‘Please let me get what I want’: can artists stop politicians from using their songs?; The Guardian, January 30, 2024

Matthew Cantor , The Guardian; ‘Please let me get what I want’: can artists stop politicians from using their songs?

"How much power do artists actually have in this scenario? It depends on the circumstances, says Ben Depoorter, a professor at University of California Law San Francisco. In the US, licensing companies including Ascap and BMI manage copyright issues on behalf of artists. Generally, venues like convention centers have their own licenses with these companies, meaning that, broadly speaking, the venues can play whatever they want.

However, the rules are a little different when a third party is involved. When a candidate “walks on and they play music, that is actually not covered by the standard license of the venue”, Depoorter says. Political campaigns often don’t realize that they need their own music licenses, under which musicians can opt out of having their music played. “When these authors are saying, ‘Hey, I don’t want him to play my music any more,’ it’s actually a legal right they have,” Depoorter explains."

Who Owns a Song Created by A.I.?; The New York Times, April 15, 2023

Ephrat Livni, Lauren Hirsch and Sarah Kessler The New York Times; Who Owns a Song Created by A.I.?

"Who owns the output of generative A.I.? For now, only a human’s work can be copyrighted, but what about work that partly relies on generative A.I.? Some tool developers have said they won’t assert copyright over content generated by their machines. In February, the Copyright Office rejected a copyright for A.I.-generated images in a graphic novel, though the writer argued that she had made the images via “a creative, iterative process” that involved “composition, selection, arrangement, cropping and editing for each image.” The government compared use of the A.I. tool to hiring an artist. But the lines may blur as the use of such tools becomes more common. Like the tools, the intellectual property issues are a work in progress that will only get more complex."

When Songs Sound Similar, Courts Look for Musical DNA; The New York Times, March 1, 2023

 Ben Sisario, The New York Times; When Songs Sound Similar, Courts Look for Musical DNA

"But are they close enough that Sheeran should be liable for copyright infringement? Or is their overlap limited to fundamental musical building blocks that are part of the public domain?"...

“All of these cases are about the question of how similar is too similar,” said Joseph P. Fishman, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School in Nashville. “The Copyright Act that Congress passed says nothing whatsoever about that question. In the U.S. copyright system, the rules for how that question gets answered are entirely developed by federal judges.”"

'Weird Al' Yankovic wants to 'bring sexy back' to the accordion; Fresh Air, NPR, November 16, 2022

Terry Gross, Fresh Air, NPR; 'Weird Al' Yankovic wants to 'bring sexy back' to the accordion

"GROSS: What kind of permissions do you legally need now to do a song parody, the kind that you do where often it's, like, musically note for note from the original recording but, you know, the lyrics are different? So, you know, you're satirizing the lyric, but the music isn't really - the instrumentation isn't really a satire. It's the thing. It's the - sounds like the original thing.

YANKOVIC: It's a gray area in terms of legally what I need to do especially in cases like "Smells Like Nirvana" because, again, that's satire. And that's considered free speech and fair use. And if push came to shove, if it went to the courts, generally, that's - you know, the courts rule in favor of the parody artist. But I - you know, I don't go by just what's legal. I go for what I think is right. And what's right to me is always getting permission from the original songwriters and get their blessing. Because if an artist doesn't want me to do their song, I will back off. I mean, no matter what, you know, the courts or the law says, it's like, I just want to, you know, do good by them because I respect artists. And I don't ever want them to feel like I'm, you know, stepping on their toes."

Can Neil Young Sue Donald Trump Into Silence?; Rolling Stone, August 5, 2020

Amy X. Wang, Rolling Stone; Can Neil Young Sue Donald Trump Into Silence?

"The lawsuit is just the latest in a long line of clashes between Young and Trump — dating back to June 2015, when Trump played “Rockin’ in the Free World” after announcing his presidential run. Trump most recently played the Freedom cut at events in Tulsa, Oklahoma and Mount Rushmore, despite Young’s longstanding objection.

But does the musician have a case? “It’s absolutely a license issue,” Gary Adelman — a New York-based entertainment business attorney at Adelman Matz — tells Rolling Stone. He notes that the case will hinge on whether the artist has specifically removed those particular songs from his public performance organization’s blanket licenses: “If he has withdrawn those two particular songs from BMI’s political license program, then the Trump administration does not have a license to play them at a political rally and they have a good case that they will more likely win.”"

The Key to the Sharp Objects Mystery Is in the Music; Esquire, August 12, 2018

Matt Miller, Esquire; The Key to the Sharp Objects Mystery Is in the Music

[Kip Currier: HBO's 8-episode "Sharp Objects" is a thought-stirring, unflinching exhumation on the roles of "memory" and "place" in people's lives, as witnessed via the POV of childhood trauma survivor-cum-journalist Amy Adams' tragi-heroine. Music plays an inseparable role in the show's haunting story-telling and this Esquire article sheds fascinating light on the creative, collaborative spirit between director Jean-Marc Vallée and rock music icon band Led Zeppelin, whose songs stand out memorably in some key episodes.]

"Miraculously, [Led Zeppelin] liked the idea so much they approved not one but four songs; they also gave Vallée free reign to play as much of the tracks as he wanted and even layer them over each other to make his own atmosphere. “I think I fell on the floor,” Jacobs says of when she got the call, hearing that the songs had been approved. “Like, wow, this was so unprecedented, because they rarely ever let you use more than one song, and [we could] use the songs multiple times.”

The difference with Sharp Objects was Vallée’s approach to his soundtracks, which isn’t music as background music, but rather an integral part of the story and characterization."

Beatles rarities being released to beat copyright laws; BBC News, 12/13/13

BBC News; Beatles rarities being released to beat copyright laws: "EU law protects recordings for 70 years, but only if they get an official release. Otherwise, the copyright period lasts 50 years. In the case of The Beatles, that means the master tape for their 1963 debut album Please Please Me is protected until 2033, but the unreleased session tapes for that album are not. If the Beatles chose not to release the recordings before the end of the year, it would mean other record labels could theoretically put them out and profit from them. The band's 1962 debut single, Love Me Do, arguably slipped out of copyright last year, before the EU's copyright extension was signed into law. At least one record company issued a "remastered" version of the song, although that has since been deleted. The copyright law in question only covers the recordings - the songs themselves remain the copyright of the composer for 70 years after their death."