AJC.com > Opinion > Opinion Talk > Archives > 2008 > October > 13 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USAre political uses of a song OK when artists object?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
A Washington Post opinion column by Christopher Sprigman and Siva Vaidhyanathan notes:
“After vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin finished her big speech at the Republican National Convention, the 1977 song ‘Barracuda,’ by the band Heart, blared out over the roar of the crowd. Convention organizers chose the music to highlight Palin’s high school basketball-team nickname, ‘Sarah Barracuda.’ But Heart’s songwriters, Ann and Nancy Wilson, were less than pleased.
“The sisters released a statement saying that ‘Sarah Palin’s views and values in no way represent us as American women’ and insisted that the McCain-Palin campaign not play their song. Their publisher, Universal Music Publishing, and their label, Sony BMG, sent a cease-and-desist letter to the campaign.”
Sprigman and Vaidhyanathan write that: “Artists should speak up, loudly, when they feel the use of their songs misrepresents their views, particularly if such use could create the public impression of an endorsement.”
But they argue, they should not be permitted to file a copyright lawsuit to prevent the political use of a song. Among the reasons: “There is an inherent tension between copyright law — which tells us what we cannot say, sing or perform — and the First Amendment, which protects against state censorship. In this case, the First Amendment must win. Rich and varied political speech — no matter how distasteful to recording artists or their fans — must prevail and stay free.”
Read the full column at washingtonpost.com
Are political uses of a song OK, even if used to support a candidate not in keeping with the artists’ ideology?
Permalink | Comments (8) | Categories: Forum
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By John Goodman
October 13, 2008 7:07 PM | Link to this
No, it is NOT OK. The song is used for political gain. They pay for hotel and meeting rooms, they should pay for the songs. The artist is entitled to payment, and it’s obvious by the complaints of the artists that McCain-Palin didn’t pay. It’s theft!
By Algonquin J. Calhoun
October 14, 2008 2:22 AM | Link to this
The Artists were, probably, paid for the useage of the material. However, the artists weren’t happy with who was using the songs and the message that they tried to attach to those songs.
By Rhonda Steele
October 14, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
They should be allowed to play the song - it is available for purchase in any music store and is played on radio stations. Anyone who purchases the music can play it anywhere they like - in their home, in their cars, anywhere else. If artists are allowed to say that their music can not be played by certain people or in certain places because they don’t like the persons/places is no less than censorship. It would be different if they had hired someone else to sing the song, but just playing a purchased copy of the music is not infringing on a copyright.
By RealityKing
October 14, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
Only the progressively corrupt media would glorify the objections of two old slutty drugged out rockers while completely ignoring the objections of millions of parents whose kids watch Bob the Builder. You know, the children’s cartoon that Obama blatantly plagiarized for his ‘YES WE CAN’ motto. Unless of course, he paid royalties on that..
By RealityKing
October 14, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
Obviously the Heart sisters still don’t understand that sex, drugs and rock and roll do not represent what’s right in American women of today..
->‘Sarah Palin’s views and values in no way represent us as American women’
By Phyllis Bearden
October 14, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this
I cannot sing a copyrighted song in church without purchasing the sheet music. I cannot sing anything in public without honoring the artist’s contributions, just as radio stations have to pay copyright fees for their playlists. If the McCain/Palin campaign paid the copyright fee for public performances,then it would be legal; but I would hesitate to keep messing with artists and using their songs when they don’t support me. It’s bad publicity, and plenty of artists support the McCain/Palin ticket.
By Copyleft
October 14, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
RKing: Actually, Ann & Nancy Wilson understand very well what’s right with America today… that’s why they support President Obama rather than the woman-hating Sarah Palin and her nameless running mate. (What was that guy’s name again?)
American women favor Obama by a large margin—that’s what makes them American. And I’m proud to know them.
By RealityKing
October 14, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this
And what if Artists were to then object, for political reasons, to their music being played at weddings and/or civil unions? Would the AJC also highlight those Artist’s in a favorable light??
Of course not.., so obviously, this is nothing more than gray noise, more distraction during an election cycle from a corrupt news source thats not interested in investigating both candidates equally. A news sourse that has lost all sence of fair play, a corrupt news source that has become completely.., unAmerican.