Eye of Tiger Composer Sues Gingrich To Stop Campaign From Using Song 452
First time accepted submitter Joe_Dragon writes "The composer of the Survivor hit Eye of the Tiger has sued Newt Gingrich to stop the Republican presidential candidate from using the Rocky III anthem at campaign events. The lawsuit was filed Monday in federal court in Chicago by Rude Music Inc., the Palatine-based music publishing company owned by Frank Sullivan, who, with Jim Peterik, composed the song and copyrighted it in 1982. The lawsuit states that as early as 2009, Gingrich has entered rallies and public events to the pulsing guitar riffs of the song. In a lengthy section of the five-page complaint, Rude's attorneys point out that Gingrich is well aware of copyright laws, noting he is listed as author or co-author of more than 40 published works and has earned between $500,000 to $1 million from Gingrich Productions, a company that sells his written work, documentaries and audio books. It also notes Gingrich's criticism of the 'Stop Online Piracy Act' during a recent debate in South Carolina, where Gingrich suggested the law was unnecessary because 'We have a patent office, we have copyright law. If a company finds it has genuinely been infringed upon, it has the right to sue.' The suit asks for an injunction to prevent Gingrich from using the song, as well as damages and attorneys' fees to be determined by the court."
What the summary fails to note... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dear republican candidates (Score:5, Informative)
Why would they need to change the laws? They probably aren't breaking them, musicians just don't like their music being used by politicians they disdain. That doesn't make it illegal.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110705/03482614973/dear-musicians-once-again-politicians-can-probably-play-your-songs-events-without-your-permission.shtml [techdirt.com]
Re:Dear republican candidates (Score:5, Informative)
He likely already did.
There was a similar flap years ago between Chrissie Hinds (of the Pretenders) and Rush Limbaugh, who was using her song "Back to Ohio" as his opening and bump music. Thing is, Limbaugh paid the ASCAP and other associated licensing fees, so Hinds was basically told to bugger off (numerous times, and publicly on his show). I think she tried to sue, but discovered that she really couldn't do a damned thing about it.
My guess is that something very similar is the case here. Gingrich's campaign likely paid all the fees, and barring evidence otherwise, this guy is likely going to get told basically the same thing.
Re:Fair Use? (Score:5, Informative)
As long as the venue has made its yearly ASCAP tribute payment that never gets to the authors, there is absolutely nothing the authors of this song can do about it.
Re:Dear republican candidates (Score:5, Informative)
As long as the music is not tied to any particular part of the event, it's covered under a venue's ASCAP license.
But.
If the music is synchronized to a video montage, or used as part of an announcement or otherwise synchronized with something, the campaign has entered into the area of "Synchroization Rights". These are covered on a contract-by-contract basis between the music publisher and the user.
"A synchronization or "synch" right involves the use of a recording of musical work in audio-visual form: for example as part of a motion picture, television program, commercial announcement, music video or other videotape. Often, the music is "synchronized" or recorded in timed relation with the visual images. Synchronization rights are licensed by the music publisher to the producer of the movie or program." (http://www.ascap.com/licensing/termsdefined.aspx)
Re:Fair Use? (Score:5, Informative)
Yep. If he paid public performance fees to play the song, then the composer should sit down and shut up.
Or.
They could give back all the ASCAP fees they've collected and do all the licensing for the song themselves.
Basically the rules, as cumbersome and bad as they are, allow you to play the music you want if you've paid the licensing agency.
These artists WANT these large onerous licensing agencies representing them, until someone they don't like plays their songs.
Tell you what, if you want to bitch about politicians playing your songs, dissolve ASCAP, get rid of their ridiculous licensing BS, and do it all on your own. That's fair.
Re:My guess (Score:5, Informative)
I'm typically more liberal when it comes to social issues but not on immigration. Name me one other developed nation that has such leniency for undocumented aliens.
I don't want to keep people out if they truely want to be here, they just have to follow the rules and do it the right way. If they sneak across the border and live in the shadows or under a false name and credentials.. I have no sympathy if they get caught and shipped back to their home country.
There are cheaper ways to gain temporary legal residency if $2000 is too much to apply for the green card. In that time money could be saved to eventually go through that process.
Re:Dear republican candidates (Score:3, Informative)
ASCAP/BMI/SESAC licensing fees cover public performance of a copyrighted work, which includes playing the recording in a bar, a cover band playing the song in a venue, playing the recording over the radio or on television, etc. The intention is to funnel some of the money that the venue is earning from playing your song back to the artist. These amounts tend to be relatively small, but prevent situations where radio stations, say, can make tons of money off of advertising around your song without paying anything at all to the artist.
Using a copyrighted work within another work is something else entirely. "Another work" might refer to a stage play, a television show or film, an opera, and sometimes a staged presentation or demonstration. Those rights are called "grand rights" in the case of stage works and "sync rights" in the case of television or film and are not handled by ASCAP/BMI/SESAC. So, in cases where music is being used WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ANOTHER WORK, explicit permission needs to be given by the copyright holder. The idea here is that, if Real Housewives of the OC wants to use your music as the opening of their show, they have to work it out with the composer/publisher and actually pay for that use.
Now... whether or not a political rally qualifies as a "dramatic work" is up for serious debate and is a question best left for a copyright lawyer. In the case of a television commercial, that is definitely something where explicit permission would need to be granted to use the song.
Re:My guess (Score:5, Informative)
As your spouse, your wife literally got to walk to the front of the line for her green card. As an immediate relative (spouse) she fits the category with no waiting period, and for which 226,000 green cards are allotted each year. In fact, she gets to step in front of every other category, including - child of citizen - 2 year waiting period, unless you are mexican - 4-5 year waiting period, or Filipino - 11 year waiting period, and then every other possible relation with increasing waiting periods just to get paperwork processed (up to 19 years in some cases).
Everyone else who wants to come here has to put their name into a lottery, from which only 55,000 are chosen each year.
It's easy to talk about how everyone should just do it the right way, when you are able to walk to the front of the line in front of those you are lecturing.
Re:Get a real job (Score:5, Informative)
There are profits to be made from 'convenient delivery' of digital works...see iTunes. There are profits to be made using digital works to drive people to buy scarce physical things like concert tickets, t-shirts and other merchandise.
See xkcd.com. A free online comic that built up enough fans to be able to sell physical copies of something that is widely available for free. LOLCats is another site doing fairly well by providing something for free.
The little guy has never had it so good as today. The old gate keepers (RIAA/MPAA/publishers) that controlled who would be successful and who wouldn't are becoming irrelevant.
Re:My guess (Score:4, Informative)
Problem, though, is that the Gingrich campaign probably has a blanket license from ASCAP or BMI which would cover what he's doing with this song. Political campaigns always get them, even though the artists whose songs are used sometimes don't like it. After the Gingrich campaign sends a copy of the license, the suit will be quietly dropped, having done what it was intended to do -- express displeasure at Gingrich.
Alternatively, the campaign may stop using the song because the distraiction isn't worth it. If that's the case, then this really is abusive.