[ad_1]
Rihanna was not happy. Axl Rose either.
The two musicians visited Twitter last weekend, reacting to reports of people having heard their songs at President Trump's protests – in the Rihanna affair, "Do not Stop the Music," and in the from Rose, "Sweet Child o" Mine ". Guns N 'Roses hit. Both songs were inserted into the playlist used by the president to rekindle the crowd before going on stage, as well as songs from the Rolling Stones, Elton John, Journey and others.
Rose, leader of the group Guns N 'Roses, said the group had asked the Trump campaign to stop playing its songs.
Rihanna's tweet, which responded to the fun of a Washington Post reporter hearing her song at a Trump rally, suggested that she too wanted the music to stop.
His lawyer, Jordan Siev, issued Monday a letter of cessation and withdrawal to the White House. "As you know or should know, Ms. Fenty has not given her consent to Mr. Trump using his music," Siev wrote, using Rihanna's first name, Robyn Fenty. "Such use is therefore improper."
So how is it that politicians can ring for their supporters hymns written by musicians who despise them? The answer lies in the complex patchwork of licensing and copyright laws, which in the past gave political campaigns a lot of leeway to choose the songs of their choice.
But Rihanna and Rose may be lucky. In recent years, some rules have given musicians more ways to decide if their voice can be used to ignite a sea of MAGA hats.
There is a long history of horrified musicians who have learned that their songs are being interpreted by politicians they do not support and it is almost always the Republicans who have received the complaints. Sting and Tom Petty opposed the use of their music by former President George W. Bush. The Heart group asked Sarah Palin to stop playing Barracuda when she ran for vice president in 2008. Bruce Springsteen, a declared Liberal, criticized the Republican use of "Born in the United States" .
Just last week, Pharrell Williams sent a scathing letter to the president after the song "Happy" was played at an event on the day of the Pittsburgh synagogue shootout. But the national organization FFA (Future Farmers of America), the group that hosted the event, said it was their organist who had played the song without any contribution from the campaign.
Some lawsuits have been filed over the years and have almost always been settled before any court can rule on their arguments. But often, there was not a lot of musician to do.
Playing music at a public event requires a license, which usually comes from a few major music rights agencies such as BMI and ASCAP. Usually, arenas where politicians appear already have a general license that allows them to play any song in the vast agency catalogs.
In recent years, BMI and ASCAP have provided exemptions in these contracts, giving musicians the right to prevent a politician from using their songs. According to his lawyer, Dina LaPolt, Aerosmith's Steven Tyler withdrew his music from Trump's licenses with BMI and ASCAP.
"Even before Trump was elected president, he used Steven's songs," said LaPolt. "The fans and their colleagues and even their loved ones were very confused because it seemed to support Trump."
LaPolt had to send many letters to the Trump campaign. She explained that playing Tyler's songs at rallies gave a false impression that he was a supporter of Trump, an argument that Rihanna's lawyer had also made.
Last August, LaPolt finally received the answer that Tyler was hoping for. Jones Day, the law firm representing the Trump campaign, wrote a letter in which he wrote: "Without admitting liability and to avoid litigation, we send this response to confirm that the Trump will not use your client's music in connection with its content. upcoming activities. "
On Twitter, Rose accused the Trump campaign of relying on site licenses to challenge the group's request to be excluded from the playlist.
"Unfortunately, the Trump campaign uses loopholes in the global representation licenses of the various sites that were not intended for such zany political purposes without the consent of the songwriters," Rose said in a tweet that Is finished with a shitty emoji.
Music industry experts believe that assuming that a venue license will cover a politician may be problematic. The license for BMI colleges and universities, for example, excludes events "promoted or sponsored by a third party".
"There is a risk if a campaign tries to rely on a room license to cover its use of music for events," BMI spokeswoman Liz Fischer said in an e-mail. "Many sites where campaign events are organized do not have a license and site licenses are not intended to cover campaign events in the first place."
Of course, apart from the legal aspects, there is also a fundamental political concern.
"It's easier for artists to know that their music is being used at gatherings than before the internet," said Victoria Sheckler, Associate General Counsel of the Recording Industry Association of America. "And no campaign wants an artist to say," Do not use my music, I do not like you, "you have your head on your head."
As often, however, the Trump campaign could be an exception.
Source link
