Artists to RNC: Quit Using Our Songs

[Just_A_Guy]

So, a number of singers are upset that their creative product is being used by entities against whom the singers harbor deep, philosophical disagreements.  To which, one online commentator replied "Shut up and bake the cake, bigots!"

Are these singers' complaints analogous to those expressed by Christian bakers, florists, photographers, and so on?

Would a Christian service provider be justified in providing the service as-demanded, but then taking to social media in an attempt to name-and-shame the people who had just co-opted their services?

Thoughts?

Edited July 26, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

it's a perfect analogy, actually. 

I'm torn when it comes to music. I accept that 75% of musicians I like would despise me because I'm not a leftist. I love Pearl Jam but if I ever met Eddie Vedder, I can guarantee you he would hate me. Same with Henry Rollins, Jello Biafra, Trent Reznor, Fat Mike, and the list goes on for a very long time. 

They have every right to tell me to stop listening to their music and bar me from going to one of their concerts but you are exactly right JAG. If I didn't bake a cake for a gay couple they'd be the first to tell me how terrible a person I am. 

[Blackmarch]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

So, a number of singers are upset that their creative product is being used by entities against whom the singers harbor deep, philosophical disagreements.  To which, one online commentator replied "Shut up and bake the cake, bigots!"

Are these singers' complaints analogous to those expressed by Christian bakers, florists, photographers, and so on?

Would a Christian service provider be justified in providing the service as-demanded, but then taking to social media in an attempt to name-and-shame the people who had just co-opted their services?

Thoughts?

No it is not. The product has already been bought, paid for and given to the payer..... Unless its an illegal copy.

They should not be able to have that sort of say in its use any more than the the ceo of the FOrd company can recall a car they sold to you for giving their competitor a ride in it..................."..................

 

However considering all the twists and bends in legal use of media, they could probably find some clause against them for playing it dor a criwd of over 10 to 100 individuals

[Blackmarch]

To make it analogous to the bakers and etc.. The RNC would have to be refused purchase, which is almost solely dictated by the the music company monopoly. OR more accurately thr RNC would have to be refused a live show from said artists and bands.

[GratefulHeart]

I understand why the bands and artists are upset. I would be upset if I saw someone using my work without permission to push an agenda that I do not support. Music has a lot of power to evoke emotions and messages. So when a song is used in a campaign, they are using someone's artistry to inspire others to support them, so they should have permission. It can give the false impression that those big name artists support them, which also could result in drawing the interest and support of others under false pretenses.

Edited July 27, 2016 by GratefulHeart

[Budget]

 

That's actually a very good point Just_A_Guy - one I hadn't given thought to until you pointed it out. 

Once the song is released, bought and paid for... they really should have no right to determine who plays it or how someone listens to it.  But there is a lot of gray area here (just like EVERYTHING today has legal gray areas anymore).  Just because a band/singer doesn't believe the same thing the candidate does, they don't want their song played by that person because people will think they support that candidate and their choices.  Hmmm.  Something to ponder.

But today, in our litigious world, every issue, topic, accident, word, phrase, situation (etc) has become a wire. Able to be bent in whatever direction attorneys want to bend and present it.  

[estradling75]

When we buy a song or movie... we by the rights to 'private' enjoyment of that song or movie.  Buying the song or movie does not give us the right to public performances of said song or movie.  Now no one is going to care if you blast your bought music outside while doing yard work. (except your neighbors and the local noise ordinances).

However any attempt to make a gain through public use of the song or movie is not a right you gained when you bought it.  That require separate licensing agreements. (For example you can't have your own concert and charge admission just because you bought a song, nor can you have your own theater just because you bought a movie)

I am not sure where conventions fall legally but I can't see them as 'private' enjoyment.

In this case I support the artists in their complaint... but then I also support the bakers... and I see them to be very much the same.

The musician does not want their "artistic effort"  to support causes that they are against... The baker does not want their "artistic effort" to support causes that they are against.

 

[prisonchaplain]

We really do need a lawyer's input on this one. Do night clubs pay a fee for playing songs? Does the DJ? Do wedding chapels pay fees when copyrighted songs are used? Funerals? I'm wondering if this is just a heavily Democratic profession that knows full-well the GOP can use these songs, but is raising a stink to highlight their opposition--knowing that the public isn't sure, and that a few might be swayed into thinking the Republicans are doing something wrong. Plus, here are these stories about the artists disagreeing with the GOP--free publicity. Sorry...kinda cynical on all this stuff. I also see a huge difference between recorded music--that can surely go anywhere, now instantly--vs. a live artisan being forced to serve an unrighteous cause, in the name of public accommodation.

Edited July 27, 2016 by prisonchaplain

[Guest Godless]

24 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

When we buy a song or movie... we by the rights to 'private' enjoyment of that song or movie.  Buying the song or movie does not give us the right to public performances of said song or movie.  Now no one is going to care if you blast your bought music outside while doing yard work. (except your neighbors and the local noise ordinances).

However any attempt to make a gain through public use of the song or movie is not a right you gained when you bought it.  That require separate licensing agreements. (For example you can't have your own concert and charge admission just because you bought a song, nor can you have your own theater just because you bought a movie)

I am not sure where conventions fall legally but I can't see them as 'private' enjoyment.

There's a license you can get to play music in a public venue. If the RNC was playing music without this license, then the artists have a legitimate complaint. But if the license was paid for, then the convention has every right to any music covered by the license. 

 

24 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

In this case I support the artists in their complaint... but then I also support the bakers... and I see them to be very much the same.

The musician does not want their "artistic effort"  to support causes that they are against... The baker does not want their "artistic effort" to support causes that they are against.

 

I feel the same way. 

 

8 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

We really do need a lawyer's input on this one. Do night clubs pay a fee for playing songs? Does the DJ?

Yes and yes. Also, any restaurant or bar that has copyrighted music playing (which is almost all of them) has to pay "the man". Pandora, for instance, has a commercial membership that costs more than the private membership and includes all licensing. That's what we use for music at my bar.

Do wedding chapels pay fees when copyrighted songs are used? Funerals?

Technically, I think they're supposed to. But I doubt that the fees are paid in those instances, and it probably goes unnoticed by the powers that be.

I'm wondering if this is just a heavily Democratic profession that knows full-well the GOP can use these songs, but is raising a stink to highlight their opposition--knowing that the public isn't sure, and that a few might be swayed into thinking the Republicans are doing something wrong. Plus, here are these stories about the artists disagreeing with the GOP--free publicity. Sorry...kinda cynical on all this stuff. I also see a huge difference between recorded music--that can surely go anywhere, now instantly--vs. a live artisan being forced to serve an unrighteous cause, in the name of public accommodation.

You're right, I'm sure the artists are fully aware that they have limited control over what their music is used for. I think they just want to make it clear that they don't support the GOP.

And speaking of free publicity, Third Eye Blind did a brilliant job of making themselves briefly relevant again at the RNC. I won't link the story because there's some profanity, but they essentially accepted an invitation to play at the RNC so they could troll the convention-goers.

[Guest MormonGator]

43 minutes ago, Godless said:

 

And speaking of free publicity, Third Eye Blind did a brilliant job of making themselves briefly relevant again at the RNC. I won't link the story because there's some profanity, but they essentially accepted an invitation to play at the RNC so they could troll the convention-goers.

Third Eye Blind-Nickleback from the late 1990's. 

[prisonchaplain]

I pay a fee out of our chapel budget each year, so we can freely copy lyrics from Christian praise & worship artists. Most churches that have worship bands do, these days. So, I'll step out on a limb and suggest the RNC probably paid whatever fee they were supposed to. 

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

I pay a fee out of our chapel budget each year, so we can freely copy lyrics from Christian praise & worship artists. Most churches that have worship bands do, these days. So, I'll step out on a limb and suggest the RNC probably paid whatever fee they were supposed to. 

The fees are relatively small. The GOP/RNC has lawyers, too, and they know the rules.

But, as I see it, the issue here is sauce for goose v. sauce for gander: if the Left wants to force some people to provide artistic services (e.g., bakers. pizza parlors, photographers) against the artist's wishes, then all artists must comply with the same rules, including musicians and singers. And they have no more right to complain than the former groups.

In fact, it seems they have less right to complain because they have offered licensure to the public and their recorded performances do not require any explicit effort on their parts. It's more than a matter of getting paid for the art/effort. A baker, for instance, must make a different cake for each wedding, but a singer doesn't go to the convention, he doesn't even have to send the CD — the user buys a downloaded version (if not a CD) and the artist has nothing to do with the transaction at all.

Lehi

Edited July 27, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest Godless]

3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Third Eye Blind-Nickleback from the late 1990's. 

Lol, I'm not a fan either, but I wouldn't go that far! 

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Godless said:

Lol, I'm not a fan either, but I wouldn't go that far! 

I graduated HS in the late 90's and my classmates choose between "Graduate" by Third Eye Blind or "Time of your Life" by Green Day as our "official" graduation song. Both songs are so wretched that I can't listen to either to this day without cringing or wanting to vomit. Not like "oh, that's cute, he must not like the songs." but a for real, "No, I really need to throw up" thing. 

I wanted "Rock and Roll High School" by The Ramones. 

[Blackmarch]

17 hours ago, Budget said:

 

That's actually a very good point Just_A_Guy - one I hadn't given thought to until you pointed it out. 

Once the song is released, bought and paid for... they really should have no right to determine who plays it or how someone listens to it.  But there is a lot of gray area here (just like EVERYTHING today has legal gray areas anymore).  Just because a band/singer doesn't believe the same thing the candidate does, they don't want their song played by that person because people will think they support that candidate and their choices.  Hmmm.  Something to ponder.

But today, in our litigious world, every issue, topic, accident, word, phrase, situation (etc) has become a wire. Able to be bent in whatever direction attorneys want to bend and present it.  

the way to do it is to handle the transactions yourself, and write up the acceptable use clause that would have to be adhered to as part of the price (or how you sell the rights to use it).... or at least that would have been binding at one point in the past (it's been trumped by the federal courts). The usual route for production is handing it off to a publisher of some sort, and they set the terms for buying (and you're more or less handing the property rights over to them, well selling anyways)

Edited July 28, 2016 by Blackmarch