How Did trump Get to Use Queen's 'We are the Champions'?

originally posted by: Sillyolme

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Vector99

Yeah it kinda does.

No, it really doesn't.

Are you really looking to start yes he is no he isn't argument?

Commercial use of music requires permission from the copy write holder.

So Trump's rally was a "commercial purpose"? No, it wasn't. Absolutely NOTHING can be done about him playing music, any music. Nice try though, maybe you should actually look into it a bit more so you would know what you are talking about.

a reply to: Domo1

Why because it isnt pro trump?

It was a legit question, I had wondered my self becuase I know queen had said for him to stop using their music.

Crazy how the man running as the people's champion won't even listen to a simple request from one of the people..

a reply to: Sillyolme

No, it kinda doesn't--same goes for you telling someone that they can't use something that is someone else's property. You don't have that right.

If Queen doesn't own the rights anymore (and it appears that they don't), and Trump paid for the right to use it (and I assume at the point that he did through the proper channels), then Brian May can whine about anything that he wants, but it doesn't make a difference.

Maybe Queen shouldn't have sold the rights to the music.

I bet Mr. May still deposits the money into his bank account, though.

This is as absurd as the Melania speech garbage. So many good speeches last night and all anyone can talk about is this?


Do the rights to a song mean anything to a platform? No.
Does having a small part of a sppech similar to someone else's part of the platform? No.

This, sorry, is simply childish. The entire thread.

a reply to: reldra

check those blanket licenses.

ASCAP

BMI

SESAC

etc.

Queen tweeting this aS an unauthorized use of the song.

I think it's rude to call Freddy Mercury a queen.

Isn't that anti-gay or something?

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: DJW001

No its not if they've paid royalties to the songs owners

en.wikipedia.org...

The economic rights are a property right which is limited in time and which may be transferred by the author to other people in the same way as any other property (although many countries require that the transfer must be in the form of a written contract). They are intended to allow the author or their holder to profit financially from his or her creation, and include the right to authorize the reproduction of the work in any form (Article 9, Berne Convention)[1]. The authors of dramatic works (plays, etc.) also have the right to authorize the public performance of their works (Article 11, Berne Convention).

The protection of the moral rights of an author is based on the view that a creative work is in some way an expression of the author’s personality: the moral rights are therefore personal to the author, and cannot be transferred to another person except by testament when the author dies.[2] The moral rights regime differs greatly between countries, but typically includes the right to be identified as the author of the work and the right to object to any distortion or mutilation of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honour or reputation (Article 6bis, Berne Convention). In many countries, the moral rights of an author are perpetual.

you wrote...

Even if Brian May eventually loses the case

from Reldras..

The 69-year-old guitarist wrote back to a fan at the time and assured he “will make sure we take what steps we can to dissociate ourselves from Donald Trump’s unsavoury campaign.”

I see nothing mentioned about a court case...you need to be less economical with the truth

From Brians own website - nothing about a court case

Wed 08 Jun 16

www.brianmay.com...

I’ve had an avalanche of complaints – some of which you can see in our ‘LETTERS’ page – about Donald Trump using our We Are The Champions track as his ‘theme’ song on USA TV. This is not an official Queen statement, but I can confirm that permission to use the track was neither sought nor given. We are taking advice on what steps we can take to ensure this use does not continue. Regardless of our views on Mr Trump’s platform, it has always been against our policy to allow Queen music to be used as a political campaigning tool. Our music embodies our own dreams and beliefs, but it is for all who care to listen and enjoy. Bri

Your turn...

You have put in bold," we are taking what steps we can take " exactly what my argument is. Thank you. He does not mean dance steps.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

But Trump didn't pay anyone. At all. He just used the song.
Oh and the surviving members of the band are saying this.
If Disney owns it then they should get paid. But they weren't. Don't focus on who should get paid. Focus on no one was paid.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Trump is rich enough to just pay for it but dumb enough to not figure out you should pay royalties and to whom.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Sillyolme

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Vector99

Yeah it kinda does.

No, it really doesn't.

Are you really looking to start yes he is no he isn't argument?

Commercial use of music requires permission from the copy write holder.

So Trump's rally was a "commercial purpose"? No, it wasn't. Absolutely NOTHING can be done about him playing music, any music. Nice try though, maybe you should actually look into it a bit more so you would know what you are talking about.

Trump has had to stop playing other music.

6 Times Rockers told trump To Cease and Desist

originally posted by: matafuchs
This is as absurd as the Melania speech garbage. So many good speeches last night and all anyone can talk about is this?


Do the rights to a song mean anything to a platform? No.
Does having a small part of a sppech similar to someone else's part of the platform? No.

This, sorry, is simply childish. The entire thread.

The Left is bringing up every little thing they can find to keep the conversation off Crooked Hillary. It is getting really hilarious to watch.

a reply to: queenofswords

its funny bc no musicians want to be associated with him

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: matafuchs
This is as absurd as the Melania speech garbage. So many good speeches last night and all anyone can talk about is this?


Do the rights to a song mean anything to a platform? No.
Does having a small part of a sppech similar to someone else's part of the platform? No.

This, sorry, is simply childish. The entire thread.

The Left is bringing up every little thing they can find to keep the conversation off Crooked Hillary. It is getting really hilarious to watch.

That's not true. It is quite the opposite, if one is looking at threads on this site.

originally posted by: matafuchs
This is as absurd as the Melania speech garbage. So many good speeches last night and all anyone can talk about is this?


Do the rights to a song mean anything to a platform? No.
Does having a small part of a sppech similar to someone else's part of the platform? No.

This, sorry, is simply childish. The entire thread.

It was the whole speech.

originally posted by: TerminalVelocity
Wow...talk about scraping the bottle of the barrel trying to smear someone...and yet missing too!

It's been shown that Queen doesn't have to be consulted to pay for the use of the song....nor are all private transactions publicly available.

I used to have a lot of respect for the opinions of some on here.......not so much anymore

This is an important question and I posed it. I didn't miss anything.

to quote hillary "what difference at this point does it make?"
if trump didn`t pay royalties for using the song that`s not going cause a trump supporter to vote for hillary, and if he did pay royalties that isn`t going to cause a hillary supporter to vote for trump.
do you really think that a petty issue like this is going to sway anyones vote one way or another?

a reply to: Tardacus

no, its just funny

but it might push would be Trump supporters into just not voting at all, along with Melania's "michelle speech".

a reply to: reldra

No, it was not the whole speech. Plagarism is defined as "the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own".

So, by your definition, if a college graduate said 'My parents rasied me with the values that if you work hard for what you want in life' he would be compared to Michelle Obama? Nope.

As far as the music...this has happened before and the artist, usually a DNC supporter, will whine.

fivethirtyeight.com...

However, the Trump campaign paid ASCAP for the rights in the case of Rockin in the Free World and it will be shown again that it was paid for here. It just makes better MSM when the liberal musicians complains.

or you can read this article why he can use it and the musician cannot say anything....

www.newsmax.com...

Copyright experts say campaigns don't need an artist's permission to play their songs at rallies as long as the political organization or the venue has gotten what's known as a blanket license from the performing rights organizations ASCAP and BMI. The license isn't for a single artist but for all the music in the licensing group's repertoire, which is staggering. ASCAP represents over 10 million musical works from over 525,000 songwriters and composers. BMI represents 10.5 million musical works created by more than 700,000 songwriters. The license is for the right to perform the song publicly. Breaking News at Newsmax.com www.newsmax.com... Urgent: Do You Back Trump or Hillary? Vote Here Now!

Put this thread to rest.....

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Khaleesi

That didn't say trump paid. It outlines how to go about obtaining permission. Where does it say the campaign paid?
I must be missing something.

Let's be logical about this. I've already shown that Disney owns the rights to Queen's music. If Disney issues a cease and desist order then we will know that he didn't. Otherwise, Disney's lack of action leads us to the logical conclusion that he either got their permission or they don't care. Do you think Disney would let a chance go by to charge an exorbitant amount of money?