DRM News

Every political cycle there are ads on TV and there are increasing ads on the internet, all of these ads have music of one sort or another. Some campaign ads use original jingles while others use copyrighted material from other artists (usually famous ones.) In the case of the latter, the song might be unchanged or edited for political effect. In either case, the original song is readily apparent. The problem with using artist’s songs is that you have to pay to use them, or get permission. Ironically, the same politicians who will back the RIAA’s overreaching copyright claims are stealing artists’ songs for their own personal gain.

Of course, they claim it’s ‘fair use’, but is it really? Recently Chuck DeVore was sued by Don Henley because he was using Henley’s songs in campaign ads. He claimed ‘fair use’ because he was using parody, but the judge didn’t think that the ‘parody’ or ‘fair use’ exemptions to copyright applied in this case, so Don Henley won his case. This isn’t just Chuck DeVore, every campaign cycle these charges come up against a number of politicians and usually get handled pretty quick. Either through paying for the song, getting permission, or taking down the ad. The issue is it should not be happening at all. Artists do have a right to be paid for their work.

That ruling against Devore supports my opinion that if a politicians chooses to use a song in ads, they either have to pay for it, or get permission to use it. Its not ‘fair use’ because they are looking to personally profit from it. What really irritates me is that they claim innocence when doing this, but they’ll back the music or movie industry when they go after people for legitimate fair use. Politicians need to start walking the walk on this issue.

I’m not going to hold my breath.