Artists have fans from all sides of the political debate, from all sides of religion and from all different races.
It’s okay to take money from fans for concert tickets, recorded product and merchandise who support a political party you don’t support or fans who believe in a religion you don’t believe in.
But when a political figure plays music at a rally or releases their own Spotify playlist for sharing, artists decide its time to take a moral stance, asking said politician to stop playing their music at rallies or to remove their song from their Spotify playlist.
It happens in Australia and it happens in other countries as well.
If the artist creates art for public consumption, why do they get upset if people use it publicly, especially when all of the Copyright licenses are satisfied.
I’m not a Trump supporter or the Australian version of Trump, Clive Palmer. But both of em have used “We’re Not Gonna Take It” from Twisted Sister as part of their campaigns. Trump at rallies and Palmer in an ad, with the lyrics “Australia’s not gonna cop it” to music from “We’re Not Gonna Take It” in a different key.
There is no chance in hell that fans of Dee Snider or Twisted Sister would think that they endorse Palmer. It never occurred to me at all.
Dee and Jay Jay might not like it, but Copyright was never meant to be about censoring other people especially if the normal licenses are paid.
And the main issue which no one addresses is how Copyright has developed into a right to censor people and prosecute people.
And of course, in typical Palmer fashion he slammed Dee Snider, saying that he owns the Copyright to the words he wrote, and that Dee is trying to generate publicity to sell tickets to his Aussie shows.
I guess Palmer has no idea how Dee follows things through or who is messing with, because if anyone is not going to take it, it’s Dee.
And one last thought, who is going to ensure that the artists words are not misused after they are departed as Copyright does extend 70 years after death (with the MPAA and RIAA pushing for 90 years after death)?
Based on current trends, no one will, because as long as a fee is paid to the heirs, their lawyers and the Corporation who holds the rights, it will be allowed.
In the end Copyright was always meant to give an artist an incentive to create, not to censor, regardless if they agree or disagree with the people using their material.