Thread: Aerosmith frontman asks Trump campaign to stop using song

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...ng-1873733479/

Ahead of a press event on Monday in New Hampshire, Donald Trump assured reporters he had patched things up with Aerosmith frontman Steven Tyler.

"It's all been worked out," he said.

Trump was referring to a second cease-and-desist letter sent to the Republican candidate on Saturday from Tyler's attorneys, demanding that the Trump campaign no longer use "Dream On."

The letter stated that Trump did "not have our client's permission to use 'Dream On'" or any of Tyler's other songs and that it "gives the false impression that he is connected with or endorses Mr. Trump's presidential bid."

Tyler, who is a registered Republican, attended the GOP contenders' first debate in August.

Attorney Dina LaPolt said in a statement that the letter is not a "political" or "personal issue with Mr. Trump," but it's one of permission and copyright.

The presidential candidate did not offer any more details regarding how he had smoothed things over with Tyler.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Originally Posted by Judy

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...ng-1873733479/

Ahead of a press event on Monday in New Hampshire, Donald Trump assured reporters he had patched things up with Aerosmith frontman Steven Tyler.

"It's all been worked out," he said.

Trump was referring to a second cease-and-desist letter sent to the Republican candidate on Saturday from Tyler's attorneys, demanding that the Trump campaign no longer use "Dream On."

The letter stated that Trump did "not have our client's permission to use 'Dream On'" or any of Tyler's other songs and that it "gives the false impression that he is connected with or endorses Mr. Trump's presidential bid."

Tyler, who is a registered Republican, attended the GOP contenders' first debate in August.

Attorney Dina LaPolt said in a statement that the letter is not a "political" or "personal issue with Mr. Trump," but it's one of permission and copyright.

The presidential candidate did not offer any more details regarding how he had smoothed things over with Tyler.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

I guess Trump did have to smooth things over with Tyler personally.

Originally Posted by MW

I guess Trump did have to smooth things over with Tyler personally.

I guess so, it's not clear but hopefully it will make the peace with the artist, whatever was worked out. For the past two days, 8 of the top 10 articles for a Trump in the news search was about Tyler writing Trump a cease and desist letter. All these important issues in the world, and Tyler's letter to Trump gets the top billing

I still wish they'd tell their venues to play a better song. And maybe they will.

I am so sick of these "artists" making asses of themselves by screaming and crying about Donald Trump's campaign using music clips of their songs.

The message they are sending is they feel only those they ideologically approve of can use their music. So from now on everyone needs to make sure that you are a socialist Democrat or you make sure Steven Tyler likes your campaign platform before you can play part of his tunes.

W

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

I am so sick of these "artists" making asses of themselves by screaming and crying about Donald Trump's campaign using music clips of their songs.

The message they are sending is they feel only those they ideologically approve of can use their music. So from now on everyone needs to make sure that you are a socialist Democrat or you make sure Steven Tyler likes your campaign platform before you can play part of his tunes.

W

Exactly!! It just has me so steamed. They want all the benefits of our little free nation of free citizens that our Republic Democracy affords them yet they want to make a big stink about a campaign during the elections process that makes all that possible, using their music which it paid for at their events. What should be a compliment to them not to mention the enormous free publicity for their tired old songs, they instead want to object to it as damage. How can playing the music you paid them to use that gets them so much free marketing be a source of damage?!

Well, HISS BOO ON THEM AND BOYCOTT TOO.

Taking someone's music without paying for it, or being given permission to use it, is illegal.

Why ASCAP Licenses Bars, Restaurants & Music Venues



If you’ve ever noticed how quickly a concert venue turns on recorded music between bands, or experienced that strange silence when the music stops playing in a restaurant or bar, you understand how important music can be to a business. Like the quality of the food, drinks and atmosphere, music contributes to the success of the bars, restaurants and venues that we all frequent. The people who created that music have a right to fair payment for the public performance of their music. And the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) exists to make this possible.

As a membership organization of more than 500,000 songwriters, composers and music publishers, ASCAP understands how essential music is to local businesses. ASCAP’s licensing efforts have expanded in scope and sophistication over the years. But we’ve never let go of the personal touch so essential to the many thousands of bars, restaurants, music venues and other “general licensees” that thrive on one-on-one interactions for their business. The vast majority of establishments we approach recognize that music is vital to the total service they offer – both in attracting customers and in driving revenue. They know that an ASCAP license allows them to offer music legally, efficiently and at a reasonable price – while compensating music creators so they can earn a living from their work.

Sometimes our licensing operations are misunderstood, most often by local bar owners trying to avoid being licensed.

So let's get back to the basics. Here are five essential facts to know about ASCAP’s general licensing practices, and why they’re good for music makers and music users.

1) Who We Are
ASCAP is a membership association that operates on a non-profit basis and represents more than 500,000 small and independent songwriters, composers and music publishers. We’re the only performing rights organization owned and operated by our members.

2) Public Performance is a Right
Professional songwriters and composers earn much of their livelihoods by licensing the rights granted to to them by copyright law. One of these is the right of "public performance," which allows people who create music to make a living from their art - even when they aren’t the performing artists. ASCAP exists to protect that right by licensing the public performance of our members’ music.

3) ASCAP Connects the Creative and Business Communities
ASCAP’s licensing efforts benefit music creators and businesses. Songwriters and composers depend on ASCAP to license their songs to the hundreds of thousands businesses across the country that perform their music, leaving them free to do what they do best - make music. Businesses know that an ASCAP license is a worthwhile investment. With one payment, they can legally play more than 9 million musical works. Local artists can cover ASCAP songs in their sets without worrying about infringement. And since ASCAP is a membership association that operates on a non-profit basis, our licensees know that their license fees are going right back to the music creators who bring so much to their business.

4) ASCAP Licensing Fees Are Flexible and Affordable
We work hard to make sure any business seeking a music license is able to get one at a reasonable rate. Most of ASCAP’s licensees take out “blanket licenses,” meaning that licensed venues pay an annual flat fee without having to take on the time-intensive process of tracking and reporting on every song played. There are more than 100 different types of ASCAP licenses, and we’ve always adapted our licensing to reflect new ways that businesses are using music. Smaller operations may pay as little as a dollar or two a day.

5) Songwriters and Composers Are Small Business Owners, Too
Music is more than just an art form for ASCAP’s 500,000+ members. It’s also how they earn a living, put food on the table, send their kids to school. Like any business that offers a service or produces goods for consumption, songwriters have the right to be compensated when their music is performed - even when they’re not in the room playing it themselves.

Frequently Asked Questions (Click link and click question for answers.)

• What does ASCAP mean by “general licensee?”
• Why should a business have to pay to play music in public?
• Do business owners need to pay a fee if they’re only playing recorded music like CDs, radio or TV?
• How much do your general licensees pay annually?
• Why is the venue responsible for paying ASCAP fees? Shouldn’t a musician, entertainer or DJ be responsible for obtaining permission?
• Are there any types of business that can perform music without having to pay an ASCAP license?
• How does ASCAP go about licensing local businesses like bars and restaurants?
• How do you pay your members for live performances?
• Is there a connection between the fees that licensed venues pay and the ASCAP members that play there?
• How much of the money that venues pay to ASCAP actually goes to your songwriters?
• I’ve heard that ASCAP aggressively pursues unlicensed businesses. Is this accurate?
• Why does ASCAP occasionally take legal action against small businesses?
• Are you concerned that some smaller venues might stop hosting live music instead of paying their ASCAP fees or dealing with potential lawsuits?
  

http://www.ascap.com/playback/2013/1...s.aspx#general

No one did that, JohnDoe2. Trump's people who provide the venues for the rallies already have a license to play music. The license wouldn't be in the name of Trump for President, it would be in the name of the venue where the rally is head. Like the stadiums in Mobile and Dallas, and the Trade Center in Atlanta. They have sound teams and equipment where they provide the music, they get the license and use it for music played at all different types of events. Their services are no different for a Trump Rally than it is for any Conference, Meeting, Sporting Event, Trade show or any other type of Public Event.

Why Politicians Keep Using Songs Without Artists' Permission

Inside the recurring controversy over campaign music


BY STEVE KNOPPER July 9, 2015

In 1984, Bruce Springsteen objected to President Ronald Reagan's plans to use "Born in the U.S.A." during his reelection run. Universal Image Group/Getty; Ebet Roberts/Getty

In 2004, Howard Dean's staff decided "We Can," a song by country star LeAnn Rimes about achieving the impossible, was the perfect soundtrack for his presidential bid. So Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager, secured the rights and contacted Rimes for permission – she agreed, as long as it was a cover version. Yet almost every time Dean walked into a packed stadium or ballroom, U2's "Beautiful Day" was playing overhead. "I'd go up to the advance person and be like, 'What the ****? That's not our message,'" Trippi says. "We did it right, and I still couldn't make sure that damn song played."

SIDEBAR



34 Musicians Who Told Politicians to Stop Using Their Songs »

As Donald Trump recently demonstrated, when he blared Neil Young's "Rockin' in the Free World" and received a public rebuttal from Young himself, candidates often neglect little details when picking campaign songs – like, say, contacting the songwriters. Over and over, this leads to embarrassing situations, most famously when Bruce Springsteen upbraided President Reagan for planning to install "Born in the U.S.A." as a backdrop for his reelection campaign in 1984, but also more recently, when union-bashing Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker prominently used "I'm Shipping Out to Boston" at an Iowa event and received a "we literally hate you!!!" tweet from pro-union punk band Dropkick Murphys.

Although Trippi is a Democrat, and this type of thing usually happens to Republicans, he believes it's generally due to campaign negligence rather than political calculation.

"Nine times out of 10, it's a young advance person who thinks it's a cool song to play when the guy's walking in and the candidate hasn't a clue what was playing," he says. "In this case, Donald Trump could have walked in that room: 'I want that Neil Young song, and it better be playing loud.' But I don't know." (Reps for Trump, as well as Walker, Mitt Romney and Senator Marco Rubio, who have run into this problem repeatedly throughout recent election cycles, did not respond to requests for comment.)

Either way, the impact of such unauthorized use can be devastating for a songwriter. "The artist gets drawn into the question of whether or not to take any action, and run the risk of giving the politicians some additional publicity, or [allowing] the public for one second to think that someone like Neil Young was endorsing Donald Trump," says Jon Landau, Springsteen's longtime manager. "It's kind of a reverse endorsement trap – Ronald Reagan declares Bruce as one of his own, and then Bruce has to either let it stand or actively disassociate. When the confusion gets big enough, most artists will, one way or the other, step in."

Of course, the opposite effect can happen. Mick Fleetwood recently said Bill Clinton's campaign never requested permission for what became his iconic 1992 campaign anthem, "Don't Stop," but the band generally voted Democratic and didn't object to the exposure. On a smaller scale, Gym Class Heroes' "The Fighter" recently wound up on Hillary Clinton's publicly released Spotify playlist (after her presidential campaign received permission from the band). "If it wasn't Hillary, and I didn't necessarily agree with their stance, it'd definitely be an awkward position," says the band's Travie McCoy, who sang and co-wrote the song. "When you're in a position of being super-impressionable on people, you've got to be careful how you step." Several artists who've had conflicts with politicians in recent years on this issue, including Dropkick Murphys, Axwell and Ingrosso, Heart, Tom Petty, Don Henley and Van Halen, turned down interview requests for this story.

Technically speaking, copyright laws allow political candidates to use just about any song they want, as long as they're played at a stadium, arena or other venue that already has a public-performance license through a songwriters' association such as ASCAP or BMI.

However, the law contains plenty of gray area. If a candidate refuses to stop using a song in this scenario, an artist may be able to protect his "right of publicity" – Springsteen's voice blaring over a loudspeaker is part of his image, and he has a right to protect his own image. "It's untested in the political realm," says Lawrence Iser, an intellectual-property lawyer who has represented the Beatles, Michael Jackson and many others. "Even if Donald Trump has the ASCAP right to use a Neil Young song, does Neil have the right to nevertheless go after him on right of publicity? I say he does."

Iser represented David Byrne when the ex-Talking Head successfully sued Florida Republican Charlie Crist for using "Road to Nowhere" in a video to attack opponent Marco Rubio during a 2010 U.S. Senate campaign. He also helped Jackson Browne win a suit against John McCain in 2008 when the Republican presidential candidate played "Running on Empty" in an ad bashing Barack Obama on gas conservation.

"Why does it keep happening? I would say arrogance. Or because [candidates] want to use music in order to associate [with] fans of the artists whose music they're using, and they think they can't get permission," Iser says. "What's that expression? 'It's better to beg forgiveness than to ask [only] to get turned down.'"

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...#ixzz3oT2ZFnoz

Aero...who?

Originally Posted by Nkosi

Aero...who?

Tyler .... what? Texas?