The Eagles Sue Politician Over Parody Songs

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Some state assemblyman from California is being sued by Don Henley, one of the founding members of The Eagles, because of two parody songs he used in a campaign ad on YouTube. Obviously if Mr. Henley is successful in his lawsuit against the politician, Weird Al will have to go into hiding.

The video, titled "A Special Message from Chuck DeVore," opens with a spoken introduction by Hart, followed by a verse-by-verse remake of Henley and Campbell's song using DeVore's lyrics over the original record's instrumental track, the complaint said.
Click to expand...
 
He's suing because he is of a... different political persuasion than Mr. DeVore.

Plus Henley is widely known as a HUGE ass.
 
Parody's are legal. Another frivolous lawsuit. What a waste of taxpayer money tying up court time.
 
Sounds like the issue would be that he reused the instrumental track - parody artists like Weird Al rerecord their own music.
 
weird al also always asks permission, though legaly he doesnt have to. Its some sort of honor to have him call you lol.
 
MacGyver467 said:
And to go with torgojr's comment, Weird Al gets permission to do the parody.
Click to expand...

That's just what I wanted to say. Wierd Al specifically stated in an interview once that he couldn't perform some of the songs he wanted because he didn't get the rights to make a parody.
The german band J.B.O. (who also translated / covered Wierd Al songs btw.) got into real problems one, when they did a cover of "Ein Bisschen Frieden" (old German winner song of a Eurovision Song Contest) in the style of Rammstein. They were sued by the band for imitating their style! Needless to say that this lawsuit backfired among the fans...
 
NKDietrich said:
He's suing because he is of a... different political persuasion than Mr. DeVore.

Plus Henley is widely known as a HUGE ass.
Click to expand...


BINGO !!

Code: 
"Don Henley, a founding member of "The Eagles," is suing a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate."

Best regards,
-boggsie
 
I think Henley has a case here,since they used the original instrumental track without permission.And Weird Al's parodies are intended to entertain,this parody was pure politics.
 
It is a pure politics, that Henley doesn't agree with.

Of coarse, if it was likely a democrat doing this, would not be nearly as big a deal.
 
jackknife said:
That's just what I wanted to say. Wierd Al specifically stated in an interview once that he couldn't perform some of the songs he wanted because he didn't get the rights to make a parody.
Click to expand...

If i can recall right, Amish Paradise (one of Al's biggest hits) was done without permission of the original artist.
 
I don't see how using someone else's famous songs and changing some lyrics, while still using the original music tracks, to attack another politician falls under the use of parody. It's taking someone else's fame and public mind share and stealing it to further a political agenda and that has nothing to do with parody.

Sue the bastard for perverting the songs in such a distasteful and politically motivated way.
 
I don't know why you're all debating the "asking permission" thing. Parodies fall under fair use doctrine....even so, if a republican used some of my IP to advance themselves I might make trouble too.
Unfortunately, I'm the sort that tends to CC license things I create and distribute.
 
Kristofff said:
I don't see how using someone else's famous songs and changing some lyrics, while still using the original music tracks, to attack another politician falls under the use of parody. It's taking someone else's fame and public mind share and stealing it to further a political agenda and that has nothing to do with parody.

Sue the bastard for perverting the songs in such a distasteful and politically motivated way.
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, whatever political affiliation, they shouldn't do something like that without the artist's permission. Politics isn't parody. It's not like it was an SNL skit or something.
 
It's just that we have this inconvenient thing called the First Amendment. And it trumps copyright and trademark and right of publicity when someone transforms or adds something to it. Whether or not the original artist likes the use is irrelevant if it is protected by fair use.

It should be noted that the law might treat parody and satire differently. Parody would be making fun of the song, whereas satire uses the song to make fun of something else. In some jurisdictions, parody might have more protections in a copyright suit than satire.

The real issue is petty and hypocritical artists like Henley and Heart and Tom Petty and Van Halen, who have all asked Republican candidates to stop using their music. Ironic that artists are all for free speech and criticism (see the whiny Dixie Chicks, e.g.), until they hear something they disagree with; then it's time to muzzle dissent.

"Yeah, protest rock man, peace, love, dissent is patriotic, no war, save the planet...wait what? They are disagreeing with me? Call my lawyer."

See also, Streisand effect. By filing the suit, the fact that Boxer never saw a tax she didn't like will be publicized much more widely. So keep on suing, old hippie hypocrite.

UrielDagda said:
I'd have to agree. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, whatever political affiliation, they shouldn't do something like that without the artist's permission. Politics isn't parody. It's not like it was an SNL skit or something.
Click to expand...
 
uclajd said:
It's just that we have this inconvenient thing called the First Amendment. And it trumps copyright and trademark and right of publicity when someone transforms or adds something to it. Whether or not the original artist likes the use is irrelevant if it is protected by fair use.
Click to expand...

No, the first amendment does not trump copyright. They are both rights given by the constitution, and must co-exist. In addition, there are no jurisdictional issues here, this is a federal copyright matter, not a state/ jurisdictional one. Federal Copyright preempts (and in fact excludes) states from creating copyright law.

The issue here is whether the instrumental track was actually stolen or "recreated" by his own musicians. There are two types of copyright: one for an actual recording, on for a musical composition. If he used an original recording, he is not protected by fair use. If he recreated the track, its a question for the courts, but most probably he is protected.

The fact that he used it for political purposes is of no consequence. Much of the value in parody in satire is in political dissent, and the protection is not limited to comical uses.
 
Yes, the First Amendment trumps copyright, assuming it applies via fair use (otherwise its merely the suing artist's expression being appropriated). The First Amendment encompasses fundamental rights, which are given the highest degree of protection, more than any other right, including copyright.

I never said anything about "jurisdictional issues" vis-a-vis state versus federal. The point was, for those who would rather nitpick to try to look smart, is that not all courts have ruled the same on such matters, including federal courts, especially since the DMCA clouded the waters. My point was also a larger, more general one about fair use, which does involve state law in right of publicity cases. I know, oh genius one, that this is not a RoP or trademark case. :rolleyes:

The main point was, this is likely satire and not parody and it therefore might not have the same protections. See, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

IAALBNYL (I AM A LAWYER BUT NOT YOUR LAWYER).

cyprusxr3 said:
No, the first amendment does not trump copyright. They are both rights given by the constitution, and must co-exist. In addition, there are no jurisdictional issues here, this is a federal copyright matter, not a state/ jurisdictional one. Federal Copyright preempts (and in fact excludes) states from creating copyright law.

The issue here is whether the instrumental track was actually stolen or "recreated" by his own musicians. There are two types of copyright: one for an actual recording, on for a musical composition. If he used an original recording, he is not protected by fair use. If he recreated the track, its a question for the courts, but most probably he is protected.

The fact that he used it for political purposes is of no consequence. Much of the value in parody in satire is in political dissent, and the protection is not limited to comical uses.
Click to expand...
 
uclajd said:
Yes, the First Amendment trumps copyright, assuming it applies via fair use (otherwise its merely the suing artist's expression being appropriated). The First Amendment encompasses fundamental rights, which are given the highest degree of protection, more than any other right, including copyright.

I never said anything about "jurisdictional issues" vis-a-vis state versus federal. The point was, for those who would rather nitpick to try to look smart, is that not all courts have ruled the same on such matters, including federal courts, especially since the DMCA clouded the waters. My point was also a larger, more general one about fair use, which does involve state law in right of publicity cases. I know, oh genius one, that this is not a RoP or trademark case. :rolleyes:

The main point was, this is likely satire and not parody and it therefore might not have the same protections. See, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

IAALBNYL (I AM A LAWYER BUT NOT YOUR LAWYER).
Click to expand...

Firstly, I apologize if you found my post to be insulting. It wasn't intended to be, and I do not want to start a legal flame war.

However, I still disagree with you as to 1st amendment preemption of copyright law. You rightly cited Campbell v. Acuff-Rose (Oh, how I love you 2 Live Crew), but notice that no where does the case mention first amendment rights. You mention that first amendment trumps assuming it is fair use, but that seems a moot point: fair use is a statutory exception to copyright, it needs no additional exculpatory reasoning (one might argue that fair use was the first amendment being balanced with copyright). You also said it preempted "when someone transforms or adds something to it," which isn't really true. It is only true if it falls under 17 USC 107 (of which you are obviously aware, my quarrel is perhaps only in my misinterpretation of your statement).

As far as "jurisdictional issues," I was confused over your mention of "right of publicity." It's true that federal courts may differ, though I would also say that a huge disparity should be ruled on by the SCOTUS, since it is all federal and should theoretically be the same nationwide (this, I know, is legal idealism).

Publicity rights doesn't seem to be an issue here, so I'll drop that. And I agree with you that this is probably satire, not parody, so Campbell might not be determinative.
 
RadCliffeX said:
If i can recall right, Amish Paradise (one of Al's biggest hits) was done without permission of the original artist.
Click to expand...

The coolio issue may be complicated by the fact that his label, apparently said that Coolio gave permission and that the chorus is largely lifted from a Stevie Wonder song.

Kristofff said:
I don't see how using someone else's famous songs and changing some lyrics, while still using the original music tracks, to attack another politician falls under the use of parody. It's taking someone else's fame and public mind share and stealing it to further a political agenda and that has nothing to do with parody.

Sue the bastard for perverting the songs in such a distasteful and politically motivated way.
Click to expand...

If the music isn't lifted from the original recording, I'd be inclined to side with the Politician. The first amendment generally protects satire, parody and political speech.
 
Kristofff said:
I don't see how using someone else's famous songs and changing some lyrics, while still using the original music tracks, to attack another politician falls under the use of parody. It's taking someone else's fame and public mind share and stealing it to further a political agenda and that has nothing to do with parody.

Sue the bastard for perverting the songs in such a distasteful and politically motivated way.
Click to expand...

Don't forget to vote blue. Every red one is an asstard.... lol you remind of the Commies I have had the pleasure to live with my whole life. Why am I not surpised?
 
Enduring_Warrior said:
Don't forget to vote blue. Every red one is an asstard.... lol you remind of the Commies I have had the pleasure to live with my whole life. Why am I not surpised?
Click to expand...

And you remind me of every hippie democrat that says they accept everybody, but that acceptance is only for democrats.

And btw, I'm independant.
 
If i read the article right, only one song, 'All She Want's to do is Dance' was changed, the article didn't say weather the 'Boys of Summer' was. and if it wasn't the the case is most likely valid.
 
Using the original soundtrack was a dumb-ass move on the politician's part. If it was re-recorded by a cover band he used for the commercial he'd be home-free. You're allowed to parody and use for satire but you're not allowed to re-use their material, verbatim.
 
Monkey God said:
wiki and google do not help me. of what do you speak?
Click to expand...

Guitarist Don Felder, was fired by The Eagles in 2001.

If Ford used 'The Boys of Summer" in a Mustang TV commercial without permission, you bet Henley would have a infringement case. I don't see Devore's use as any different. I don't think parody no longer applies if you're using it as a catchtune to run for public office.
 
Stuff like this bothers me. Henley is only suing to make it hard on this guy, for whatever reason. It's not like he needs the money...or should need the money. It's also not like this is some national ad and that this guy is going to profit from. Sure, you could say he might win the election, but he would probably do so without this ad if that's the case. And even if he wins the election he's not going to become a millionaire from it. Hell, if I hadn't read this I'd have never known about it, and I'm sure there are a lot of others who would not have known either. It's sad when you see has-beens suing over stuff that's long gone any way. I'm sure any band can search You Tube and find some infringement happening to them.
 
Don who? Henley?

The Eagles are DEAD to me since they screwed Don Felder over.
 
Right on bro! I'll never forgive Henley and Fry for that. I haven't purchased a single thing of theirs since they did that, and have no desire to.

I have nothing against Don's replacement, other than he shouldn't be there.

And Felder was a partner in the Eagles corporation too! Most people don't know that the Eagles corporation consis(ted) of Henley, Fry and Felder. Timothy and Joe are actually paid employee's.

Enduring_Warrior said:
I hold a grudge against that motherfucker since he fired Don Fendler. The guy that made them famous.
Click to expand...
 
The summary says that they used the instrumental track from the song. If it wasn't a very short excerpt, that would indeed constitute copyright infringement.
 
Am I the only one that is bothered by the fact that this is being done by a politician. Politicians are the ones telling you and I what we can and can't do with artists music while at the same time thumbing their noses at the artist in this fashion.

Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, it doesn't matter. Doesn't this type of shit just piss you off. Congress and politicians constantly pass laws that deny us the rights to do certain things and those laws for some reasons do not apply to them.

Sue his ass Henley and I hope you win. I for one am tired of the double standard in this country.
 
Wierd Al gets permission for the songs he parodies.. There was a big whoha over Al's producers supposedly got permission for a song, Al did it, then it was found that the producers never got permission, and Al appologized, and fired one of thoes producers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top