Jackson Browne Sues McCain Using Song Without Permission

jillian

Princess
Apr 4, 2006
85,728
18,114
2,220
The Other Side of Paradise
Apparently, this story has been kicking around a few months. I didn't know about it until I saw Jackson on Colbert tonight...

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.

Jackson Browne Files Grand Ol' Suit Against McCain - E! Online
 
boo-hoo

A campaign is considered not-for-profit so it isn't covered.
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!
 
This won't fly. McCain does not stand to make money off this song. No profit equals no damages. Therefore case dismissed.
 
This won't fly. McCain does not stand to make money off this song. No profit equals no damages. Therefore case dismissed.
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]
 
boo-hoo

A campaign is considered not-for-profit so it isn't covered.

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
 
This won't fly. McCain does not stand to make money off this song. No profit equals no damages. Therefore case dismissed.
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!
 
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."

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.
 
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!
 
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!

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?
 
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]

Conjecture doesn't win lawsuits.
 
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?
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?

Well, I would disagree... copyright doesn't only have to do with profit. The Fair Use Doctrine is fairly limited:

“ 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]

Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One still has to ask permission to use a copyrighted work. The McCain campaign didn't (this is the second problem they had of this nature, btw). And, given Jackson Browne's history as a political activist, from No-Nukes, to Amnesty International to Vote for Change, and probably a myriad of others, he has a pretty good argument that not only did the use violate his copyright but also intentionally implied that he somehow endorsed the McCain campaign, something which, given the history, could be particularly egregious.

If you look at 17 USC 110, political use of copyrighted work is NOT one of the exempted uses.

U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 1

Now, it doesn't rise to the level of criminal violation of the copyright laws as what would occur in the case of piracy, but an argument for civil damages?

Well, counselor, tell me what you think --

(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.

U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Chapter 5

So in answer to your question, will he win? Dunno... depends on the republican judge who gets the case... But I sure as heck wish I were representing him. ;)
 
This won't fly. McCain does not stand to make money off this song. No profit equals no damages. Therefore case dismissed.


You are wrong too. He stands to GAIN by having an artists song associated with his campaign. A song which the ARTIST clearly refuses to let him use. This is not a fair use issue. Mccain will stop using this material. Go get your Right Brothers to record a song for your party, yo.. Stop pretending that you know the fucking law.
 
Last edited:
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.

It's a matter of using the ART as an unlawful endorsement to Mccain. Do you really think this is the first time a republican has had their hand slapped away from the musical cookie jar?
 

Forum List

Back
Top