Jonathan Limehouse, USA TODAY; The beats go on: Trump keeps dancing as artists get outraged over his use of their songs
"Here are some of the songs that have created issues for Trump on the campaign trail, and how music copyright laws impact these claims."
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."
Ephrat Livni, Lauren Hirsch and 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."
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.”"
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."
