The artist can't be sure that the public knows whether they've endorsed a candidate so they have every right to protect their work from being used in a way that could reflect unfavorably on them. I think people know that companies pay to use songs in advertising so it wouldn't be such a stretch to think the artist was paid by a campaign.

YES YES YES they should be able to deny them to use their songs... i write music and if applebee's or velveeta cheese used one of my songs in an advertising campaign id sue them so fast they'd get a tummy ache (and it wouldn't be from eating their own slop-food). this is exactly the same thing, only the stakes are higher than simply someone hearing a catchy song and choosing go-gurt over yoplait. songwriters and recording artists are totally within their rights to protect their intellectual property and prevent causes they disagree with from using their art to identify with voters and/or consumers.

and also, one more thought... the artists they are choosing are already famous. they don't need a presidential candidate to give them a bump in sales... maybe the campaigns should be courting unknown artists on myspace or something - i'm sure they'd have much better luck that way because unknowns are often desperate to have any way to get their music out there now that the music industry has been decimated by internet sales.

Did anyone hear if Brooks and Dunn said anything about McCain using "Only in America?"

Replace McCain with Obama in the last comment.

I concur. This isn't about endorsements, it's about intellectural property and it's simply not right (or legal) to use these songs without permission.

The funny this is that my husband and I were just talking about this on Saturday. I'm wondering if they know there requests would get rejected, so they would rather just deal with the legal ppw and fines to be able to use the songs they want? Otherwise, I would imagine their song selection would be quite limited.

Actually, I would be really curious for a legal perspective on using a song in a convention versus an ad. What I remarked on earlier was really in response to use of songs in advertising. I think that's pretty clear cut and as a situation in which the candidate should most certainly request permission to use the song.

On the other hand, when it comes to conventions (say, the Palin/Barracuda song), I'm not sure I would come down as heavy on the GOP. Does the NBA have to request permission everytime they use a song that they play in the stadium or any other sports game for that matter?

I'm torn on this one.

lilkimbo-Actually, that song has been used in several other campaigns (Bush and Kerry to name a couple). One article mentioned that they were "flattered" at the use and actually happy that people from both parties felt it fit their messaging.

Interesting. I knew Bush had used it, as they are diehard Republicans and played at the RNC in the past.

They were talking about this on POTUS. The "legality" isn't an issue because the the license to use those songs isn't garnered through the artist, but through the people that produeced the song, or bought the rights to the song. The RNC purchased the rights from Sony, or whomever, and then Sony pays the royalties to the artist. When the artist signs a contract, they can specify which groups they don't want their songs sold to, and then those songs can't be licensed to those groups. If it's not in the contract, the artist doesn't have the right to say no. Interestingly, Hart said they will be donating the royalties from "Baricuda" to Obama's campaign, so in a twisted way, McCain is helping Obama's campaign.

This is what happens when your party cuts funding for the arts.

I think artists should always have a say (final say) on the use of their work especially if it's being used to promote something or someone they don't approve. I think simply asking before use would save every candidate the embarrassment of being rebuffed,

Also Don Cook, one of co-writers of "Only in America" is a Democratic.

Love it RAC!

That is such a tragedy by the way. It is proven the kids that have music or art programs early on do better in college and in their future careers.

here's the thing though - it's technically only licence/coypright infringement when you're making money off the song - i.e. when it's used in an advertisement or commerical - right? at the conventions - the music was just used as background or to create a mood - they weren't out there with the goal to use it to earn money...

Legally, I don't think it's wrong, but whether it's morally questionable is still up for debate. However, if, like Dave said, the artists sold the rights to these songs, they should have thought about the possibility that the songs would be used in a way not to their liking before selling the rights.

"they should have thought about the possibility that the songs would be used in a way not to their liking before selling the rights."

That's true, although if these artists have any legal grounds to take action, I say do it!

they aren't making money off the songs (well, donations are money, right??) but they are using them to "sell" something to people... its the same thing as using music in a movie without permission - you can be asked to cease and desist and then there are legal ramifications.

I personally think that using certain songs for Ads, or the conventions or as a theme song ruins them for freaking life.

If I hear the beginnings of "Dont Stop" by fleetwood mac, i will do into instant convulsions and lose my lunch.

As long as the campaigns are not explicitly linking the artist with the candidate - an explicit endorsement- and they are paying the approriate copyright royalties via the recording industy licensing groups, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with the candiadtes using the work in their advertisements. If so, then they should tell the artists to go pound sand...and the campaigns should get better lawyers.....

I don't know enough about the legality of this particular issue. A song used in a convention may or may not require the type of synch license used in advertisements (commercials, movie trailers, political ads, etc), movies, concert DVDs, video games, and television shows -- it is broadcast on television, and I can't think of a reason such a license would not be required. Anyway, in order to obtain a traditional synch license, however, the user must sign agreements with the owner of the publishing AND the owner of the master (sound recording). If a license is required and the McCain campaign did not obtain one, they are most certainly guilty of copyright infringement. Also, keep in mind that the members of Heart most likely do not own all of their copyright. They may own some of the publishing, but chances are they don't own the master recording. Either way, if a sync license is required, permission would have to be granted from both the owner of the song (publishing, not the recording - this refers to the melody and the lyrics) and the owner of the sound recording, or master, which includes (but may not be limited to) Sony BMG, which distributes Epic Records.

Great video about compulsory and sync licenses (master license):

Another video:

This article is incomplete.

In Feb 2008 John Mellencamp asked the McCain to cease using his music.

Van Halen asked the McCain campaign to stop using their music. 'Had they asked, permission would not have been granted,'" Van Halen's publicist said.

The foundation of Jackson Browne's lawsuit is, "We are confident that Jackson Browne will prevail in this lawsuit. Not only have Senator McCain and his agents plainly infringed Mr. Browne's copyright in Running On Empty, but the Federal Courts have long held that the unauthorized use of a famous singer's voice in a commercial constitutes a false endorsement and a violation of the singer's right of publicity," Lawrence Iser of the Santa Monica, California law firm Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert said in a press release. "In light of Jackson Browne's lifelong commitment to Democratic ideals and political candidates, the misappropriation of Jackson Browne's endorsement is entirely reprehensible, and I have no doubt that a jury will agree."

And John MCCain is aware because in a June radio interview he talked about his love of ABBA music, and how he wanted to use "Take a Chance on Me" in his campaign. The ABC news article reports:

"But apparently ABBA would not allow McCain to adopt the song for his campaign theme music -- at least not at an affordable price.

"Money, Money, Money" is, after all, one of ABBA's other big hits.

The Swedes may pay taxes like socialists, but like the Republicans they do believe in free enterprise.

McCain joked to reporters: "It gets expensive in a big hurry, and if you’re not careful you can alienate some Swedes. If word gets out to Stockholm that we’re using ABBA music, then there’ll be a worsening in US-Swedish relations.”"

It's pretty stupid to keep stealing peoples songs because all those donated campaign dollars are going to go to lawyer bills and settlements.

There isn't any settlements going on because thesongs aren't stolen. It's been reported that the appropriate licenses were aquired. Yes it wold be nice to the blessing of the artist, but unless it specifically says in his licensing contract that such-and-such group, or so-and-so can't use this song, then anyone can by the right to use it.

I posted some info about sync licenses earlier, but it hasn't been approved yet because I put links in it.

Anyway, the jist of the post was that if the use of the song in question required a sync license (and it sounds like it does. i can't imagine why it wouldn't), the user must get permission from the owner of the publishing (the song - melody and lyrics) AND permission from the owner of the sound recording, or master (which in this case, is most probably Sony BMG).

*sorry for multiple posts, and i hope that other post is approved soon
♥

As a musical graduate and ex-performer as well as singer I want to add one more thing..

The bottom line is a lot of these musicians simply don't want their creative endeavours used for causes that in no way reflect their own agenda. The ideals or values they espouse through their music, are often of absolute importance to them.

Additionally, some musicians just rather NOT have their songs politicized at all......

Regardless of which reason they choose to deny politicians the right to use their music, I cannot entirely blame them. The spirit of rock is not a conservative one, by its nature. Its music of revolution, of change, of confrontation. Its music of frustration, despair, passion.

Look, if the GOP want music at their convention, why not ask a GOP friendly rock artist to write a song for them, or ask HIS permission?

I mean there are LOADS of good bands that are Repubs. Loads...

Uh...

Hang on..

/crickets

It's coming to me..

Oh yeah! ALICE COOPER! He's GOP. Tell him to bring the snakes!

That'll go over great!

MisterPinkNoTip is on the correct path with sync rights. Ballparks, bars, etc. usually pay an ASCAP license fee for permission to play copyrighted songs, but once that's recorded and broadcast, there's a different level of permission, which would apply.

There is also performance rights that need to be obtained. There's the difference between paying for a performance license so you can perform someone's song yourself vs. wanting to use the original recorded performance. But neither of those options allow you to broadcast the song, unless those rights have also been obtained.

Jackson Browne probably has the strongest case, since it sounds like they took his performance of the song to use in a commercial which they paid ad fees to broadcast.

I know some artists have rerecorded their songs after members of a band left, so it could be used in films without having to pay the departed band members performance fees.

Music licensing can be really complicated.

I find it interesting that this has become a topic for discussion, however, I feel is a very critical issue. Though the Constitution protects free speech, I think it would be wise for the political camps to be a little more respective of whose voice they are taking to boost their own political motives. I could see the frustration from the artists as their public image could be warped by the use by political campaigning. If an artist chooses to support a candidate and perform that's one thing, but I think the PR committees need to be a little more considerate of the artists prior to the selection of music for their ad campaigns.

It's the old adage: "Its better to ask for permission than to ask for forgiveness."

I totally agree that songs belong to the artist who wrote them, and I don't blame these artists for not wanting to be associated with the GOP.

I still can't believe my post hasn't been approved. Anyway... I'm glad you mentioned performance rights fees, Ginger. I can't remember if I talked about them in my original post. But I don't think fees to PROs here is really as big of an issue as sync licenses. PRO fees aren't very much, and paying ASCAP/BMI is relatively easy.
What I don't understand is why people consider this solely a moral or etiquette issue. This is most definitely a legal issue. If these songs were used without permission in broadcast, especially in commercials, that constitutes copyright infringement.
There is NO compulsory license for sound recordings. Let me repeat. There is no compulsory license for sound recordings. The owner of the recording may deny use at any time, for any reason. Please note I said the owner of the master, not (and rather unfortunately) necessarily the artist.
If you are interested, you can check out artistshousemusic.org for more info.