Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Jackson Browne is always up for a good protest.
The Rock and Roll Hall of Famer has refused to take it easy, suing GOP presidential candidate John McCain and the Republican National Committee for using his biggest hit, "Running on Empty," in an Obama-slamming campaign ad without his permission.
Browne, a regular fixture on the Democratic front, says that he's "incensed" by McCain's use of the song, which falsely creates a perception that he endorses the Arizona senator's campaign, according to the copyright-infringement lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.
He is seeking unspecified damages in addition to a permanent injunction barring further use of "Running on Empty" or any other Browne song.
"We are confident that Jackson Browne will prevail in this lawsuit," the musician's attorney, Lawrence Iser, said in a statement today. "Not only have Senator McCain and his agents plainly infringed Mr. Browne's copyright in 'Running on Empty,' but the Federal Courts have long held that the unauthorized use of a famous singer's voice in a commercial constitutes a false endorsement and a violation of the singer's right of publicity.
I am sure it will really hurt McCain's bank account! You can't use what you don't have the right to use! I think it is hilarious! Who is running is campaign? Apes!boo-hoo
A campaign is considered not-for-profit so it isn't covered.
That's James Brown! And to bad Bobby Brown isn't too! lolI thought Jackson Browne was dead.
But he WILL make money with his billionaire banker buddies and the war for oil in irak and he's gonna kill us all and make more wars and steal more oney and do bad stuff and steal the elections except that fundie bitch will make him step down with a fat cushy pension so mccain is going ot make tons of money so he has to pay royalties[/chris]This won't fly. McCain does not stand to make money off this song. No profit equals no damages. Therefore case dismissed.
boo-hoo
A campaign is considered not-for-profit so it isn't covered.
If he recieved campaign donations due to the ad. Plus it doen't matter if you don't recieve profit you can't use copywrited songs with out paying royalities!This won't fly. McCain does not stand to make money off this song. No profit equals no damages. Therefore case dismissed.
One of the myths associated with nonprofit D&O exposures is that there are few sources of claims since nonprofits don't have shareholders. While it is true that the vast majority of lawsuits filed against nonprofit boards are filed by current and former employees (alleging wrongful employment practices), nonprofits serve large and varied constituencies to which their boards owe specific fiduciary duties similar to duties owed by corporate boards. These constituencies are potential plaintiffs in legal actions brought against nonprofit boards. Potential claimants in a suit against nonprofit directors include:
Insiders The current and former staff of a nonprofit may bring actions alleging a host of wrongful acts, including wrongful termination, discrimination, sexual harassment, and Americans with Disabilities Act violations.
Outsiders Third parties that have a relationship with the nonprofit may allege harm caused by the nonprofit and/or its directors, officers or employees. Outside sources can be vendors, funders, or another nonprofit.
Who Can Sue a Nonprofit Board
I don't see where Jackson Browne fits into any of those catagories.
"Outsiders Third parties that have a relationship with the nonprofit may allege harm caused by the nonprofit and/or its directors, officers or employees."
Like I stated before they could establish he recieved campaign donations due to the ad. He could recieve a hire paying job due to the ad. And why don't you read the bottom of Jillian post!Establish the relationship. What relationship does Jackson Browne have with the McCain Campaign. Does McCain stand to profit monetarily from the use of the song. No, case dismissed.
Like I stated before they could establish he recieved campaign donations due to the ad. He could recieve a hire paying job due to the ad. And why don't you read the bottom of Jillian post!
But he WILL make money with his billionaire banker buddies and the war for oil in irak and he's gonna kill us all and make more wars and steal more oney and do bad stuff and steal the elections except that fundie bitch will make him step down with a fat cushy pension so mccain is going ot make tons of money so he has to pay royalties[/chris]
Also Heart is sueing also! Maybe the repugs should just get permission from artists to use their songs. Many companies have been sued by artists with the artist winning. And if they have a good lawyer they could establish campaign donation coming in right after the ad ran!I did read it and I am conident that I am well aware of Federal Court rulings. The complainant will have to correlate poltical ads and comercials. They will have to establish that McCain did in fact recieve contributions directly from ths ad. That will be tough to prove. With the amount of ads produced by the campaign, it will be tough to prove that this ad was directly responsible for McCain recieving a higher paying job. The burden of proof is on the complainant and I'm not so sure it is demonstrable.
But what do i know?
I did read it and I am conident that I am well aware of Federal Court rulings. The complainant will have to correlate poltical ads and comercials. They will have to establish that McCain did in fact recieve contributions directly from ths ad. That will be tough to prove. With the amount of ads produced by the campaign, it will be tough to prove that this ad was directly responsible for McCain recieving a higher paying job. The burden of proof is on the complainant and I'm not so sure it is demonstrable.
But what do i know?
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1]
(c) Statutory Damages.
(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.
(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.
(3) (A) In a case of infringement, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that the infringement was committed willfully for purposes of determining relief if the violator, or a person acting in concert with the violator, knowingly provided or knowingly caused to be provided materially false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering, maintaining, or renewing a domain name used in connection with the infringement.
boo-hoo
A campaign is considered not-for-profit so it isn't covered.
This won't fly. McCain does not stand to make money off this song. No profit equals no damages. Therefore case dismissed.
Establish the relationship. What relationship does Jackson Browne have with the McCain Campaign. Does McCain stand to profit monetarily from the use of the song. No, case dismissed.
