Comments on: Song wars: Heart doesn't heart Sarah Palin

By: The Sheepcat

The Sheepcat — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:43:28 +0000

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.

By: ken

ken — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:54:30 +0000

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.

By: John in Kansas

John in Kansas — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 04:32:39 +0000

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.

By: Jerry

Jerry — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:57:43 +0000

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.

By: ken

ken — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 03:23:58 +0000

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.