How come Trump, or at least his campaign staff don't think they need an artists permission to use their songs at his rallies?

Larceny comes a little too easily to them.

They almost certainly have legal permission to play the music.

The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) collects fees from bars, restaurants, stadiums, convention centers, etc. to use their members’ music. These are blanket fees, covering ALL the members’ music. The money is distributed to the artists.

If Beyonce or Taylor Swift is an ASCAP member, any venue or campaign with an ASCAP license can play their music. It is not done song-by-song or artist-by-artist.

“Songwriters and composers depend on ASCAP to license their songs to the hundreds of thousands businesses across the country that perform their music, leaving them free to do what they do best – make music. Businesses know that an ASCAP license is a worthwhile investment. With one payment, they can legally play more than 20 million musical works. ”

Why ASCAP Licenses Bars, Restaurants & Music Venues

@Call_Me_Jay I was wondering about this when I heard about the lawsuits. I used to teach zumba and this sort of thing covered us, or covered the gym I guess, when we used music for class if it wasn’t actual zumba music.

The other day I was watching America’s Got Talent, and a singer couldn’t do the song he had practiced, like the show didn’t have permission for it.

@Call_Me_Jay is correct.

Its not impossible to stop a politician from using your music but it’s not easy.

Charlie Crist a Democrat was sued by Talking Heads. Even French president Nicolas Saerkozy. Barack Obama in 2008, too.

I’ve seen artists come out and make statements that even though their music was used in a campaign, they don’t endorse that candidate.

He is looking at legal problems for posting a AI image of T Swift saying she wants you to vote for Trump.

Trump may have a legit problem there if it’s true.

45 just doesn’t care what is legal. He uses a song until the OG says stop & then he moves on to his next victim. It’s FREE until then.

He’s been using the Foo Fighters My Hero without permission so they are donating any proceeds of what they should have been paid & donating it to Harris. Wonder if that got his attention???

There is a very lengthy list‘s%20rallies.

I am an ASCAP member. Only the works I have registered with them can be used under one of their licenses. It’s not for every composition I’ve ever written. Furthermore, there is a separate license for political campaigns, and artists can remove their songs from it on a campaign-by-campaign basis (e.g., an artist can say “Harris can use my songs but Trump cannot” or vice versa).

The Trump campaign does not have an ASCAP license, however, nor a BMI license for that matter. They rely on licenses that have already been purchased by the venues at which they hold events. But venue licenses are supposed to be limited to what performing rights organizations (somewhat confusingly) call “live performances.” What that means is that the music is played to the live audience, but is not recorded or broadcasted in any way. The most familiar example here might be the music that gets played through the speakers at a concert before the band takes the stage.

Finally, artists have publicity rights that can supersede blanket permissions. The Foo Fighters, for instance, allege that Trump’s use of their music violates the Lanham Act’s prohibition on false endorsement. The estate of Isaac Hayes has gone even further and argued that Trump’s use of Hayes’ music constitutes copyright infringement. The Hayes estate is pressing a novel theory of its rights, which decreases the likelihood that it will win its case. But the Foo Fighters are standing on well-established law.

But here’s the rub: even if a court finds the campaign liable, the maximum amount they can be forced to pay in damages is $150,000 per violation (and that amount can only be won if the plaintiff proves willful infringement). It’s a sizable penalty for a lot of potential bad actors, but it’s chump change for a political campaign unless they’re planning to use the song in a widely broadcasted commercial or for something else that a court is likely to count as multiple violations.

Thanks for the great answer. @SavoirFaire .^^

I think it’s part of their publicity strategy. They think lawsuits and maybe even criminal cases are free publicity and fuel for the idiotic lying narrative that the Democrats are making the police prosecute them unjustly. (Which is what they plan on doing to their opponents, if they get back in power.)

Trump doesn’t about anyone but his own LARD ASS !

Trump thinks laws are for losers.