FEATURE:
You Can’t Always Get What You Want
IN THIS PHOTO: Lorde
Wait for the Green Light: Politicians and the Unauthorised Use of Artists’ Songs
___________
I realise that this story…
IN THIS PHOTO: The Rolling Stones
has been out for a few days now but, as I can only publish so many articles a week, I have left it until now to talk about the issue of politicians using artists’ tracks without their expressed permission. This is not a new phenomenon at all, because politicians are a little lax when it comes to asking artists to use their songs for campaigns and speeches. The Guardian have reported the latest chapter in the story, and the artists who are taking a stand:
“Music stars including Lorde, Sia and Mick Jagger have signed an open letter demanding politicians gain clearance to their music before using songs in campaign advertising or events.
The letter, produced in partnership with the Artist Rights Alliance, urges political parties to “establish clear policies requiring campaigns to seek consent” from any artists they hope to feature.
Neil Young says Trump's use of songs at Mount Rushmore 'not OK with me'
“This is the only way to effectively protect your candidates from legal risk, unnecessary public controversy, and the moral quagmire that comes from falsely claiming or implying an artist’s support or distorting an artists’ expression in such a high stakes public way,” the letter reads.
Using a song without going through the correct channels is called “dishonest and immoral” and publicised use “can compromise an artist’s personal values while disappointing and alienating fans – with great moral and economic cost”.
The letter also warns that improper use can “inevitably draw even the most reluctant or apolitical artists off the sidelines, compelling them to explain the ways they disagree with candidates wrongfully using their music”.
While it’s stated that this isn’t a partisan issue, its arrival comes after many artists have expressed outrage over their music being used by Donald Trump and his team. Stars including Pharrell Williams, Elton John and Bruce Springsteen have all made their displeasure known while most recently Neil Young has said he is reconsidering legal action after Rockin’ in the Free World continues to be played at rallies.
Other signatories of the letter include Sia, Alanis Morissette, Lionel Richie, Elvis Costello, Regina Spektor, Sheryl Crow and Steven Tyler. It calls for a request for a plan on how to deal with the issue in future by 10 August”.
It is not just Donald Trump who is culpable of using songs that he has not been given permission to do so, but he seems to be a repeat offender! I think a lot of leaders think that they can do what they want with music, and that the artist will be quite flattered. I can see why artists would want to be distanced from politicians like Trump because, not only has their work being used in an inappropriate setting, but it might suggest the political allegiance of that artist. Even if a British act like The Rolling Stones or a New Zealand artist like Lorde has their music used in the U.S., it still might offer the impression that they are supportive of Trump and back what he is saying.
IN THIS PHOTO: Regina Spektor/PHOTO CREDIT: Shervin Lainez
One cannot imagine too many artists stepping forward and being okay with Trump using their music. The same is true in this country – how many bands and acts would want Boris Johnson using one of their tracks?! There have been famous cases of artists refusing permission for politicians to use their songs, and it seems like this problem is not going away soon! Back in 2015, Rolling Stone reacted to the seemingly continued use of unauthorised music by politicians. It seems like, sadly, the law does sort of protect politicians playing songs in stadiums and bigger events:
“As Donald Trump recently demonstrated, when he blared Neil Young’s “Rockin’ in the Free World” and received a public rebuttal from Young himself, candidates often neglect little details when picking campaign songs – like, say, contacting the songwriters. Over and over, this leads to embarrassing situations, most famously when Bruce Springsteen upbraided President Reagan for planning to install “Born in the U.S.A.” as a backdrop for his reelection campaign in 1984, but also more recently, when union-bashing Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker prominently used “I’m Shipping Out to Boston” at an Iowa event and received a “we literally hate you!!!” tweet from pro-union punk band Dropkick Murphys.
Either way, the impact of such unauthorized use can be devastating for a songwriter. “The artist gets drawn into the question of whether or not to take any action, and run the risk of giving the politicians some additional publicity, or [allowing] the public for one second to think that someone like Neil Young was endorsing Donald Trump,” says Jon Landau, Springsteen’s longtime manager. “It’s kind of a reverse endorsement trap – Ronald Reagan declares Bruce as one of his own, and then Bruce has to either let it stand or actively disassociate. When the confusion gets big enough, most artists will, one way or the other, step in.”
IN THIS PHOTO: Donald Trump/PHOTO CREDIT: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Technically speaking, copyright laws allow political candidates to use just about any song they want, as long as they’re played at a stadium, arena or other venue that already has a public-performance license through a songwriters’ association such as ASCAP or BMI. However, the law contains plenty of gray area. If a candidate refuses to stop using a song in this scenario, an artist may be able to protect his “right of publicity” – Springsteen’s voice blaring over a loudspeaker is part of his image, and he has a right to protect his own image. “It’s untested in the political realm,” says Lawrence Iser, an intellectual-property lawyer who has represented the Beatles, Michael Jackson and many others. “Even if Donald Trump has the ASCAP right to use a Neil Young song, does Neil have the right to nevertheless go after him on right of publicity? I say he does.”
Iser represented David Byrne when the ex-Talking Head successfully sued Florida Republican Charlie Crist for using “Road to Nowhere” in a video to attack opponent Marco Rubio during a 2010 U.S. Senate campaign. He also helped Jackson Browne win a suit against John McCain in 2008 when the Republican presidential candidate played “Running on Empty” in an ad bashing Barack Obama on gas conservation.
“Why does it keep happening? I would say arrogance. Or because [candidates] want to use music in order to associate [with] fans of the artists whose music they’re using, and they think they can’t get permission,” Iser says. “What’s that expression? ‘It’s better to beg forgiveness than to ask [only] to get turned down’”.
A couple of songs have been used at rallies and events that have benefited politicians and artists alike. Fleetwood Mac’s Don’t Stop was a reason why the band reunited in 1993 to play at his inaugural ball, and Clinton used the song quite a lot afterwards. It seems like that was quite beneficial for both Clinton and Fleetwood Mac – showing that there are occasions where both parties are happy. Maybe it is all down to popularity and how Clinton was taken to heart by many in music, whilst Trump has very few supporters in that area. D:Ream’s Things Can Only Get Better was appropriated by Tony Blair for his campaign in 1997. That was a good match, as the song suggested a change in the wind and, after years of Conservative rule, the U.K. was about to embrace a new dawn and sense of hope. Again, that was a case of a popular politician using music to help propel a campaign that was matched by public approval. Back in 2018, Trump (again) was in the news for using songs by Guns N’ Roses and Rihanna. I can understand why artists would be aghast at having their music used by politicians they do not support, and there are loopholes that benefit politicians in terms of permission. Can artists really stop their music being used?!
“As intellectual property lawyer Danwill Schwender laid out in his 2017 academic article “The Copyright Conflict Between Musicians and Political Campaigns Spins Around Again,” most musicians assign their rights to perform their music to a performance rights organization (PRO), from whom venues and events can then license the songs. This means the artists don’t always need to be consulted, but that in turn leaves open the possibility of negative publicity. For instance, Trump played Neil Young’s “Rockin’ in the Free World” at his original campaign kick-off announcement in 2015. When Young’s management criticized this use of his music, Trump’s campaign team replied that they had “done everything legal and by the book,” licensing the song through the PRO known as the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP). Even still, in the face of blowback from Young, they announced they would no longer be using his music going forward.
IN THIS PHOTO: Rihanna
In his article, Schwender wrote that another PRO known as Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) created a separate license for “political entities and organizations” in 2012. This license includes an opt-out clause allowing musicians to withdraw their music from the license “for any reason” before or after it’s been used in a way they don’t like. This was invoked by Queen after “We Are the Champions” was played at the 2016 Republican National Convention, where Trump was officially nominated as the party’s presidential candidate. However, this is not a definitive solution. Schwender wrote that “a venue’s blanket license could supersede a political campaign’s license.” This appears to be what’s happened to Guns N’ Roses. According to Rose, the Trump team is getting around their complaints by relying on venue licenses when playing songs like “Sweet Child O’ Mine” at events”.
The sheer stubbornness of politicians like Donald Trump suggests that the latest campaign by Lorde et al. will not come to much. He might stop using their songs but, when the election happens in November, you just know Trump will use someone’s song as jingoism or an attack against a Democrat competitor! I do feel for artists, and I think they deserve the respect of being asked to have their music used. It might lead to unpopular politicians being denied by everyone, but it is also unfair on artists to hear their music being used; it suggests they have okay-ed it and that they want their songs out there in that manner. Let’s hope that, going forward, politicians around the world wait for a green light from Lorde, or they ask The Rolling Stones if they can have what they want. It is only right artists are approached for any use of their material because, whether politicians like it or not, they do have…
THE right to refuse.