Hopefully, in a few days, Donald Trump won’t plagarize from a neo-nazi website.
Yes and it is not all that uncommon to push the envelope in Marketing and then say oops sorry I’ll stop or I’ll take it off the website or I’ll discontinue circulating whatever it is that someone else is claiming is “theirs”…happens every day in business, sometimes it is accidental and sometimes you know. If whomever owns the rights to the song has a legal issue I’m sure the Trump campaign will say oops sorry we won’t do it again and then it’s up to the owner of the song to withstand the cost of the legal challenge. Sometimes picking lint out of a belly button is fun to talk about what not the way the world spins.
Bahaha! Nice try defending your man.
Trump ALREADY used WATC in the past and both Queen and Sony said - we didn’t give you permission.
He now did it again. He has zero intention of apologizing to Queen, seeking permission from Sony or saying oopsie. It is completely disingenuous on your part to think otherwise.
Regarding Queen: I blogged out last night that the RNC using the music of a gay man of Middle Eastern(ish) descent was a slap in the face. If there’s a way to sue over this, I hope they do.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
Plus, all you have to do is listen to the pertinent passage in Michelle Obama’s speech then listen to Melania Vanilli’s speech.
Personally, I would rather have people around me who have integrity than “looking hot.” Personally, I have very little interest in how “how” a candidate’s spouse is or isn’t. I would rather have an intelligent “first lady” or “first man” with the President in the White House than some model.
I don’t think you should assume someone is stupid just because they’re beautiful.
^^^I know. I get that all the time and it is SO annoying. 
Re: Melania’s looking great as discussed here. I think the posters meant “great” as in poised and professional, not “hot.”
Yes. From a pure poise and delivery standpoint, she handled herself very well. Like I said, I went to bed thinking what a nice job she did. I certainly couldn’t deliver a speech to however many thousands and millions watching on TV without looking nervous or flubbing. She’s fine. I don’t have an issue with her, just her husband.
I, for one, don’t. But when they go and prove it in public… Seriously, I read something admiring of Melania Trump several months ago claiming that she is actually quite bright, saying something like “It’s easy to forget how smart she is because she’s so pretty.” I was willing to believe it, although I could not respect many of her choices. Now, not so much.
Even though she said she wrote this, I don’t think this reflects on her intelligence. This is a speechwriter and campaign issue.
Mrs. Obama is a nice looking woman who speaks intelligently. I have never heard the President shy away from complimenting her on her appearance.
I haven’t heard enough from Mrs. Trump to know her intelligence yet. I have already heard enough from Mr. Clinton to know what I think about him. And I have seen him enough to know of his appearance.
Mrs. Obama’s speech itself has some plagiarism issues that surround it as well. If you bring it up on one side, you have to recognize it on the other.
Integrity of our candidates spouses (and the candidate themselves) is a whole other thread that will get us in trouble. Let’s not go there. At the very least, it seems to be a wash when it comes to integrity over speech plagiarism since it appears that there is dirty water just about everywhere.
Again, the reaction and denial of the campaign is worse than the “sin.”
Same thing with the repeated use of WATC, when they were already told to knock it off. The reaction is worse than the sin.
An individual is quoting Sparkle Pony to prove that the speech wasn’t plagiarized.
This is really starting to sound like a high school student trying to prove that their paper wasn’t plagiarized. It’s painful.
I go back to my earlier point: don’t treat us like we’re idiots. It’s almost as bad as the plagiarism itself.
(ETA: I have no idea who Sparkle Pony is.)
Going back to the OP: the lesson to students that is coming out of this, that is grossly obvious (besides the plagiarism): do not lie about it. There is almost no scenario when lying about something will not make things infinity worse.
Had the campaign just admitted it and fired the person (or the speechwriter fell on his/her sword): we wouldn’t still be talking about it almost 24 hours later… at least not as the A, B, and C block story every hour.
(Emphases mine)
All your entire post says is anyone can sue for anything and really does not mean much at all.
The point is that Queen need not be asked in advance of getting a license to use the song and stealing is not involved anywhere. Complaining after-the-fact about a legal transaction does not make something wrong or make it the crime of stealing.
Note that there is not one certain term in your post. Everything is conditional as it uses words such as “may”, “potentially”, “possibly” , “could” etc. Well, duh - such conditions exist with EVERY SINGLE contract in the world even a license. That is why all properly written contracts have indemnification clauses, as no one can be aware of all laws and claims possible from everywhere in the world. However, ownership of the song is 95% of all that is needed to be in the clear. That is why there are few such use claims made anywhere in actual court.
Even the Lanham Act is useless in this example because licensed use is not unauthorized use; the original writer may not like, but it is not unauthorized. Furthermore, the licensing agent indemnifies licensees against such claims, especially if the agent outright owns the songs.
Just ask the Beetles who had to live with their super famous songs being used in car commercials - they had zero, zilch, nada recourse legally and Jackson made millions of their music. I think his estate sold the songs again at huge profit and Beetles got zero of the profit.
Again, none of these make it to court because there are so many songs out there that when an artist complains the licensee just moves on to another song. However, the licensee does not have to give because the burden is so high in your post as to often be insurmountable and not worth the money to sue the user of the song.
Denial and attacking those who call out concerns/issues/complaints have gotten the candidate to the nomination, so from their standpoint it’s working quite well and they’re doing exactly the right thing.
http://www.missuniverse.com/missusa/members/profile/457077/year:2010
Several people have commented on Mrs. Trump’s ability to present herself well and talk in front of a large group of people. I’ve included a bio in the above link. She has been a spokesperson for several different organizations , and hosted TV shows in the past. I’m sure that this was not her first or only time addressing organizations or delivering a speech.
I think we are in danger of veering too far into actual politics with that last post. 