Heart’s sisters Ann and Nancy Wilson are not feeling the love with sister Sarah Palin this morning. Last night, after John McCain’s speech, Heart’s hit song “Barracuda” was played, most likely in tune with Sarah Palin’s high school nickname of “Sarah Barracuda.”
The Wilson girls don’t share Palin’s political views and consequently don’t want to share their tune with the GOP. However, my understanding is that if a royalty is paid, then the song may be used.
Obama stepped into similar waters using the Brooks and Dunn song “Only in America” during his convention. In contrast to sisters Wilson, Brooks and Dunn take a more artistic view of the use of their work. “Only in America” songwriter, Don Cook said:
“…For us as writers and them as performers, truthfully, we’re proud when anybody uses our song for something that’s substantial. Even if you’re diametrically opposed politically to the person who’s using your song, the fact that they like it well enough to use it at an important place in their life, you have to love that.”
Well said…
Hmm, interesting. It seems that U.S. law is more limited than its Canadian and European counterparts with regard to what are known as “moral rights” of the author.
Canadian law recognizes the right of paternity, right of integrity, and–what is germane to this situation–the right of association. The third of these refers to the right of an author to prevent anyone else from using his or her work “in association with a product, service, cause or institution” in a way that would be prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author.
I see, for example, that a New York court ruled against Soviet composers who objected to their music being used in a film with an anti-Soviet theme, while a French court ruled in favour of the composers.
Regardless of the legal standing, as Ken says, the McCain-Palin campaign would be foolish to try to use the song over the objection of its authors.
John in Kansas said:
If they paid to use it and fulfilled the license requirement then it sounds like the Wilsons are infringing on McCain’s and Palin’s civil rights. It’s illegal to discrimninate against the buyers because of their race, religion, political affiliation, etc…
Not exactly. The Wilson’s don’t want to deny her the use of the song because of her political affiliation, but because of what she wants to use it for, to associate the meaning of the song with Sarah Palin.
Aside from the legalities, it would be unwise for the McCain/Palin campaign to use it again (even if they secure the rights). Having the original performers of a song publicly denounce your for using their song inappropriately isn’t generally a good idea in a political campaign.
If they paid to use it and fulfilled the license requirement then it sounds like the Wilsons are infringing on McCain’s and Palin’s civil rights. It’s illegal to discrimninate against the buyers because of their race, religion, political affiliation, etc…
What’s really amazing is that Sarah herself is pretty close to what the song is about except she rose above the political and corporate vultures to be her own woman. It sounds like the Wilson girls have a blind love for the very forces that opress creative artist in America.
Typically, permission is required for public use of a copyrighted song, but it also depends on how the song is licensed for such use. MSNBC had this quote in a related article: “Copyright law may not be on the Wilsons’ side as the song is licensed for public performance under a blanket fee paid by the venue to ASCAP, the firm that collects royalties on behalf of composers and copyright owners.”
Further information on this article can be obtained here.
Warren said:
However, my understanding is that if a royalty is paid, then the song may be used.
Not exactly. In order to use a song, you need to get permission from whomever holds the rights to the song (not necessarily the original artist, usually some record company). Getting permission generally involves paying a fee, but rights holders are not required to let anybody use the song simply because they are willing to pay a fee.
Sony and Universal sent cease and desist orders. It doesn’t really sound like that had permission to use it. It doesn’t sound like a royalty WAS paid.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/05/mccain-palin-embrace-barracuda/
When I first read the background of the selection of this song, I thought:
“Is Ms. Palin a celebrity or a civil servant?”
Why is she being extolled as opposed to how she would be able to serve our country as one of its top leaders — her plans, ideas, visions, and abilities to implement those things in the lives of typical U.S. citizen?
Substance vs. style?