All My Children Discussion Group

Topic: Foo Fighters blast McCain for use of *My Hero*

NEW YORK (Billboard) - The Foo Fighters have blasted the campaign of Republican presidential candidate John McCain for using the band's song "My Hero" at rallies without its permission.

Previously, Jackson Browne filed suit against the McCain campaign for using his song "Running on Empty" without consent.

"It's frustrating and infuriating that someone who claims to speak for the American people would repeatedly show such little respect for creativity and intellectual property," the band said in a statement. "The saddest thing about this is that 'My Hero' was written as a celebration of the common man and his extraordinary potential. To have it appropriated without our knowledge and used in a manner that perverts the original sentiment of the lyric just tarnishes the song."

The rock group Heart was also dismayed at the use of its song "Barracuda" for events featuring McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, and co-writer Roger Fisher has said he will give a portion of his royalty income to the Democrats.

I cannnot believe anyone would use a song without permission, paying rights AND against what the songwriter's intent for the song is!!

Does anyone here really think that 72 year old John McCain personally picked a Foo Fighters song and told his campaign staff to not bother paying the royalties?  Do you guys ever not blame McCain for anything??

This is probably the work of some moronic rally organizer who thought it would be a good idea.  Take it easy.

Replies: (list all replies)

No, we won’t stop until he stops. His campaign has been one smear after another toward Obama, so he, his wife and Palin deserve all the criticism that's coming at them. / Vivian

I am not purposefully putting John McCain down nor am I a fan of the Foo Fighters. I questioned whether they (or Obama should the shoe be on the other foot) paid the royalties. If they did the bands can say anything they want if not it's illegal. We have to pay tons of money each year for the rights to musicals and songs we use. That was my only point and if you had any b@lls or real support for McCain you'd sign your name. There's nothing political about this post - right is right and wrong is wrong when it comes to royalties. Had Obama done it you'd see the exact same post from me! Come on??? Infreakin'DEED!! eom/WE

Take it easy? Who got their bowels in an uproar over a topic about the possible misuse of music or unpaid royalties? You! Everyone else, other than the anons, are having a nice discussion. Some with knowledge needed and others just shooting off because, like you, they think this is political. So ridiculous. Take it easy, McCain will destroy himself, we just have to sit back and watch!!!! eom/SAA

WE, your last post shows that this was political as well for you. I'm positive if this happened in the Obama campaign you'd all be on here saying that it was a shame and an oversight. Not calling him arrogan.

Just to illustrate, ''gramps doesn't realize he needs permission...'', ''he's so arrogant he thinks he can just take....'' Nah, it's not political.

First, I never called him gramps. Second, if you read it all the word arrogant was used until I was corrected by I&B. I would surely use that exact same word to describe any camp or person who would take an artist's work without royalty. This was not meant politically but is a subject close to me and got me lathered. You can spin any way you want but anyone who knows me knows I'd do the same if it were Obama. Oh and I still stand by my words to you as far as character goes. Easy to slam whem anonymous isn't it? eom/WE

I also just went through this type of thing with my own director. He wanted to use a song in tribute without knowledge of intent or integrity of the lyric. Once I explained he said who will know? He was told I would know and he should never underestimate the knowledge of his audience. Said song is not being used! eom/WE

Not to worry we. This anon is just spouting off as any anon will do just to make trouble. This was about rights and royalties as far as you were concerned and that's obvious. eom/Joe

---

Posted by: Shea
Date posted: Thu Oct 9 15:14:38 2008
Message:

Sheesh.  Even I know you need permission to use music.  This happens every election cycle.  Don't they get it? 

Replies: (list all replies)

Come on now - you know a hell of a lot more than that (braahaa). Now that we settled this (as Letterman would say) the Foo Fighters can now go back to fighting FOO! eom/WE

---

Posted by: Miss.Bear
Date posted: Thu Oct 9 13:09:14 2008
Message:

These bands are just being a bunch of cry babys who take themselves waaaaaay to seriously. Heart is nothing but a bunch of has beens from like the 70's, and Foo Fighters  suck anyway. If anything I would think there record sales would improve because there song was being played at a major  political event.

I don't know that they have to have there permission to play these songs. Every sports stadium plays music from different bands, I don't think they had to have permission.

Like I said, they're taking themselves way too seriously, and acting like babys.

Replies: (list all replies)

Whether you like these bands or not is NOT the issue.If McCain paid the royalties he can do as he pleases. I'm taking issue with the possibility he didn't. If he didn't he can and should be sued. I know nothing about these bands but I do know royalties must be paid. DxB's statement had nothing whatsoever to do with rights/royalties and agreeing proves nothing. If $$ was paid McCain is within his right if not the bands can and SHOULD sue. I pay through the nose to use each and every song/musical and it's only right and LEGAL to do so. eom/WE

Yes, Miss Bear, those sports stadiums DO have to have a license to use that music and they DO have to pay royalties for its use. ~i&b

It's not permission needed - no one's songs or music can be used without paying for that right. It doesn't matter on what level from sports stadiums, to political campaigns to the wedding band you might hire. They ALL must pay. Understand now? eom/WE

People can sue for anything, geez. Don't you think it's a little silly these crappy bands take themselves so seriously? What is the big deal? So people might actually go out and buy there cd now that they made such a big fuss.That's just my view on it.

Miss.Bear put down the joint for a minute. This is your brain on drugs. The fact is if he didn't pay to use the song, he is stealing. If the Foo Fighters, Heart, Mellencamp or any other artist do not want to be associated with McCain and Palin through their music. IT IS THEIR RIGHT. It is their music. Some people, possibly drug addled or just plain stupid might think they are McCain supporters, and they probably do NOT want people to think they are WITH McCain Palin.

Sorry, anon, but you're completely off base. See my explanations below as to how the law works. For the most part, the artists do NOT get to pick and choose who can use their music as long as royalties are paid. ~i&b

Miss Bear it's NOT about the band. WHO cares if YOU like them or not. It's about owning something that others must pay to use. THAT'S IT!!! Don't like them? Who cares. You still must pay the royalties if you want to use their songs. At what point will that sink in? Forget the names and the artists just know that everyone must pay any artist for the use of their creation. Then they can do with it what they like. Getting it yet???

Sounds like you could light one up. Chill out anon! You take things way too seriously like these crappy bands do. Time to light my pipe.

---

Posted by: DixuhsBaybuh
Date posted: Thu Oct 9 8:24:41 2008
Message:
Every time you play music that you purchased do you call the artist to ask permission?

Replies: (list all replies)

That is not even remotely close to the same thing. Private and commercial use of copyrighted material are completely different under the law. ~i&b

DxB it is NOT the same but since you asked. Every single song we use, theatrically or in showcase, we MUST get the rights to/for it and we DO. eom/WE

I agree with DxB!

Ms. Bear he's talking private use and it has no bearing here so what exactly are you agreeing with??? Sorry DxB, but it's apples and oranges and your statement makes no sense in this instance. eomWE

Well Duh, DB...if you've purchased the music then of course you don't have to ask permission. If you bought it, you own it. Get it?

Alright, I see what you're saying, private use vs. public use but still....

Okay I'll bite...but still? What? This is not political it's about any person's rights to be paid for the use of their artistic creations. You don't have to like them but you MUST pay them. eom/WE

---

Posted by: ingyandbert
Date posted: Wed Oct 8 22:50:35 2008
Message:
Simply put, the Foo Fighters, Heart, and whoever else can't stop the Republicans from using their music. The campaigns do not need to secure the direct permission of the artists. Most major musical artists track the use or performance of their material through a performing rights society (such as ASCAP or BMI) which acts as an agent for the artists and licenses the works for commercial use. The entity paying the royalty is allowed the use of ANY of the Society's inventory of works. So as long as the McCain campaign pays the appropriate royalties, they can use the songs whether or not the artists welcome such use and there's nothing the artists can do about it unless the campaign somehow alters the song without permission or does something to negatively impact the artists' ability to market the work in the future. As much as Heart and the Foo Fighters may not like it, the Republicans are within their rights to use those songs.

Replies: (list all replies)

No they don't have to secure permission from the artists and although it doesn't say it's presumed (maybe just by me) that the rights (or royalties) were not paid. If they were and the McCain camp used the songs out of context of the artists' intents then they have just as much right to speak and try to get their message out there. I'm sure McCain's peeps have NO idea of what the songs mean to the artists. Can they use them? Yes. The question is did they use them without securing the royalites. All these artists can bitch and moan all they want and I hope they sue IF rights were violated. Again, my assumption and I've been on the receiving end (theatrically) on both sides of this issue for decades. I also hope ASCAP of BMI speak out if there is a wrong to be righted. eom/WE

WE, the McCain camp issued a statement after Heart complained saying they had gone through all proper legal channels and paid the royalties. I assume the same is true for the other music they've chosen to use. They are not required to consider the artistic intent of the creator. When an artist markets their work to the public, they lose some degree of control over it. That's part of the business of creating and selling music and the artists are well aware of that. I can understand their not wanting their creation associated with certain causes but the fact is that's the tradeoff for making money from their songs. ~i&b

I see that others did get royalties and, yeah, they have no issue. It was Foo Fighters saying no permission that made me think they might not have gone through the proper channels. That's what I take issue with - otherwise you are absotootly correct but I still feel bad when one's artistic intent is messed with. If they got the rights - more power to them. eom/WE

I remember back in the 80s when Bruce Springsteen was pissed that Reagan was using Born in the USA. There was nothing he could do about it except to point out the if one read the lyrics, it was actually a protest song and not a national pride anthem as the Reagan campaign treated it. ~i&b

Bruce Springsteen is a no talent anyway.

Foo Fighters...check...Jackson Browne...check...Heart...check...and...The Boss...Check. eom/WE

---

Posted by: Vivian
Date posted: Wed Oct 8 21:52:25 2008
Message:

I fear old Gramps is unaware that he has to have permission. The way he was wondering all over that stage last night, even cutting directly in front of Obama's face, I'm not quite sure he has all his faculties at this stage of the game.

Replies: (list all replies)

I agree but think he's arrogant and feels so what I used their song. He can shell out whatever they sue for and as far as he's concerned he GOT the song and the message he wanted with NO REGARD to these artists. Ticks me off big time knowing the huge amounts of $$$ we have to pay for rights to shows and he just STEALS them. eom/WE

---

---