The best line I’ve heard this morning on the news (I have a LONG commute and listen to Sirius XM) is "I hope Trump’s speech on Thursday doesn’t begin with ‘Ask not what your country can do for you’ ".
Such a good laugh this morning :).
@awcntdb I then don’t understand why these “transparent” politicians wouldn’t offer proof that they have bought the rights to use the songs if that is the case. Maybe they just don’t bother because their own supporters never seem to care? It’s something that bothers me when it comes up though.
^The satirical commenter Andy Borowitz suggested his speech theme would be “Hope and Change.”
There are loads of funny lines and memes out, between this and TP.
I saw a meme showing Milli Vanilli that was labeled as Melania’s speech writers.
Also @awcntdb my very professional Google research shows that the writers of the queen songs own the rights to them. Since Freddie Mercury is dead, the rights to this song are more unclear but don’t seem to belong to the other band mates. It’s likely they would have passed to his wife and she either has authorized the use or sold the rights to someone else. I still think anyone using songs should be prepared to show they have gotten the needed authorization or bought the rights.
According to the Washington Times, Sony ATV manages the rights to the song. Sony’s spokesperson says the Trump campaign never asked for permission to use the song.
The trump campaign used the Queen song last month and band member Brian May was angry. They did not ask permission then or now, but in between heard from May that the band doesn’t want the song ever to be used for political purposes.
The song is more than 25 years old so it is owned by Queen but it is licensed for publication by Sony. Sony hasn’t said yet if they will take legal action. There are plenty of sources for this @awcntdb
Queen has never been known as a band where there has been dispute over who owns their songs. In the absence of info to the contrary, there’s nothing to suggest that the song rights aren’t owned by Queen Music (their holding company) in conjunction with Sony/ATV (which would be the company from whom the license would be obtained).
This isn’t at all analogous to the Beatles rights which are extremely complicated, have been transferred, bought and resold numerous times, and have been the subject of multiple legal battles (involving Allan Klein, Phil Spector, Michael Jackson, Northern Songs and Sony) – which is why you are correct that there was nothing that they could do when their songs get used in commercials (though they did sue Nike for using Revolution). It would take a book to explain it all (and indeed I’ve read two books on this and still not sure I could piece the whole thing together!).
Likewise, this isn’t a band where there is a backstory of their rights being sold out from underneath them, unlike the Beach Boys (where the father of the Wilson brothers sold Sea of Tunes to A&M Records for a fraction of what it was worth, and there is some suggestion that he faked Brian Wilson’s signature).
If there’s evidence that Queen and/or Sony/ATV doesn’t own their rights, I’d love to see it.
If someone else’s words express her sentiments better than she could, then use them BUT attribute them (“as someone expressed better than I can…”) to make it clear you borrowed the words.
Side note, reading internet responses, one college professor wrote " (some person) pointed out that Melania’s was 7% plagiarized. Just FYI, I accept/expect 15% in my principle level courses." Question to teachers out there, would you accept 15% plagiarized on paper or do you think this is a standard that it you run something through Turnitin, etc you always expect to get a few hits for common usage, etc. Just curious.
I thought things were getting fishy when she started in on the “change” and stagnation business. I know that’s not the part being focused on for plagarism, but it still seemed reminiscent of the president they oppose.
Honestly, I don’t know why the spouses have to say anything. Not saying they can’t if they want to, but the only people their views will influence would be those who were already going to vote for the candidate anyway. That goes for all parties and politicians.
As to the Queen song, a copyright attorney needs to weigh in. I’m not sure that for non commercial use ( and a political campaign is probably considered non commercial) that you have to get permission for use. Anyone know?
Apparently it doesn’t matter what Melania Trump does because she’s “hot.” How many posters here commented that she “looked great”? Of course she did: that’s her profession. That’s all anyone expected of her. And she seems to have unfortunately confirmed that limited expectation.
The irony of plagiarizing Michelle Obama, of all people, is just too much.
I have no problem with speakers using quotations from other authors in the manner of an allusion without stopping to footnote them. Usually the way they are uttered, and the fact that they are part of the common body of knowledge, makes it clear to the audience. For example, one could use the phrase “a house divided against itself cannot stand” without stopping to mention Lincoln, and I doubt any rational person would accuse you of plagiarism in a speech (not a paper). But this was ridiculous.
If she had not maintained in advance that she “wrote” it herself, she wouldn’t be in this pickle. Not that it matters, because, you know, she’s hot. ^:)^
Has anyone here read I am Charlotte Simmons?
@scmom12 --the percent actually plagiarized and the percentages from plagiarism-detectors are two different things. A plagiarism detector might highlight properly quoted words, things like (Obama, p. 10), or other parts that clearly are not plagiarized. It’s up to the instructor to weed those out. But if the actual amount of plagiarism is ONE LINE only, as I discern it, then it’s plagiarism.
The 7% discussion is meaningless.
Also, I depend on my own acuity armed with Google MUCH more than Turnitin, to find plagiarism.
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/discussion/comment/19677758#Comment_19677758
Here is a previous thread on licensing.
ETA: I would be really careful of some of the “information” on that thread. I would trust those on the thread who are clearly lawyers or who handle some of this in their professional lives. There are some commenters on there who appear to be making stuff up based on “a friend of a friend” type of thing.
Just as I expected, though - no one is being fired (according to the latest CNN story), even though the candidate is said to be furious over what happened. The campaign still maintains that there was no plagiarism.
@mom2twogirls HRC plagiarized a speech from Reagan several years back. There was an uproar about it back when it happened because she was upset when Obama plagiarized a speech back in 2008. And the fuss was that she stole from Reagan. I guess this makes some great theatre, but honestly, it’s all been done before.
The music thing is interesting and could be a bigger flap for T.
@albert69 wrote
Um, spouses usually have a HUGE influence on each other. I like to see them speak so I can get an idea of who is bending the ear of the prez behind closed doors. It matters, inasmuch as the president actually matters (which is not a lot, in my opinion, which is why my panties are not in too much of a twist over the entire presidential cycle).
From the previous thread (this was from ASCAP):
Q: If musical performances at campaign events are properly licensed, can the campaign still be criticized or even sued by an artist for playing his or her song at an event?
A: Yes. If an artist does not want his or her music to be associated with the campaign, he or she may be able to take legal action even if the campaign has the appropriate copyright licenses. While the campaign would be in compliance with copyright law for playing the music, it could potentially be in violation of other laws. Specifically, the campaign could be liable under any of the following claims:
- “Right of Publicity”, which in many states provides image protection for famous people or artists.
- The “Lanham Act”, which covers the confusion or dilution of a trademark (such as a band or artist name) through its unauthorized use.
- “False Endorsement” where use of the artist’s identifying work implies that the artist supports a product or candidate.
As a general rule, a campaign should be aware that, in most cases, the more closely a song is tied to the “image” or message of the campaign, the more likely it is that the recording artist or songwriter of the song could object to the song’s usage in the campaign.
I learned the expression “rickrolling” from this thread. That’s positive, anyway. 