18 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
18 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

How far could this go?

by Kay King
14 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
Twisted Sister is now the latest "artist" (and I use that term lightly) to ask a pol to stop using their music. The first time it happened a couple weeks ago I thought it was a one-time flash in the pan.

Now I wonder how far this can go before there's a licensee that stands firm or fights back....or sues for damages.

The first of these fusses led to online charges about copy and trademark violation, etc - none of it true. The artists choose licensing companies to issue rights to use the music usually FOR A FEE.

If an artist or copyright holder signs an agreement to allow a licensing company to sell rights to use their work.....can they legally then step in and cause harm or bad press to the person who legally purchased rights to use the material?

Can you take money for use and still control use after the fact? Clearly, no public figure is going to make a stink but I wonder if these musicians will lead others to believe they can sell rights yet still control rights.

Seems to me the licensing company could be open to liability if they are selling rights to use materials and using that material causes potential damage to a cause or person or whatever.

I am not making a statement of beliefs here - so please if you want to plug a candidate or diss another...just move on. I'm curious about legal and ethical ramifications of such behavior.

If you make online content available through article directories, for example, could you then have the right to tell a competing site not to print the article?

Is this attention-getting behavior limited to political arena or might it be used to generate negative attention to a popular consumer product using a song in a TV ad? If a copyright holder is profiting from sales of "licenses for use" - how much control do they retain?

I don't know but thought some of our music moguls on the WF might know something about the licensing end and I'm curious.

kay
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    They HAVE to have rights, etc... IMAGINE if "yesterday" was licensed for a minor fee decades ago and was used for some event that tainted it forever. Even if the license fee were $5000 per use, it could have cost the artists MILLIONS! What if it corrupted the ARTISTS reputation? It could have destroyed their CAREERS!

    Such things HAVE happened! Stars have had to fly in, get wardrobe, publicity, etc.... and lose it ALL because they merely broke the decency clause!

    So NO, paying a few bucks does NOT give you the right to take millions or obliterate careers!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6855585].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      If an artist or copyright holder signs an agreement to allow a licensing company to sell rights to use their work.....can they legally then step in and cause harm or bad press to the person who legally purchased rights to use the material?
      If I remember right when they sign the agreement they usually retain 'right of refusal'. The licensing company is just acting as a middle man. In other words the company or politician would approach the licensing company and ask to use a song (for a fee), then the licensing company contacts the song writer (or group) for the o.k.
      Almost every instance I can think of where an artist has asked a politician or company not to use their song anymore is because they didn't seek permission first.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6855655].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    I can't speak on what has happened between artists and companies that have used their songs.


    But...

    Not asking for permission did not come into play on the last two occasions involving a pol.

    On both recent occasions the artists made it clear they can't stand the pol and/or what the pol represents.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6855737].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      TL -
      just stop now - I'm not going to respond to more pol opinions from you - this isn't about that and you aren't going to take it there.


      they sign the agreement they usually retain 'right of refusal'
      Thom - that is what I wondered about. I think it's interesting as it's played out this year.

      But I was curious whether the artist is notified when a license is applied for - or only when a particular song is used by a licensee.

      It does seem to me to lack in protection for the person who purchased rights to use - as the complaints are "after the fact".

      Seems like if you wanted to use music in an ad or a product promotion or even a film - you would need to be cautious about the terms of the licensing agency contracts with its artists.

      I was wondering how much liability an artist or agency might bump into (totally outside of this particular instance).

      If you licensed an old song to use to promote a consumer product - could the artist publicly tell you to stop the use "because your product is bad for the environment" or "because I don't want my music associated with people who promote this lifestyle" or something like that?

      Seems to me if that would happen it would be done quietly behind the scenes to avoid a damage suit....but I'm not a lawyer. Just thinkin'.

      From what I've read, the campaign that all the controversy is erupting over has a blanket licensing deal with EMI that allows them to use any song in the catalog.
      That was my understanding, too, but then wondered just how much they could get by with along those lines without losing their licensing contract or facing legal problems.

      I don't think it's a deal with the devil - it's a money making venture they wanted in the first place.

      kay
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      It actually doesn't take much to be considered a 'difficult woman' -
      that's why there are so many of us.
      ...jane goodall
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6855842].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        I'm not sure exactly how it all works Kay.
        I do know that some artist retain the right of refusal and some don't. It can also depend on the type of contract an artist has with their record company. It all boils down to who retains the rights to the artist's works.
        I know of cases where artists have given the rights to the record companies to all their "recorded works", just to be able to sign a recording deal. I believe there are at least three types of contracts with licensing agencies. 1. The artist keeps final say on who uses their songs. 2. The artist stipulates what theirs songs can and cannot be used for. 3. The artist lets the licensing company have final say and cannot stop anyone the licensing company gives permission to.
        Also many groups that aren't well known don't have any type of deal with any license company.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6855925].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post


        I don't think it's a deal with the devil - it's a money making venture they wanted in the first place.

        kay
        I meant the 'devil' of the recording company. I know a lot of artists aren't happy with the conditions in their contracts, but the recording company does something the artists can't do - produce, promote, distribute - for a price.
        Signature

        The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

        Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6855950].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
    Bottom line is that unless they have a special deal, artists have no say where their music is played if they are under contract, and these people who are speaking out are just wanting some press.

    From what I've read, the campaign that all the controversy is erupting over has a blanket licensing deal with EMI that allows them to use any song in the catalog.

    The artist made a deal with the devil, now they have to live with it.
    Signature

    The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

    Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6855795].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MoneyMagnetMagnate
    I am not going to 'diss' either side, but as previously stated, some artists have more control over their music than others, I still think consulting an artist for use of their songs in cases like this should be the responsibility of the licensing agency - the agency couldn't give a rat's bladder who plays the song, as long as they get money they would sell "I'm too sexy" to Toddlers and Tiaras...

    For this example, I will need to use a political example, but let's say an artist (Bosephus, for example) came out against a certain incumbent, then said incumbent started using his licensed music in his campaign freely and deliberately, basically telling HWjr to "bite me"...would he have any recourse?

    And just about the "deal with the devil", consider how much money someone like Chuck Berry would have today, had he not made a deal for peanuts to an unscrupulous label years ago...he has some money (much after the fact for his image), but no where near what many of today's artists bring in...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6856017].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
    I would think this is hard to answer unless you had access to the agreement between the artists and the licensing companies.

    Licenses have restrictions. Even the PLR stuff being sold on this forum have exceptions. Whenever I buy an image from IStockPhoto there are 2 levels (and prices) of licenses offered and you really have to read them.

    I wouldn't think these licenses would be "Hey - whatever you want to do with this - go right ahead!"

    But, I guess that depends on the artists as well and how desparate they were when they entered in to their contracts
    Signature

    Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6856019].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

    Twisted Sister is now the latest "artist" (and I use that term lightly) to ask a pol to stop using their music. The first time it happened a couple weeks ago I thought it was a one-time flash in the pan.

    Now I wonder how far this can go before there's a licensee that stands firm or fights back....or sues for damages.

    The first of these fusses led to online charges about copy and trademark violation, etc - none of it true. The artists choose licensing companies to issue rights to use the music usually FOR A FEE.

    If an artist or copyright holder signs an agreement to allow a licensing company to sell rights to use their work.....can they legally then step in and cause harm or bad press to the person who legally purchased rights to use the material?

    Can you take money for use and still control use after the fact? Clearly, no public figure is going to make a stink but I wonder if these musicians will lead others to believe they can sell rights yet still control rights.

    Seems to me the licensing company could be open to liability if they are selling rights to use materials and using that material causes potential damage to a cause or person or whatever.

    I am not making a statement of beliefs here - so please if you want to plug a candidate or diss another...just move on. I'm curious about legal and ethical ramifications of such behavior.

    If you make online content available through article directories, for example, could you then have the right to tell a competing site not to print the article?

    Is this attention-getting behavior limited to political arena or might it be used to generate negative attention to a popular consumer product using a song in a TV ad? If a copyright holder is profiting from sales of "licenses for use" - how much control do they retain?

    I don't know but thought some of our music moguls on the WF might know something about the licensing end and I'm curious.

    kay
    The incident a few weeks ago wasn't the "first" time it happened. It has happened a few times before that, also.

    And even if Dee Snyder did give up rights to the song, he didn't give up his rights to free speech to tell the public he disagreed with everything the politican stood for.

    Considering Dee Snyder is probably one of the more media-savvy musicians, the politician in question probably did the right thing from a publicity point of view and kill the story ASAP. The politician had the choice to keep using the music and go to court to prove he had the rights to do so.

    But I do have to chuckle at the premise of a politician getting "screwed"...
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6856032].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

      The incident a few weeks ago wasn't the "first" time it happened. It has happened a few times before that, also.

      And even if Dee Snyder did give up rights to the song, he didn't give up his rights to free speech to tell the public he disagreed with everything the politican stood for.

      Considering Dee Snyder is probably one of the more media-savvy musicians, the politician in question probably did the right thing from a publicity point of view and kill the story ASAP. The politician had the choice to keep using the music and go to court to prove he had the rights to do so.

      But I do have to chuckle at the premise of a politician getting "screwed"...

      It's happened quite a few times in the last 30 years where artists and pols have had conflicts over their music.

      For those that want more background on the phenomena there's even a slide show online that details at least 15 occasions but I won't post the link here or some folks may have an conniption.

      It's true that on most occasions the artists simply stated that the pol was using their song without permission etc. and wanted them to stop.


      Anyone who wants more info...

      Go to the huffingtonpost.com and search for "twisted sister" or "dee snider" and after the story, you should run into the slideshow of artist verses pols at the bottom of the page.


      All The Best!!

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6856395].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author garyv
      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post


      Considering Dee Snyder is probably one of the more media-savvy musicians, the politician in question probably did the right thing from a publicity point of view and kill the story ASAP.
      Probably not too savvy in this case. Considering the fact that he could of had half the country singing his song again. Guess he'll just have to wait for 80's top 100 royalties to trickle in.

      Good for him for sticking up for his political principles, but I think if my political enemy was offering my band a bucket full of money, my reply would be "We ARE gonna take it!"
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6859371].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by garyv View Post

        Probably not too savvy in this case. Considering the fact that he could of had half the country singing his song again. Guess he'll just have to wait for 80's top 100 royalties to trickle in.

        Good for him for sticking up for his political principles, but I think if my political enemy was offering my band a bucket full of money, my reply would be "We ARE gonna take it!"
        Actually, this shows just how media savvy Dee is...By exploiting the media, he got what he wanted in about two days.

        If he needs money now, he can just make another Stanley Steamer commercial:



        PS...You gotta love that the amp in the commercial goes up to 11. LOL
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6859405].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author garyv
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          Actually, this shows just how media savvy Dee is...By exploiting the media, he got what he wanted in about two days.
          You may be right, but here's how I see it.... instead of half the country singing his song again, he'll get a handful (in comparison) to think about his song again because of the news coverage. Instead of being played at every rally and the upcoming convention, he has now limited his exposure to a few low rated news channels. In fact, I'm somewhat of a news junky and didn't find out about this story until I saw it here in the forum.

          Convention anthems always get a very huge boost in their rankings. "We're Not Gonna Take It" would have been a great convention anthem. However there are a ton of them out there to choose from. Here's a good one (it's a good thing they don't let me choose them)...

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6859624].message }}

Trending Topics