General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRolling Stone: Can Rush, Peter Gabriel Legally Order Limbaugh to Cease Using Their Songs?
Attorney: Technically, no, but they can use court of public opinion
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/can-rush-peter-gabriel-legally-order-limbaugh-to-cease-using-their-songs-20120308
By
James Sullivan
March 8, 2012 3:15 PM ET
In the clamor over Rush Limbaugh's personal attacks on Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, who recently testified at a Congressional hearing on contraception, musicians including Peter Gabriel and the band Rush have demanded that the conservative talk-show host stop playing their songs on his broadcast. Legally, the bands may not have a case, says attorney Larry Iser.
Iser has some experience with such disputes. In 2008, he went to court to stop the campaign of GOP presidential candidate John McCain from using "Running on Empty" in an ad attacking his opponent, Barack Obama. He also helped David Byrne force former Florida Governor Charlie Crist to stop running an attack ad using the Talking Heads song "Road to Nowhere."
Limbaugh's case is different, says the attorney. His clients sued for copyright infingement their songs were used in audio-visual media, requiring licenses for the musical composition and the use of the recording under the terms of the Copyright Act. By contrast, radio networks are covered under blanket agreements for "public performance" of all songs in the publishing catalogs of ASCAP, BMI and, in the band Rush's case, SESAC, the Society of European Stage Authors & Composers. The fact that Limbaugh's show has a political agenda does not interfere with his right to play music, so long as it's paid for, says Iser.
"What he did is in fact the essence of what 'public performance' is," Iser says. Networks like Premiere, which syndicates The Rush Limbaugh Show, "all take public performance licenses for the performing societies . . . Artists who make money from public performance royalties don't have the right, typically, to control who plays their songs. Once they choose to add their songs to the public performance catalog, they're out there for anyone (with a licensing agreement) to use."
unblock
(52,309 posts)they may be have written the lyrics and/or music and/or performed them, but they no longer OWN them.
they retain the right to collect royalties in exchange for having sold legal ownership and the right to control distribution, etc.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Some retain them for the duration of their lifetimes, and sell the catalog's future after they die. Mr bowie did that.
This is a choice the songwriter makes, often not a well informed decision, still it is simply not the case that 'they' do not own 'their' songs unless 'they' sold them. No one makes them do so.
One of the reasons Paul Simon is richer than God's agent is that he owns his songs. The list goes on.
unblock
(52,309 posts)has done some really cool things financially, including creating a security backed by the cashflow from his songs!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowie_Bonds
particularly interesting to me, as a securitization specialist.
rocktivity
(44,577 posts)They not only said yes, they contributed the music sample!
rocktivity
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)starroute
(12,977 posts)Write some virulently -- and preferably obscenely -- anti-Rush lyrics to the tunes. Get the band's permission if necessary -- though I'd think it would fall under fair use as satire or parody. Put it up on YouTube, spread the word so it goes viral, maybe even RickRoll it. And create a world in which no one can hear those tunes without offensive images of Rush going through their heads.
IcyPeas
(21,901 posts)that they don't want their music used on his show. I haven't heard if Chrissie Hynde/Pretenders have come forward (which disappoints me since Chrissie is ..... a woman)