Jackson Browne Sues McCain Using Song Without Permission

[Shogun]

Conjecture doesn't win lawsuits.

Neither does ignore precedence and copyright laws. Political campaigns don't have a blank check to use whatever is in their ipon as an endorsement to their political career.


go ahead and play "spot the Browne" song in any more Mccain material.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

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



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 --



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.

I sat around at work for two hours this morning(slowday) and kicked this around with four other attorneys. One of which used to practice personal injury. We have come to the conclusion that this could go either way. I've decided that if I were McCain's legal counsel, that I would settle and do so quickly. There is more than enough precedent to argue each side in this case and the case of Heart, however is it really worth it to the campaign to fight it?

This being said, who can sue non-profits?

http://nonprofitrisk.org/library/articles/insurance0405.shtml

Still not sure if Browne can actually sue.

 

[jillian]

I sat around at work for two hours this morning(slowday) and kicked this around with four other attorneys. One of which used to practice personal injury. We have come to the conclusion that this could go either way. I've decided that if I were McCain's legal counsel, that I would settle and do so quickly. There is more than enough precedent to argue each side in this case and the case of Heart, however is it really worth it to the campaign to fight it?

This being said, who can sue non-profits?

Who Can Sue a Nonprofit Board

Still not sure if Browne can actually sue.

I'm not sure a campaign is technically a not-for-profit. I think that might only apply to 501c(3)'s.. though I could be wrong. I'd have to ask an election attorney.

 

[Paulie]

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



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 --



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.

Jillian is right, here. McCain exceeded what would be considered "fair use".

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I'm not sure a campaign is technically a not-for-profit. I think that might only apply to 501c(3)'s.. though I could be wrong. I'd have to ask an election attorney.

I'm not sure either. This isn't my area of expertise. It seems to me that both sides have semi-solid ground to stand on. This will come down to the judge.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Jillian is right, here. McCain exceeded what would be considered "fair use".

The problem is if Browne can actually sue. If McCain for America can demostrate non-profit status, this could be dismissed before it gets started.

 

[Luissa]

The problem is if Browne can actually sue. If McCain for America can demostrate non-profit status, this could be dismissed before it gets started.

A Judge allowed Enimen to sue Apple for this very same reason, using a song in a commercial without his permission.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

A Judge allowed Enimen to sue Apple for this very same reason, using a song in a commercial without his permission.

Apple is a for profit corporation. The rules are different.

 

[Gunny]

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.

Man, are YOU ever getting desperate. Responding to morons ....

 

[Luissa]

Man, are YOU ever getting desperate. Responding to morons ....

Why because they could establish he could profit from the commerical! Plus there is the reason you can't use Artist songs in comm. without permission, it as though you are saying they back the canidate.

 

[Luissa]

Apple is a for profit corporation. The rules are different.

An ad campaign is to either inspire people to vote and enough do therefore he recieves a higher paying job with then he has made a profit or it inspires people to donate money to the campaign or the RNC which in there is a profit.
And for Apple with your agruement, how could they prove enimen made them a profit. The same way they can prove the ads made donations go up!

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Why because they could establish he could profit from the commerical! Plus there is the reason you can't use Artist songs in comm. without permission, it as though you are saying they back the canidate.

Read slowly. It does not matter whether or not McCain made a profit due to the commercial, because they can be considered a not for profit organization. Donations are not profits. Besides you could make a valid argument that the donations came due to the message of the ad, not the soundtrack. You are arguing damages when the case isn't even to trial.

 

[Gunny]

Why because they could establish he could profit from the commerical! Plus there is the reason you can't use Artist songs in comm. without permission, it as though you are saying they back the canidate.

Because Chriskirk is a partisan hack without 2 brain cells to rub together. I have no doubt in my military mind that even if no one else and the facts can't establish that he can profit from it, Chriskirk will.

The FACT is, for all the bullshit speculation, unless someone can PROVE McCain used Browne's music for mentary profit, then this is just trying to blow smoke up people's asses and that coinicidentally is chriskirk's goal in life.

I can't imagine a conservative wanting to use that bleeding heart liberal Jackson Browne's music any-damned-way. Which song is it? Rosie?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

An ad campaign is to either inspire people to vote and enough do therefore he recieves a higher paying job with then he has made a profit or it inspires people to donate money to the campaign or the RNC which in there is a profit.
And for Apple with your agruement, how could they prove enimen made them a profit. The same way they can prove the ads made donations go up!

Are you really this dense?

Apple- For profit corporation

McCain for America- Not for profit organization

Just because McCain for America turns a profit due to donations, this does not make them a for profit corporation.

I refer you back to a link provided by chriskirk:

http://nonprofitrisk.org/library/art...ance0405.shtml

 

[editec]

boo-hoo

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

WRONG!

Copyright infingement is a crime, and the McCain Campaign can be fined and sued fror each time they used that music with J Browns permission.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

WRONG!

Copyright infingement is a crime, and the McCain Campaign can be fined and sued fror each time they used that music with J Browns permission.

Go back and read the entire thread. This has been covered three times I believe.

 

[editec]

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

WRONG!

People write whole books about all the stuff you don't know about copyright laws, you know?

 

[CrimsonWhite]

WRONG!

People write whole books about all the stuff you don't know about copyright laws, you know?

Yeah, I think I read a few of those in law school.

 

[editec]

I'm not sure a campaign is technically a not-for-profit. I think that might only apply to 501c(3)'s.. though I could be wrong. I'd have to ask an election attorney.

Does NOT make any difference if its a 501c-3. (it isn't by the way)

Being a NFP corporation doesn't give you the right to violate copyright laws, not making any money doesn't give you the right either.

McCain violated Browns copyright plain and simple.

 

[busara]

Does NOT make any difference if its a 501c-3. (it isn't by the way)

Being a NFP corporation doesn't give you the right to violate copyright laws, not making any money doesn't give you the right either.

McCain violated Browns copyright plain and simple.

thats what i thought when i heard this as well. why wouldnt it matter if a nonprofit breaks a copyright? the red cross cant make their own cartoon using mickey mouse, roger rabbit, bugs bunny, and the tick because they would be breaking copyright laws, even if they didnt want to make money off of it. i dont see how nonprofit status would come into play