(08-26-2024 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  How would you react to the local Kamala campaign using your photo as a push to vote for their cause?

He'd be ecstatic! His ugly mug would mean sure defeat for her.

(08-26-2024 09:58 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 09:52 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  They are getting roasted on that tweet. Doing something stupid like this on twitter will cause things they have said but forgotten about and thought were long buried gets resurrected. Like this, when Grohl publicly bitcched about Lars Urlich from Mettallica getting bent out of shape on napster years ago.

that was 25 years ago.

(08-26-2024 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 09:52 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  They are getting roasted on that tweet. Doing something stupid like this on twitter will cause things they have said but forgotten about and thought were long buried gets resurrected. Like this, when Grohl publicly bitcched about Lars Urlich from Mettallica getting bent out of shape on napster years ago.

I cant disagree with the comment "Music should be available for those who wish to hear it."

This isnt the case -- this is using music to sell an item. I dont think any rights holder would agree that their music should be used freely for commercial purposes. And yes, a political campaign *is* a commercial use -- they are using every component of a rally, produced ad, etc to sell the candidate.

How would you react to the local Kamala campaign using your photo as a push to vote for their cause?

If I sold the rights to my photo, I have no right to b*tch about its use. You as a "lawyer" should know that.

But Kamala doesnt do that. What she does is to use a photo of a sheriff to make it appear that he supports her when she doesnt. She doesnt even pay for the right to do that. Because thats how drunk whores operate.

(08-26-2024 09:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 09:38 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I would go with the Trump campaign rep being smart enough to go to the legal holder of the license.

I wouldn't.

See Rudy G., Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, et. al.

Well, that's a shocker.

Let's see what happens. I bet it's much ado about nada.

(08-26-2024 10:13 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 09:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 09:38 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I would go with the Trump campaign rep being smart enough to go to the legal holder of the license.

I wouldn't.

See Rudy G., Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, et. al.

Well, that's a shocker.

Let's see what happens. I bet it's much ado about nada.

Perhaps...just saying I would not trust anything trump.

And as Tanq said, there are a lot of caveats in these things. I've sang in choirs and have seen all sorts of interpretations, many of them wrong, as to how one can use and copy music.

(08-26-2024 10:13 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 09:58 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 09:52 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  They are getting roasted on that tweet. Doing something stupid like this on twitter will cause things they have said but forgotten about and thought were long buried gets resurrected. Like this, when Grohl publicly bitcched about Lars Urlich from Mettallica getting bent out of shape on napster years ago.

that was 25 years ago.

(08-26-2024 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 09:52 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  They are getting roasted on that tweet. Doing something stupid like this on twitter will cause things they have said but forgotten about and thought were long buried gets resurrected. Like this, when Grohl publicly bitcched about Lars Urlich from Mettallica getting bent out of shape on napster years ago.

I cant disagree with the comment "Music should be available for those who wish to hear it."

This isnt the case -- this is using music to sell an item. I dont think any rights holder would agree that their music should be used freely for commercial purposes. And yes, a political campaign *is* a commercial use -- they are using every component of a rally, produced ad, etc to sell the candidate.

How would you react to the local Kamala campaign using your photo as a push to vote for their cause?

If I sold the rights to my photo, I have no right to b*tch about its use. You as a "lawyer" should know that.

But Kamala doesnt do that. What she does is to use a photo of a sheriff to make it appear that he supports her when she doesnt. She doesnt even pay for the right to do that. Because thats how drunk whores operate.

Ill take that as you dont understand there is a pretty wide chasm between what Grohl was saying in the highlighted above and the current issue. Surprise surprise.

(08-26-2024 10:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 10:13 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 09:58 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 09:52 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  They are getting roasted on that tweet. Doing something stupid like this on twitter will cause things they have said but forgotten about and thought were long buried gets resurrected. Like this, when Grohl publicly bitcched about Lars Urlich from Mettallica getting bent out of shape on napster years ago.

that was 25 years ago.

(08-26-2024 09:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 09:52 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  They are getting roasted on that tweet. Doing something stupid like this on twitter will cause things they have said but forgotten about and thought were long buried gets resurrected. Like this, when Grohl publicly bitcched about Lars Urlich from Mettallica getting bent out of shape on napster years ago.

I cant disagree with the comment "Music should be available for those who wish to hear it."

This isnt the case -- this is using music to sell an item. I dont think any rights holder would agree that their music should be used freely for commercial purposes. And yes, a political campaign *is* a commercial use -- they are using every component of a rally, produced ad, etc to sell the candidate.

How would you react to the local Kamala campaign using your photo as a push to vote for their cause?

If I sold the rights to my photo, I have no right to b*tch about its use. You as a "lawyer" should know that.

But Kamala doesnt do that. What she does is to use a photo of a sheriff to make it appear that he supports her when she doesnt. She doesnt even pay for the right to do that. Because thats how drunk whores operate.

Ill take that as you dont understand there is a pretty wide chasm between what Grohl was saying in the highlighted above and the current issue. Surprise surprise.

lulz

(08-26-2024 10:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 10:13 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 09:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 09:38 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I would go with the Trump campaign rep being smart enough to go to the legal holder of the license.

I wouldn't.

See Rudy G., Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, et. al.

Well, that's a shocker.

Let's see what happens. I bet it's much ado about nada.

Perhaps...just saying I would not trust anything trump.

And as Tanq said, there are a lot of caveats in these things. I've sang in choirs and have seen all sorts of interpretations, many of them wrong, as to how one can use and copy music.

So your opinion is informed by singing in a choir?

Hmm, I sang professionally for several years, and although I was involved in several rights deals, I don't know the deal in this specific case.

It's just generic speculation.

Regardless of your low opinion of anything Trump, a reasonable person would have to start with the assumption that they had enough sense to obtain the rights, especially since a reporter was shown papers and said they looked legit.

(08-26-2024 10:27 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 10:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 10:13 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 09:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 09:38 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I would go with the Trump campaign rep being smart enough to go to the legal holder of the license.

I wouldn't.

See Rudy G., Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, et. al.

Well, that's a shocker.

Let's see what happens. I bet it's much ado about nada.

Perhaps...just saying I would not trust anything trump.

And as Tanq said, there are a lot of caveats in these things. I've sang in choirs and have seen all sorts of interpretations, many of them wrong, as to how one can use and copy music.

So your opinion is informed by singing in a choir?

Hmm, I sang professionally for several years, and although I was involved in several rights deals, I don't know the deal in this specific case.

It's just generic speculation.

Regardless of your low opinion of anything Trump, a reasonable person would have to start with the assumption that they had enough sense to obtain the rights, especially since a reporter was shown papers and said they looked legit.

And that's precisely why I have said nowhere that either side is right. And I'm pretty sure you don't trust all reporters, right?

(08-26-2024 10:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 10:27 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 10:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 10:13 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 09:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I wouldn't.

See Rudy G., Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, et. al.

Well, that's a shocker.

Let's see what happens. I bet it's much ado about nada.

Perhaps...just saying I would not trust anything trump.

And as Tanq said, there are a lot of caveats in these things. I've sang in choirs and have seen all sorts of interpretations, many of them wrong, as to how one can use and copy music.

So your opinion is informed by singing in a choir?

Hmm, I sang professionally for several years, and although I was involved in several rights deals, I don't know the deal in this specific case.

It's just generic speculation.

Regardless of your low opinion of anything Trump, a reasonable person would have to start with the assumption that they had enough sense to obtain the rights, especially since a reporter was shown papers and said they looked legit.

And that's precisely why I have said nowhere that either side is right. And I'm pretty sure you don't trust all reporters, right?

Tom, I was questioning you for using singing in a choir as informing your opinion.

bwahahahahahahahahaha

“We have a license to play the song,” Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said in an email to The Hill.

He also took to the social platform X to dispute the claim.

“It’s Times Like These facts matter, don’t be a Pretender. @foofighters,” he wrote, referring to two other songs by the band.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/48...-fighters/

(08-26-2024 10:40 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 10:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 10:27 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 10:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 10:13 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Well, that's a shocker.

Let's see what happens. I bet it's much ado about nada.

Perhaps...just saying I would not trust anything trump.

And as Tanq said, there are a lot of caveats in these things. I've sang in choirs and have seen all sorts of interpretations, many of them wrong, as to how one can use and copy music.

So your opinion is informed by singing in a choir?

Hmm, I sang professionally for several years, and although I was involved in several rights deals, I don't know the deal in this specific case.

It's just generic speculation.

Regardless of your low opinion of anything Trump, a reasonable person would have to start with the assumption that they had enough sense to obtain the rights, especially since a reporter was shown papers and said they looked legit.

And that's precisely why I have said nowhere that either side is right. And I'm pretty sure you don't trust all reporters, right?

Tom, I was questioning you for using singing in a choir as informing your opinion.

Singing wasn't really the point...it was the fact that I've seen all types of scenarios for when you're allowed or not allowed to copy music. All I was saying was that it would not surprise me that the license trump is relying on might not actually apply completely in this instance. And this is what Tanq has explained in greater detail. And again, nowhere did I form any opinion on whether trump is right or wrong. I only, and with good reason, do seriously doubt any word uttered from the trump camp.

(08-26-2024 08:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes, I did. Most people think the Campaign Blanket License itself is the final end point. It isnt.

If not, I believe that then that falls on BMI for not removing the song(s) from the availability list, not on the user.

If Grohl wants to sue anyone, he's gotta sue BMI for this one, not the Trump campaign.

(08-26-2024 10:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 10:40 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 10:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 10:27 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 10:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Perhaps...just saying I would not trust anything trump.

And as Tanq said, there are a lot of caveats in these things. I've sang in choirs and have seen all sorts of interpretations, many of them wrong, as to how one can use and copy music.

So your opinion is informed by singing in a choir?

Hmm, I sang professionally for several years, and although I was involved in several rights deals, I don't know the deal in this specific case.

It's just generic speculation.

Regardless of your low opinion of anything Trump, a reasonable person would have to start with the assumption that they had enough sense to obtain the rights, especially since a reporter was shown papers and said they looked legit.

And that's precisely why I have said nowhere that either side is right. And I'm pretty sure you don't trust all reporters, right?

Tom, I was questioning you for using singing in a choir as informing your opinion.

Singing wasn't really the point...it was the fact that I've seen all types of scenarios for when you're allowed or not allowed to copy music. All I was saying was that it would not surprise me that the license trump is relying on might not actually apply completely in this instance. And this is what Tanq has explained in greater detail. And again, nowhere did I form any opinion on whether trump is right or wrong. I only, and with good reason, do seriously doubt any word uttered from the trump camp.

The fact that you are saying this should cause Tanq to get a moment of clarity and run like hell from this position.

(08-26-2024 10:52 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 08:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yes, I did. Most people think the Campaign Blanket License itself is the final end point. It isnt.

If not, I believe that then that falls on BMI for not removing the song(s) from the availability list, not on the user.

If Grohl wants to sue anyone, he's gotta sue BMI for this one, not the Trump campaign.

If Grohls song is on the exception list -- Grohl has a good point. That would mean Trumps team either accidentally or intentionally used the song. And would be potentially liable under copyright.

If Grohls song is not on the excepted list, that boils down to two possibilities.

1. Grohl requested and BMI/ ASCAP didnt put it on -- fault the licensing company, Grohl can go after BMI for *not* doing what he asked. And in that instance the user is faultless.

2. Grohl didnt request the song be on the excepted list -- doesnt matter the cause (he didnt know, he just didnt, his manager forgot -- it doesnt matter), Grohl is high and dry about use of the song.

In shortm, if it isnt on the 'excepted list' to the specific Trump license -- Trump has the right for this one off use.

Here is the "tell" - whether the Trump campaign continues using the song.

If Trump has full rights, it is to his advantage now to play the bejesus out of it. It aids to amp up the 'chip on the shoulder' crowd to have their guy simply slam it back into Grohls face. The more Grohls side makes out of it -- the better it is. More headlines yada yada yada yada, showing the entertainment elite yada yada yada.

If he doesnt -- there will be no use of it later.

Same thing happened with Neil Young back in either '16 or '20. Trump used 'Keep on Rocking in a Free World'. I knew one of the Young attorneys, and Young had specifically excepted all of his works from the Trump BCL (and continues to do so). Young yelped, and actually filed suit. Trump has *never* used that song again.
(Which is absolutely hilarious since it was featured in the DNC event more than once....)

(08-26-2024 10:53 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 10:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 10:40 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 10:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 10:27 AM)TripleA Wrote:  So your opinion is informed by singing in a choir?

Hmm, I sang professionally for several years, and although I was involved in several rights deals, I don't know the deal in this specific case.

It's just generic speculation.

Regardless of your low opinion of anything Trump, a reasonable person would have to start with the assumption that they had enough sense to obtain the rights, especially since a reporter was shown papers and said they looked legit.

And that's precisely why I have said nowhere that either side is right. And I'm pretty sure you don't trust all reporters, right?

Tom, I was questioning you for using singing in a choir as informing your opinion.

Singing wasn't really the point...it was the fact that I've seen all types of scenarios for when you're allowed or not allowed to copy music. All I was saying was that it would not surprise me that the license trump is relying on might not actually apply completely in this instance. And this is what Tanq has explained in greater detail. And again, nowhere did I form any opinion on whether trump is right or wrong. I only, and with good reason, do seriously doubt any word uttered from the trump camp.

The fact that you are saying this should cause Tanq to get a moment of clarity and run like hell from this position.

You truly do have a reading/ comprehension impediment. Maybe tell us exactly what my position is?

I dont (and probably no one aside from maybe 4 or 5 people total that have the full BCL Trump license in hand) can really say.

Im just laughing at the idiots that do think they can opine on it in depth. Like you.

(08-26-2024 06:30 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Foo Fighters don't own the rights to their songs.. Let that sink in...

BMI owns the songs...

Most places where music is mostly played as part of the background atmosphere of an event typically dont need a specific rights agreement for each song played. They merely need a ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers) rights license to cover the use of the music played before or during an event (ASCAP then feeds the money back to the artists and composers). Its like a DJ at wedding doesnt have to get a rights use agreement for each individual song he plays that night, instead he's covered by a ASCAP rights license that he pays a yearly fee for. I'd also add that many venues already have a similar rights license that covers any event at the venue--so depending on the venue--the campaign may need no rights license at all. The Trump campaign has the rights agreements they need for the type of use in question. Furthermore---as someone else has pointed out, for the most part, artists own the music---but they have already monetized it by selling the rights to other folks (music companies, streaming services, professional rights organizations, etc). The rights are currently controlled by whoever they sold them to for the period of the rights agreement (just like a conference selling their rights to ESPN for a set period of time).

Bwahahahah!

THIS is the NPC unified Monday morning weekly screed? That is great news for Trump.

I seem to recall the heart b*tches being upsetz at Sarah Palin for playing barracuda. How'd that work out for them?

(08-26-2024 11:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-26-2024 06:30 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Foo Fighters don't own the rights to their songs.. Let that sink in...

BMI owns the songs...

Most places where music is mostly played as part of the background atmosphere of an event typically dont need a specific rights agreement for each song played. They merely need a ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers) rights license to cover the use of the music played before or during an event (ASCAP then feeds the money back to the artists and composers). Its like a DJ at wedding doesnt have to get a rights use agreement for each individual song he plays that night, instead he's covered by a ASCAP rights license that he pays a yearly fee for. I'd also add that many venues already have a similar rights license that covers any event at the venue--so depending on the venue--the campaign may need no rights license at all. The Trump campaign has the rights agreements they need for the type of use in question. Furthermore---as someone else has pointed out, for the most part, artists own the music---but they have already monetized it by selling the rights to other folks (music companies, streaming services, professional rights organizations, etc). The rights are currently controlled by whoever they sold them to for the period of the rights agreement (just like a conference selling their rights to ESPN for a set period of time).

Ascap and BMI venue licenses expressly carve out campaign and poliyical events from the venue lcense. I have first hand experience with venue licenses.

Campaigns need their own rights licenses.

As for whom is the final rights holders if music --- generally that is all over place. And the bundle of rights in copyright is numerous for music. It *isnt* *just* a copyight. There are, as a first step, a bundle of *several* rights covered by copyright -- each of which may have different original owners. And in turn can have even *greater* number of owners after a transfer.

BMI and ASCAP act as a clearing house. They gain the ability to license one or more of the rights in that bundle that comprises copyright to third parties. In short they provide one stop shopping for end uses of copyrighted works that they have the ability to license.

It's complicated as ****. My 2nd through 4th years in the big firms were focused on copyright work.

Seems some artists want the best of best worlds. They want the lucrative payday that comes will selling off the rights to their music and then they still want say over what happens with that music. Unless there is something spelled out in the sales contract that dictates otherwise, I think the artist ceases to have sway in what happens with their music afterwards.