Rihanna isn't happy. Neither is Axl Rose. Both musicians took to Twitter at the weekend, responding to reports from people who had heard their songs at Donald Trump's rallies – in Rihanna's case Don't Stop the Music and in Rose's Sweet Child o' Mine, the Guns N' Roses hit. Both songs have been slotted into the playlist the US president uses to fire up the crowd before he takes the stage, along with songs by The Rolling Stones, Elton John and others.
Rose, the Guns N' Roses frontman, says the group has asked that the Trump campaign stop playing its songs. "GNR like a lot of artists opposed to the unauthorized use of their music at political events has formally requested r music not b used at Trump rallies or Trump associated events," he writes.
Rihanna's tweet, responding to a Washington Post reporter's amusement about hearing her song at a Trump rally, suggests that she, too, wants the music to stop. "Not for much longer...me nor my people would ever be at or around one of those tragic rallies, so thanks for the heads up philip!" Rihanna wrote.
Just so ya know... GNR like a lot of artists opposed to the unauthorized use of their music at political events has formally requested r music not b used at Trump rallies or Trump associated events.
— Axl Rose (@axlrose) 4 November 2018
Not for much longer...me nor my people would ever be at or around one of those tragic rallies, so thanks for the heads up philip! https://t.co/dRgRi06GrJ
— Rihanna (@rihanna) 5 November 2018
Her lawyer, Jordan Siev, followed up on Monday with a cease-and-desist letter to the White House. “As you are or should be aware, Ms Fenty has not provided her consent to Mr Trump to use her music,” Siev wrote, using Rihanna’s given name, Robyn Fenty. “Such use is therefore improper.”
So how does it happen that politicians can blast anthems to their supporters written by musicians who despise them? The answer lies in the intricate thicket of licensing and copyright law, which in the past has given political campaigns a lot of leeway to choose whatever songs they like.
But Rihanna and Rose may be in luck. In recent years certain rules have given musicians more of a say in whether their voices can be used to fire up a sea of Make America Great Again hats. There is a long history of horrified musicians learning their songs were being played by politicians they did not support, and it has almost always been Republicans on the receiving end of the complaints. Sting and Tom Petty objected to George W Bush's use of their music as president. The group Heart asked Sarah Palin to stop playing Barracuda when she was running for vice-president, in 2008. Bruce Springsteen, an outspoken liberal, has chafed at Republicans' use of Born in the USA.
Just last week Pharrell Williams sent a scathing letter to the president after the song Happy was played at an event on the day of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. But the National FFA – Future Farmers of America – Organization, the group that hosted the event, said it was their organist who played the song, without any input from the campaign.
Some lawsuits have been filed over the years, and almost invariably have been settled before any court could rule on their arguments. But often there wasn't much a musician could do. Playing music at an American public event requires a licence, which generally comes from a few big music-rights agencies like BMI and Ascap. Usually, the arenas where politicians appear already possess a blanket licence that allows the venue to play any song in the agencies' vast catalogues.
The agencies advise political campaigns to buy their own blanket licences so they can play music wherever they are, whether it’s a hotel ballroom, an aircraft hangar or the edge of a soybean field. Trump’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment, but major campaigns generally have such licences.
BMI and Ascap have in recent years written exemptions into these contracts, giving musicians the right to stop a politician from using their songs. Steven Tyler of Aerosmith had his music removed from Trump's licences with both BMI and Ascap, according to his lawyer, Dina LaPolt.
“Before Trump was even elected president he was using Steven’s songs,” LaPolt says. “Fans and colleagues and even loved ones were very confused, because it looked like he was endorsing Trump.” LaPolt had to send numerous letters to the Trump campaign. She argued that playing Tyler’s songs at rallies was creating a false impression that he was a Trump supporter, an argument that Rihanna’s lawyer also made.
In August LaPolt finally received the answer Tyler had been hoping for. Jones Day, the law firm that represents the Trump campaign, wrote a letter saying, “Without admitting any liability, and to avoid any future dispute, we send this response to confirm that the Trump campaign will not use your client’s music in connection with its activities going forward.”
On Twitter, Rose accuses the Trump campaign of relying on venue licences to defy the group’s demand to be excluded from the playlist. “Unfortunately the Trump campaign is using loopholes in the various venues’ blanket performance licenses which were not intended for such craven political purposes, without the songwriters’ consent,” Rose says in a tweet that ends with a poop emoji.
There is also a basic political concern. “It’s easier for artists to find out that their music is being used at rallies than it was in the pre-internet days,” Victoria Sheckler, deputy general counsel for the Recording Industry Association of America, says. “And no campaign wants to have an artist saying ‘Don’t use my music, I don’t like you’ hanging over their head.”
As is often the case, though, the Trump campaign could be the exception. – New York Times
