It might not seem like an important issue amid all the other issues we are facing, and it's hardly ever front page news, but that's exactly why I'm writing this post. As someone who studied the music industry and took a class specifically on copyright law, this is an issue that is important to me. When will Republicans stop using music without the artist's permission and why does it matter? Let me explain... Today, the estate of George Harrison stated that the use of "Here Comes the Sun", which played as Ivanka Trump took the stage to speak at the Republican National Convention, was unauthorized and offensive. This statement came mere days after Donald Trump made his entrance to "We Are the Champions", prompting Queen to state that the use was unauthorized and went against their wishes. They later (through Sony) said, "We are frustrated by the repeated unauthorised use of the song after a previous request to desist, which has obviously been ignored by Mr. Trump and his campaign. Queen does not want its music associated with any mainstream or political debate in any country. Nor does Queen want We are the Champions to be used as an endorsement of Mr. Trump and the political views of the Republican Party. We trust, hope and expect that Mr. Trump and his campaign will respect these wishes moving forward." Can't really make it any clearer than that, can they? You don't have to know much about Freddie Mercury to know why the use of a Queen song at a Republican convention is painfully ironic. And while we're on the topic of the RNC, let us not forget about Melania Trump's plagiarized speech, which her speech writer admits contained sections stolen from Michelle Obama's 2008 DNC speech. Although not misuse of a song, the same principles apply and the same disrespect occurred. Ok, so the Trump campaign just doesn't care about copyright law or intellectual property rights. We found this out over a year ago when Neil Young objected to Trump's use of "Rockin' in the Free World", saying Trump did not have permission and he did not approve of the use. It's not just Trump though. And before you say, "Don't Democrats do it too?", take a look at this article in which author Walt Hickey (conveniently for me) lists the thirty times that musicians have objected to the use of their songs in presidential campaigns starting with Bruce Springsteen objecting to Ronald Reagan's use of "Born in the USA" in 1984. Of those thirty incidents, democrats have only been asked to stop using a song twice. One reason this repeatedly happens with Republicans is the entertainment industry's overwhelmingly left-leaning population. So far in 2016, 77% of political donations made by people in the TV, movie, and music industries has gone to democrats. I will never forget when Paul Ryan, who had publicly spoken about his love of the band Rage Against the Machine, was shot down by Tom Morello himself. In a 2012 Rolling Stone article, Morello responded by saying that "Paul Ryan is the embodiment of the machine our music rages against." He went on to say, among other things, "Don't mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta "rage" in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions." OUCH. Truthfully, that was one of my favorite moments of the 2012 presidential campaign. But I digress. It's obvious that Hollywood is majority liberal, but that can't be the only reason Republicans keep using songs without asking. Do they not ask because they know what the answer will be? Surely there are some Ted Nugent or Kid Rock songs that they could use at their rallies. I get it...it's difficult to create an epic campaign playlist when your options are so limited. But that most certainly does not make it ok to not ask permission from an artist to use their song. Some of you might be thinking, 'Why does it matter? It's just a song.' Here is where the law and, more importantly, the art come into play. Let's start with the law. There is a lot that can be discussed, but I will try to keep this brief and concise. The Copyright Act of 1790 was the first federal copyright act in the United States. This act dealt mostly with the protection of printed materials (maps, charts, books, etc.) as the technology that made recording music possible did not exist yet. The Copyright Act was updated several times over the next 186 years, the most notable update being the Copyright Act of 1976, which is the law we follow today. A crucial part of the law is the exclusive rights it grants to copyright owners in section 106. (Seen below courtesy of the Cornell Legal Information Institute.) In the case of songs being used without permission at political rallies, exclusive right number four is extremely important. What some might not fully understand is the word "perform". Oftentimes, when we think of a performance, we think of the artist themselves playing their song live. But in copyright law, performing a work publicly includes instances in which a recording is transmitted out loud in a public space. So when a politician uses an artist's song without permission, they are expressly breaking copyright law. Fun fact: bar and restaurant owners pay a yearly fee to performing rights organizations to play music in their establishments. Why? Because it's the legal, respectful, right thing to do. Why can't politicians do the same? And what are the consequences for them? Many artists probably don't think it's worth the time, money, or hassle to bring a lawsuit against everyone that misuses their music. Which might be another reason politicians don't bother to ask first. They know that the song will get played before the band can do or say anything about it. Then, all they have to deal with is a statement from the band the next day saying, "Hey...can you not?" Not a very harsh penalty and a huge reason this issue angers me. Copyright law exists for a very specific, important reason. It is simply unfair and disrespectful to an artist to misuse their music, especially when so many songs misused by Republican politicians contain lyrics and messages that directly oppose the ideals and platform of the Republican party. (I could write a whole other blog post about the hypocrisy, but I'll just link you to this hilarious article instead.) What does having your music misused feel like? The simplest analogy is to imagine that you go to work every day, work hard, and don't get paid or get any credit for your dedication. Or you speak your mind only to have your words twisted and used to promote an idea you don't agree with.
The blatant disregard for the rights afforded to intellectual property (yes, music is the artist's property and breaking copyright law means you are stealing) and lack of consequences leads to the devaluation of music, something artists and passionate citizens and lawmakers have been trying to reverse ever since CD's, MP3's, and streaming were introduced and changed the music industry forever. The message this misuse sends to the public is that music and lyrics (or words in the case of Michelle Obama's speech) don't matter, which is so far from the truth. Not only is music an artist's occupation, it is their art. It's personal, it's meaningful, it has the power to influence and change the course of world events, and it comes from the soul. Taking anything from someone without asking is wrong, but taking something that another person created is cruel. Associating someone else's words and sounds with your political agenda without asking them first is unfair. Politicians work for an institution that creates laws and encourages people to follow them. It's time for them to start doing the same.
0 Comments
|