receptions, business meetings and weddings. Building winning relationships with guests, communities and partners is the foundation of MSE's success.

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.

[ramonesfreak]

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

[911pcars]

"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

[ramonesfreak]

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

[RWebb]

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


Yet They STOLE intellectual property from the authors???


NICE!!

[island911]

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


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


NICE!!

[dd74]

Originally Posted by jmshepard

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.
Jim S.

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.

Originally Posted by jmshepard

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.

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.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by island911

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


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


NICE!!

can you explain what you wrote??

or do I just put your gibberish on Ignore?

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by RWebb

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

Yet They STOLE intellectual property from the authors???

NICE!!

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

[SLO-BOB]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

OK, a radio station sends a check every time they play a song so why can't a campaign? Again I'm not disagreeing with the compensation side of it but rather the idea that they can deny sale to *certain* customer.

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.

[fintstone]

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).

[Sonic dB]

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.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by fintstone

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).

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.

[Sonic dB]

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.

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.

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.

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

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by Sonic dB

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.

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.

[Sonic dB]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

I wonder if the Dems got permission for all the tunes they played or if it's just a given that the artists endorse them. Jeremy?

I read an interview with Eddie Van Halen once where they asked him about using the song Right Now in that Pepsi Clear commercial. Remember that? He said VH only agreed to it because if they hadn't, Pepsi could have hired some musicians to play it identically, still would have used it in the commercial and then VH would have been defiled by some amateurs and still not gotten paid a dime.

I would think using a song for a convention, which is not selling a product, would have less of a legal burden than using a song in a tv commercial.

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.

[esample]

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.

[Sonic dB]

Originally Posted by fintstone

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.

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.