Long before the political career of Donald Trump began, politicians used music in the rally of the campaign against the wishes of artists: in 2015, Rolling Stone produced a list of 35 of them, many of which were from the John McCain / Sarah Palin campaign in 2008. Still, protests by artists seem to have little effect, especially against current governance: Rolling Stones has issued several requests to Trump to stop using their music during rallies and many other artists have complained.
Many people, including publishers, believe that these songs belong to organizations that have rights from organizations such as ASCAP and BMI, and many campaigns have also acted according to this assumption (if music is simply played on the rally and is not altered in the campaign 'promotional literature).
Rihanna and Guns N Rosetta frontman Axl Rose are the latest complainant about the use of Trump's music in their rallies against their wishes, and Rose went so far as to blame the campaign for covering "using loopholes in different places". without the consent of the songwriters. "
Artists – at least unique artists – have resorted to Aerosmith's Steven Tyler's lawyer, Dina LaPolt, who succeeded in removing Trump's rally artist's music and received a letter from the attorney of the campaign, which guaranteed it.
After the Trump campaign Aerosmith's 1993 hit "Livin on the Edge" in August in West Virginia, Tyler sent LaPolt a letter of lacquering and rejection to the White House accusing the intentional violation of the president by sending a song written by Tyler, Joe Perry and Mark Hudson. LaPolt mentioned the Lanham Act, which prohibits "incorrect naming or misleading descriptions or actual performances … which may give rise to confusion … in that the person concerned is affiliated with each other." Thus, he argues that the Aerosmith song in the public arena gives false impressions that Tyler supports Trump's presidency. In recent years, the Lanham Law has increased its significance because important political rallies have always been published on the Internet, which increases the indirect link between the political figure and the songs.
This came to light with another Aerosmith song "Dream On," which Trump used in his 2015 election campaign. We demand that "Trump for President needs our client's explicit written permission to use his music" and that the campaign "broke Mr. Tyler's copyright", BMI pulled the public's performance rights.
LaPolt reports that the Trump campaign's pre-emptive license expired in 2016 and directed ASCAP to exclude Tyler's music from the renewed license. they did so. Thus, the Trump campaign used the song without a license, and he was able to obtain a letter to his lawyer who undertook not to use any of Tyler's music in his rally. So far, it has not done so in August.
LaPolt notes that the artist does not have to wait for a campaign license to take action, arguing that Lanham's law should be strong enough.
"If you drive PRO to hold licenses to its agents, especially if the author is big enough, they will do it," LaPolt says.
Another simpler option is an artist who only informs his or her executing organization that he or she wants to close some or all of their works with certain political campaigns. Because of open gaps (and that there are no licensed places for all political racing statistics) about 10 years ago, ASCAP and BMI created a licensed political entity that specifically addresses such issues and includes the provision that certain songs are not licensed, If the author so wishes. BMI representative told reporters variety, "BMI … Licensing Political Units … covers the use of music in political campaign events anywhere, and it stipulates that if a BMI songwriter or publisher objects to the song's use, we have the ability to close this song on the license."
Pro-advertisers would then announce a political campaign at the artist's request that the song be removed from the license and that the campaign would endanger the violation requirements if it continues to play the song.
Two sources tell variety that they are not aware of the situation in which such a violation would be necessary.