It seems that the Republican National Convention and Presidential hopeful John McCain tried to take America to “heart”, and Heart stated in no uncertain terms that they didn’t want their “heart” stolen. Apparently Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was given the nickname “Sarah Barracuda” whilst a star high school basketball player, referring to Heart’s 1977 rock hit, prompting the RNC to use the song as her theme music at the Republican convention.
Sisters Ann and Nancy Wilson, who helped pen the classic guitar rock anthem, became infuriated with the RNC for not bothering to ask for permission to use their '70s hit “Barracuda”. To emphasize it as strongly as she could, Nancy Wilson was quoted as saying about the illegal use of their song, "I think it’s completely unfair to be so misrepresented. I feel completely fucked over.”
The sisters went on to stress that the McCain/Palin campaign’s values in no way come even close to reflecting the Wilson sisters' or for that matter average American women in general, and if the Republicans had sought permission to use the song in the first place, it would absolutely not have been given by Universal Music and Sony BMG (neither of which were contacted.)
After the first time it was used to introduce the governor, Heart’s representatives sent out a blistering cease-and-desist demand that the RNC stop using their hit song. The McCain campaign apparently ignored the demand and used the song again when Palin came on stage to stand with her running mate Sen. John McCain after his acceptance speech.
Apparently Heart weren’t the only victims, as Van Halen has objected to use of their hit "Right Now!" along with Boston and John Cougar Mellencamp. Jackson Browne, who refuses all requests that are made for permission to use his music in commercials, is demanding damages from the RNC and McCain in excess of one million dollars because they used "Running on Empty" without asking first.
The RNC/McCain organizations are infringing not only on the music industry, but are also taking liberties in other forums as well. Recently Mike Myers and fellow Saturday Night Live alum Dana Carvey sent out warnings about the RNC using their Wayne’s World characters without permission.
Considering "Pro-Big Business" John McCain's recent and loud pledges to help and protect the entertainment industry's fight against copyright violations (Digital Millennium Copyright Act,) you'd think he'd know better.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jet
As of the time of publishing, Frankie Valli has joined the fray after his hit tune "Can't Take My Eyes Off Of You" was also used by the McCain campaign in an ad without permission.
I thought everyone in the GOP was either an Oil man or a lawyer?
2 - Dave Nalle
I've been thinking about this issue for a while, and IMO the artists should not have any control over how their work is used so long as a standard licensing fee is paid.
When my work is used by unsavory groups (usually Nazis looking for cool gothic fonts) I don't feel that it is my right to harass them about it if they have paid for it. This is the way business ought to work. You do the work, take the money and as long as the use complies with the license then that's the end of it.
Hell, Heart ought to be thanking the McCain campaign for breathing a tiny breath of new life into their moribund careers.
To me the key issue is whether the artist is deprived of anything by this. Their rights to the work are not infringed and if they are paid they lose nothing of monetary value. Their political sensitivity has no cash value and should have no standing.
That's the way the law ought to work. That it does NOT apparently work that way is the problem. It's another case of bad law leading to the creation of the opportunity to abuse someone's rights - in this case the right of a political campaign to get reasonable use of a piece of music which would be granted to any other organization or business for an appropraite fee. Bias and discrimination ought to be as illegal for something like this as they are when it's an issue of showing racial or gender preference.
Dave
3 - Jet
The point is Dave that nothing was paid, nor permission given by either the artist nor the recording labels.
I can't believe you're actually saying that anyone's work can just be used any way someone sees fit.
Heart and the others feel that by the McCain campaign using their work, that the artists gave or received payment/royalties as an endorsement of the candidate implied or real.
That equal to one of your articles being published in a gay men's magazine with x rated pictures all around it, implying that since you gave the magazine permission to use your work, that you must be a homosexual.
By Heart's work appearing in a McCain campaign, that implies that they gave them permission, and that they endorse him... which is not the case.
4 - Cannonshop
Meh, it's trendy for artists to cry crocodile tears when the Republicans who may not share their views like their material and want to use it. It maintains their 'rebel' personae.
In the case of the Wilson sisters, considering that their last "Hit" was in the early eighties, they haven't toured in over a decade, and prior to this, it would be "Who's that?" for most of the listening audience, both the use, and the protest are probably good for what's left of their careers, should they wish to attempt a rather pathetic comeback.
5 - Jet
Again Cannon, you miss the point. Regardless of how old the material is-or for that matter your opinion of it, someone purchased the rights to that material-they own it, or have invested in it in order to make money off of it. Heart owns their material, just as Mike Myers owns the characters "Wayne" or "Garth" from Wayne's world.
When someone uses it for free, that's theft.
It's exactly the same as McDonald's owning the golden arches, and some other resturant tries to use the same logo without permission.
It's the same as when an invester buys oh say the rights to the Beatle's catalogue for Millions of dollars. Whenever someone uses a 40-year-old Beatle's tune in a commercial, a movie, or some other venture, he makes money by selling permission for its use. If someone uses it without permission, that effects his ability to make money on his investment.
I can't believe I'm explaining this concept to Republicans.
...or is it that you know it's wrong and you're trying to distract from that fact by insulting the content of the music so no one will notice?
6 - Jet
By the way, Heart only started raising hell after they contacted the RNC, and the ignored them and used the song anyway.
7 - Jet
A better example would be if someone started lifting articles from this site without permission and their website made advertising revenues that would've gone here.
No money was paid Heart, nor was any permission given.
It'd be a different story if the RNC paid for use of the song, then you'd be right-they could and should use it any way they saw fit.
The point you're trying to distract from is that no permission was given, even after it was used once and the RNC was warned not to use it again... nor was any money given for its use.
8 - Gary
Does any body know who wrote this song.
I turn on the tube and what do I see
A whole lotta people cryin’ ’don’t blame me’
They point their crooked little fingers at everybody else
Spend all their time feelin’ sorry for themselves
Victim of this, victim of that
Your momma’s too thin; your daddy’s too fat
Get over it
Get over it
All this whinin’ and cryin’ and pitchin’ a fit
Get over it, get over it
9 - Jet
Ah yes, the right-wing smartass peanut gallery is up and at'em even at 5:30 in the morning.
10 - Gary
One more question I was just wondering about the photo of the Sisters was the royalty paid for the use of the photo in this article.
11 - Cathy
Over on MTV they reported that the GOP obtained clearance and the blanket right to use the songs. ASCAP licenses songs to venues and films without the musicians input. The artists don't have a say, as when they signed their ASCAP agreements, they allowed the use of their songs at events, etc, when the fees are paid.
12 - Arch Conservative
What a lame article.
Are we all supposed to forget our own onsignificant problems like making the mortgage/rent payment and start feeling sorry for Heart, Van Halen, and Jackson Browne?
Seriously....with all the shit that's going on in the world Jet decides to write about Heart being upset because the mean old GOP used one of their songs without asking.....The horror....how will they manage to go on leading their multi millionaire lives in the face of such a horrible and dastardly deed, the likes of which make Hiroshima and the holocaust look like a Sunday picnic in the park?
What great injustice and tragedy is your next article going to be about Jet? How George Clooney went to buy another Ferrari and they didn't have it in the specific shade of red that he wanted? Please don't....at least not today......I don't know if my heart can take so much inhumanity in such a short time.........
13 - Christopher Rose
Archie, why and how do you leap to the seemingly irrational conclusion that being concerned about this issue somehow excludes being concerned about anything else?
Can your brain only cope with a limited number of issues at any one time?
14 - Arch Conservative
Archie, why and how do you leap to the seemingly irrational conclusion that being concerned about this issue somehow excludes being concerned about anything else?
I didn't leap to that conclusion. I know Jet cares about other things as I have seen him write about them many times. I was just having a little fun at his expense over this article. In the long list of issues/concerns to be pondered in this world I think the average person would rank the issue Jet chose to write about in this article right under the having to make a decision as to wether it is worth it so spend the extra 39 cents and go witht he triple ply toilet paper rather than the double ply.
15 - Christopher Rose
I guess we have very different ideas of fun then. It's not a word I would associate with you, Archie.
There are actually people who are concerned about the price of toilet paper so I wouldn't see that as a trivial issue either, particularly when US unemployment is now at 6.1%, the highest rate since late 2003.
16 - Joanne Huspek
Jet does have a valid point. I'm extremely aware of copyright infringement, whether it is for music, words or pictures, and the internet is one place where people have run roughshod over these rights. I've seen people claim ownership of photos belonging to Microsoft, and blatantly post articles that have been published by someone else somewhere else. It's hard to police, but it can be done.
For the average person wanting to use a song, the copyright law is rather vague. I found it necessary to get permission to use the lyrics of a song for use in an essay, even though the piece was old and the composer long dead. It's better to be safe than sorry.
The proper thing for the RNC to do would have been to contact the music publishers or ASCAP and paid whatever royalty was required. It could have taken someone, what? maybe an hour to do? Hopefully they won't make that mistake again.
17 - Condor
Heart was on tour this year, with Journey and Cheap Trick. It won't be long and they'll hit the car show circuit.
But seriously... if the RNC is not paying royalties, they should, or subscribe to a music service for a fee which doles out a royalty for the artists compositions used. Don't DJ's subscribe? Don't churches subscribe to CM subscription services. If the artists are enrolled and the service is paid for and allowed; what can they say?
And the good point comes up... it does give them some fresh exposure.
It's a statement. Perhaps something by Wagner...
or Barber... (i.e. the theme song used in Platoon).
or... Richard Harris sings MacArthur Park....
Heart, Van Halen/Hagar, Browne... goodness aren't they a little well worn at this point. Classic rock is/has been so over played.
Maybe some Cake, "I wanna girl, with a short skirt... and a looooog jacket!" Oh yeah, that would do it. Or some european techo piece that pumps up the crowd.
18 - Rachel
I love how people sit here and say that there are more pressing concerns in the world when I highly doubt that you are active and devoted humanitarians. So unless you wrote that comment after a day of working with dying AIDS patients in Africa, spare me your self-righteous bull.
That being stated, whether or not royalties are paid is neither here nor there. In our culture, artists have become more than a source of entertainment. They are praised or vilified for every aspect of their personal life, and so when people hear or see their work associated with something so opinion-based in nature as politics, it is assumed that their views are the same. It hurts popular opinion of them, and is thus damaging.
But even that in itself is irrelevant. Do politicians really think that they can hide their worthless platforms by playing us a few feel good songs? This is not high school- it is a serious business and they need to grow up. The frivolity of it all is sickening.
And FYI, Heart has actively and successfully recorded and toured throughout this decade, releasing solo albums and working with a side group that is stylistically different.
19 - Condor
Royalties should be paid. Burning CD's are making tapes etc... for public listening/viewing is against copywrite law. No if's, ands, or buts.
Plain and simple. The subscription services are alive and well. Use them.
20 - Jill
Thank you Rachel (post #18), I wholeheartedly agree with you. Personally, I have never blogged before (this story about Heart/Palin are pretty much the first blogs I have read) because I generally don't think it's productive and most posts I read are giving people a forum to post truly uninformed comments with malice, but as a Heart fan I felt I should comment. I will be attending their concert with Journey and Cheap Trick on 9/9 and will continue to enjoy the Wilson sisters and their music. I will continue to focus on more important things in life like my family.
21 - Jet
Arch maybe if you wrote articles instead of shitting on them, you'd understand. As for my choice of subject matter, I tried to find an aspect of the convention that hadn't been written about by 25 writers already on this site.
Take your fun and stuff it.
22 - Jet
#16: Thanks Joanne. The point everyone seems to be detouring around is that after the first time it was used, the owners of the rights to the music contacted the RNC and told them not to use it again, and they were blatantly ignored.
The Wilson Sisters own control over their music. The point is missed that while their material can be used in the public domain without permission, such as being used as radio play, it CAN NOT be used within material such as part of something that is part of or being re-copyrighted such as a movie, or a "Greatest hits of the 70s" CD without their permission, or as in this case an endorsement. The Republican convention is copywrited so that it can't be rebroadcast without the RNC's permission. Therefore permission for all material with a pre-existing copyright must be obtained for it to be used within that broadcast from whoever holds title to it, before it can be used.
Therefore, if the RNC decided to sell DVDs of the convention as a fund raiser, they'd have to pay the owners of all PREVIOUSLY copyrighted materials a fee, because the RNC WOULD BE MAKING MONEY OFF OF THEIR WORK.
23 - Lisa Solod Warren
Theft is theft. If artsts do not wish groups to use their music or their art, they are well within their rights. Other groups who have been co-opted by the Repubs without their permission: John Mellencamp, Jackson Browne and Boston. I am sure there are others.
I was going to write about this myself and may still include it in a larger column.
24 - Jet
Yes Condor. I was once an office manager for a resturant chain, and was suprised to find out that when we subscribed to Muzak, a blanket artist fee was paid-because since we charged money for the food, technically we were making money by the use of the artist's material in order to make the meal more pleasant, so the artist got a share of that profit... tiny, but they got a share.
25 - Jet
Does anyone remember that Fleetwood Mac reformed because of their performance with the Clinton Campaign and went on to make millions on the live-concert album that followed?