Rocker Jackson Browne sues McCain over a song

August 15, 2008
By Steve Gorman





LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Rock star Jackson Browne has sued U.S. presidential candidate John McCain for copyright infringement, accusing the presumptive Republican nominee of using the singer's 1977 hit "Running on Empty" in a campaign ad without permission.

The suit, filed on Thursday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, also names the Republican National Committee and the Ohio Republican Party as defendants. It seeks a permanent injunction against further use of Browne's music and at least $75,000 in damages.

The campaign spot mocks McCain's Democratic rival for the White House, Barack Obama, for suggesting the nation conserve gasoline through proper tire inflation, with Browne's most famous song, "Running on Empty," playing in the background.

The suit claims use of the song without Browne's permission is a copyright violation and a breach of the U.S. Lanham Act by falsely implying Browne is associated with and endorses McCain's bid for president.

It also says use of Browne's voice in the ad violates the performer's so-called right of publicity under California law.

Browne's lawyer, Lawrence Iser, said his client is "a well-known, lifelong liberal activist and supporter of Democratic candidates, and use of his song and his voice in a commercial bashing Barack Obama is anathema to Jackson."


More at: Reuters

I've been in the entertainment industry for 40 years. 18 of them were in the music business, on the radio and with live bands, where everyone knows you have to pay a fee to play a song (through ASCAP or BMI, usually).

The last 22 have been in the movie industry, which is even more regulated. In fact, one of the highest costs in making a film is in acquiring licensing for the use of a song in a movie. We joke that you can tell the budget of a film by how recognizable the music is.

It baffles me beyond belief how the powers-that-be behind his ads either did not know or did not care to obtain the permission required to use the song.

Either way, they are either incredibly ignorant or incredibly stupid. And these are the people McCain and his campaign are relying on to win the Presidency?

Another word for what they did is "piracy."

It cannot be stressed enough how serious a breach of copyright law this was. Unbelievable.

phileysmiley wrote:

... Either way, they are either incredibly ignorant or incredibly stupid. And these are the people McCain and his campaign are relying on to win the Presidency? Another word for what they did is "piracy." It cannot be stressed enough how serious a breach of copyright law this was. Unbelievable.

That's the issue really Larry, and John McCain said "I approve this message" right?

What got me totally flummoxed about this is Jackson Browne wouldn't in a million years even think of endorsing McCain. All his life he's been a progressive and sort of "protest artist" and for the campaign damagers to use his music and lyrics is another of those lies they use in their spin.

They may just have thought they were above the law.

Grav!ty wrote:

What got me totally flummoxed about this is Jackson Browne wouldn't in a million years even think of endorsing McCain. All his life he's been a progressive and sort of "protest artist" and for the campaign damagers to use his music and lyrics is another of those lies they use in their spin.

You know, though, politics almost doesn't even enter into it. I know him personally and have been aware of his political stances for 40 years, and I personally am 100% satisfied that my reaction to this is not colored by that.

If Obama had done something like this I would be just as outraged. The fact that it was Jackson Browne is just the ultimate irony.

yeshuas wrote:

They may just have thought they were above the law.

I hope so. Because I'd be more upset if they didn't know the law.

Yeah that's pretty surprising. I am surprised nothing came out of the Britney and Paris ads honestly. Maybe there's something I don't know, but I could swear you had to be a public figure (elected) for folks to have free domain of your photo/image. Everyone else (private citizens and military) I thought technically would have to give the approval to use their photo/image.

i.e.; I can't say Michael Jordan supports PRO on a T-Shirt. But I could put George Bush on a shirt. Not that I'd want to, just saying.

kanaloa wrote:

Yeah that's pretty surprising. I am surprised nothing came out of the Britney and Paris ads honestly. Maybe there's something I don't know, but I could swear you had to be a public figure (elected) for folks to have free domain of your photo/image. Everyone else (private citizens and military) I thought technically would have to give the approval to use their photo/image. i.e.; I can't say Michael Jordan supports PRO on a T-Shirt. But I could put George Bush on a shirt. Not that I'd want to, just saying.

Actually, any photos taken on public property can be used without permission. When you appear in public you are technically signing a release form that you give up the right to copyright or protect the images. It's one reason the stars hate the paparazzi so much, and why they aren't allowed inside most establishments unless invited. But outside is fair game.

Will the McCain camp be the next victim of the RIAA? I hope he wins and does so after the convention and the fine counts against the 84 million he can spend. Maybe that will get some of the stupid ads off of tv

Wow guys... this sort of thing happens all the time. Candidates routinely accidently play music from artists that haven't endorsed them and they get pissed about it.

Was it a stupid mistake on the campaigns fault? Absolutely. They should immediately resolve it if they actually did make a mistake.

But remember, these people are only human and humans make mistakes. Don't crucify his campaign over a mistake like this, even if you don't support/aren't going to vote for McCain in November.

Jeez, sometimes I get the feeling that this board is so partisan it is unbelievable.

LOL, at one point it used to be exactly the opposite.