A Florida man has recently attracted a lawsuit for the unauthorised use
of a popular song in their public activities at rallies.
The artist and their corporate representatives who hold the copyright
have objected and are claiming damages as no permission was sought as
well as asking to cease and desist in future.
Presumably this is civil litigation ?
If the facts of ownership and control are as presented, then what would
the next step be in legal terms ?
I am aware there appears to be a long history of US (and sometimes UK) >political campaigns suddenly discovering they own the rights to a piece
of music, no matter what the law says. I don't recall hearing of any >judgements.
I guess there is a view that the best punishment is the total >misunderstanding of some campaigns as to what the music is saying. The
use of "Born in the USA" as a rallying cry for corporate Republican
America is well known in England. (Because you don't diss the Boss !).
In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:37:56 -0700 (PDT),
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
A Florida man has recently attracted a lawsuit for the unauthorised use
of a popular song in their public activities at rallies.
The artist and their corporate representatives who hold the copyright
have objected and are claiming damages as no permission was sought as
well as asking to cease and desist in future.
Presumably this is civil litigation ?
Yes.
If the facts of ownership and control are as presented, then what would
the next step be in legal terms ?
Get an injunction against its use? Then request and later sue for
damages?
I am aware there appears to be a long history of US (and sometimes UK) >>political campaigns suddenly discovering they own the rights to a piece
of music, no matter what the law says. I don't recall hearing of any >>judgements.
My recollection is that trump used someone's song without permission,
and even maybe after the copyright holder objected publicly. Like you, I don't recall any judgments.
I guess there is a view that the best punishment is the total >>misunderstanding of some campaigns as to what the music is saying. The
use of "Born in the USA" as a rallying cry for corporate Republican
America is well known in England. (Because you don't diss the Boss !).
I don't understand this paragraph at all!
A Florida man has recently attracted a lawsuit for the unauthorised use
of a popular song in their public activities at rallies.
The artist and their corporate representatives who hold the copyright
have objected and are claiming damages as no permission was sought as
well as asking to cease and desist in future.
Presumably this is civil litigation ?
If the facts of ownership and control are as presented, then what would
the next step be in legal terms ?
I am aware there appears to be a long history of US (and sometimes UK) political campaigns suddenly discovering they own the rights to a piece
of music, no matter what the law says. I don't recall hearing of any judgements.
I guess there is a view that the best punishment is the total misunderstanding of some campaigns as to what the music is saying. The
use of "Born in the USA" as a rallying cry for corporate Republican
America is well known in England. (Because you don't diss the Boss !).
A Florida man has recently attracted a lawsuit for the unauthorised use
of a popular song in their public activities at rallies.
The artist and their corporate representatives who hold the copyright
have objected and are claiming damages as no permission was sought as
well as asking to cease and desist in future.
Presumably this is civil litigation ?
If the facts of ownership and control are as presented, then what would
the next step be in legal terms ?
I am aware there appears to be a long history of US (and sometimes UK) political campaigns suddenly discovering they own the rights to a piece
of music, no matter what the law says. I don't recall hearing of any judgements.
I guess there is a view that the best punishment is the total misunderstanding of some campaigns as to what the music is saying. The
use of "Born in the USA" as a rallying cry for corporate Republican
America is well known in England. (Because you don't diss the Boss !).
In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:37:56 -0700 (PDT),
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
A Florida man has recently attracted a lawsuit for the unauthorised use
of a popular song in their public activities at rallies.
The artist and their corporate representatives who hold the copyright
have objected and are claiming damages as no permission was sought as
well as asking to cease and desist in future.
Presumably this is civil litigation ?
Yes.
If the facts of ownership and control are as presented, then what would
the next step be in legal terms ?
Get an injunction against its use? Then request and later sue for
damages?
I am aware there appears to be a long history of US (and sometimes UK) >>political campaigns suddenly discovering they own the rights to a piece
of music, no matter what the law says. I don't recall hearing of any >>judgements.
My recollection is that trump used someone's song without permission,
and even maybe after the copyright holder objected publicly. Like you, I >don't recall any judgments.
Creedence Clearwater Revival John Fogerty, the frontman for the band Creedence Clearwater Revival, has opposed Trump's use of the band's song "Fortunate Son". In October 2020, Fogerty announced he was sending a cease-and-desist letter to Trump, saying that Trump "is using my words
My recollection is that trump used someone's song without permission,
and even maybe after the copyright holder objected publicly. Like you, I
don't recall any judgments.
I guess there is a view that the best punishment is the total >>>misunderstanding of some campaigns as to what the music is saying. The >>>use of "Born in the USA" as a rallying cry for corporate Republican >>>America is well known in England. (Because you don't diss the Boss !).
I don't understand this paragraph at all!
Not a Bruce Springsteen fan then ?
In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 13 Aug 2024 13:37:03 -0700 (PDT),
Jethro_uk <[email protected]> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I know the song, and the first 6 words, but I don't pay much attention
to lyrics. After googling, I have some idea of what you meant.
If the facts of ownership and control are as presented, then what would
the next step be in legal terms ?
On 8/13/2024 11:37 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
A Florida man has recently attracted a lawsuit for the unauthorised use
of a popular song in their public activities at rallies.
The artist and their corporate representatives who hold the copyright
have objected and are claiming damages as no permission was sought as
well as asking to cease and desist in future.
Presumably this is civil litigation ?
If the facts of ownership and control are as presented, then what would
the next step be in legal terms ?
I am aware there appears to be a long history of US (and sometimes UK)
political campaigns suddenly discovering they own the rights to a piece
of music, no matter what the law says. I don't recall hearing of any
judgements.
I guess there is a view that the best punishment is the total
misunderstanding of some campaigns as to what the music is saying. The
use of "Born in the USA" as a rallying cry for corporate Republican
America is well known in England. (Because you don't diss the Boss !).
The amazingly ironic part of this is that if you ever actually listen to
the lyrics of "Born in the USA", the song has little to do with what you think it does. It is NOT an ode to patriotism as many think - it is actually the story of a Vietnam veteran who comes back from the war and
faces rejection and very tough circumstances as he can't find a home or
a job. The counterpoint of the surging "Born in the USA" part is
actually meant to be ironic and not celebratory at all.
https://genius.com/Bruce-springsteen-born-in-the-usa-lyrics
On 8/13/2024 11:37 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
A Florida man has recently attracted a lawsuit for the unauthorised use
of a popular song in their public activities at rallies.
The artist and their corporate representatives who hold the copyright
have objected and are claiming damages as no permission was sought as
well as asking to cease and desist in future.
Presumably this is civil litigation ?
If the facts of ownership and control are as presented, then what would
the next step be in legal terms ?
I am aware there appears to be a long history of US (and sometimes UK)
political campaigns suddenly discovering they own the rights to a piece
of music, no matter what the law says. I don't recall hearing of any
judgements.
I guess there is a view that the best punishment is the total
misunderstanding of some campaigns as to what the music is saying. The
use of "Born in the USA" as a rallying cry for corporate Republican
America is well known in England. (Because you don't diss the Boss !).
Many campaigns have used copyrighted music before, most famously,
perhaps, Bill Clinton's use of the Fleetwood Mac hit "Don't Stop". But
I'm pretty sure the band approved of it and even performed it at some of
his rallies. FDR famously used the song "Happy Days are Here Again" in
1932 but again I would presume the copyright holder didn't have an issue
with it. At minimum, I would think the copyright holder would be
entitled to royalty payments for every time the song is played at a rally.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 154:08:59 |
| Calls: | 12,091 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,674 |