At 3:30 we're treated to a very funny song about misappropriation of copyrighted music, featuring Ann and Nancy Wilson, Michael Bolton, Usher, Sheryl Crow, Josh Groben and others. A free-to-use alternative song is offered at 6:05. The whole segment's pretty funny, even if the message's legal underpinnings are questionable.
 

Clever

That video was brilliant .
 
Kenny
 

I apologize in advance.  This is just how my head functions.
 
In this vid, the sentiment was that pols hadn't paid to use their material.  With a joke or two about poor choices.
 
If it's about munny, should the pols that they do give permission to (support) be required to log the amount of ordinary license fees as donations?

Actually, they do.

*Pfft...*  Politicians (and others who feel they are above the people they govern) always take what they want without asking.
 
Cute video. 

The "people running for office "  have to license the for music for sure .
I think many of the artists may hold totally different Ideals and values than the "candidate's " ...
The use of "the song " is a form of the "candidate piggy backing " on the artists reputation and fame for a purpose that the artist may not have intended for the songs message in the first place ..... same goes for the artists public image
It is pretty clear that many of the creative artists do not want to get lumped in as endorsing the candidates  views ,  lifestyles or policy's ...  That cost's extra  
For some select candidates , I'm gettin the vibe that type of endorsement may not even be for sale for no amount of money 
 
Kenny

kennywtelejazz
 
For some select candidates , I'm gettin the vibe that type of endorsement may not even be for sale for no amount of money 
 
Kenny

That's part of where I was going with it.  If we're to take a cue from cake bakers across the land, then artists shouldn't be allowed to "give" or sell their "product" to one group and not another based on beliefs.
 
 

Good article over at the Public Knowledge website about this issue (https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/campaigns-copyrights-and-compositions-a-politicians-guide-to-music-on-the-c). Bottom line is most of the venues that the politicians use to hold rallys already have a blanket license to play anything. It is part of the venue's cost of doing business. They don't get a license for each event, they just get a blanket license so that they can schedule anything and not have to worry about it.
 
And no, I didn't think much of the video.

And many if not most of the artists who are complaining about the licensed use of their songs, gave up the right to control those uses when they signed various contracts with publishers, recording companies and licensing agents in return for the anticipated income they would receive. In cases where they have not sold the rights, public performance, and synchronization are not like recording a cover, there is no compulsory license available, and they could refuse to license individual uses.
 
US law has a pitiful implementation of moral rights that is limited in federal statute (17 U.S.C. §106A) to certain works of the visual arts, which can generally not be defaced by their owners. There is some protection under state laws and concepts like injury due to tarnishment of brand that might be used to try to enjoin this, but most of the time, these artists just want to keep the money and assert their objection publically rather than spend their money on a lawsuit of doubtful outcome.