The Copyright Wars Come to the Obama-Romney Campaign

Last week, the Obama campaign released this sharp-elbowed political ad featuring Mitt Romney’s off-key rendition of “America the Beautiful.” And the Romney campaign promptly issued a sort of knock off — an ad featuring President Obama singing Al Green’s “Let’s Stay Together.”  The Romney ad uses the song to criticize Obama’s allegedly too-cozy relationship with lobbyists and campaign fundraisers. 

We can’t show you the Romney ad, as it’s been pulled from YouTube.  Why?  Because BMG Rights Management, the music publisher that owns the copyright in “Let’s Stay Together,” has sent YouTube a copyright takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and YouTube has complied.

And we also can’t show you the original news footage of Obama singing — that’s also been taken down from YouTube following BMG’s copyright complaint.  The Obama ad featuring Romney’s singing is still up there – fortunately for the Obama campaign, “America the Beautiful” is a very old song (first released in 1910) and so the copyright has expired and the song is in the public domain.

Regardless of what your political persuasion might be, this is pretty nutty.  BMG is asserting, in essence, that its private copyright interests come before Mitt Romney’s interest in getting his political message out there, and the American public’s interest in hearing it.  And also that their copyright outweighs the interest of the news media in reporting the news – so if Obama makes a political point by singing a copyrighted song, the media can’t report that fact using the actual performance.  

The Romney ad and the underlying Obama news footage are about the clearest possible case of fair use that can be imagined, and BMG’s action illustrate the perils of overzealous enforcement of rules against copying.  Does a video showing Obama singing “Let’s Stay Together” interfere with the market for the Al Green song?  No. There is no real threat to BMG’s copyright interests in the first place.

Whatever your politics might be, we should all be able to agree that Mitt Romney should be permitted to get his message out without the copyright laws getting in the way. And the same goes for the news media reporting the news. 

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

 

COMMENTS: 21

View All Comments »
  1. Nosybear says:

    I don’t see any problem with BMG placing their private commercial interests over our the United States’ political process. First, the Supreme Court has made it clear that our Founding Fathers intended for commercial interests to trump political interests and the peoples’ right to information in their Citizens United ruling. BMG is simply protecting its copyright, a financial interest. Whether Mr. Obama violated their rights in singing the song in public without paying a royalty is a violation or not refers to be seen. And second, I think we’re entitled to a bit more information about policies and the outcomes of the policies of the candidates rather than their singing ability and, in exercising their copyright, BMG has, perhaps, in their own small way, improved our political process.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 25 Thumb down 27
    • Rob says:

      That interpretation of the Supreme Court’s ruling is so deliberately crass that I’d almost call it sarcastic (sardonic?) Either your entire post is meant to be ironic or this is a golden example of a smart person using their intellect to justify their emotionally driven opinion rather than to inform it. Could be both, I suppose.

      Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 8
    • dale says:

      Your satire is so on target that some feel the need to censor it. I would wear that as a badge of effective satire.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
  2. Iljitsch van Beijnum says:

    But somehow it’s ok that private money making interests in the form of the TV networks requiring payment for messages from the candidates, are allowed to poison American politics by requiring candidates to rake in hundreds of millions of dollars to have a chance at being elected?

    As for the issue at hand: if the president (or a candidate) uses some copyrighted content in a public appearance, it should be possible to report on that without copyright trouble. But ads for other stuff also have to pay royalties to authors, so if they want to use this stuff in political ads, that’s a different thing.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
  3. Jerry Tsai says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Disliked! Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 16
  4. Will says:

    Isn’t this more of an issue of Youtube not wanting to fight the takedown request than some new standard of copyright?

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 4
  5. WG says:

    I’d venture a guess that Obama’s rendition did nothing but BOOST awareness (and sales) of a 40-year-old song with a new generation. Why use copyright law to block free advertising?

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 2
    • Mike Hunter says:

      Probably because it’s not really about the content, but about the political preferences of the top people at BMG. The content should be legal to use under ‘fair use’ and not be protected under copyright laws anyway. Youtube just didn’t feel like fighting the takedown request.

      Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
  6. rickterp says:

    This is yet another example of how the Obama campaign is playing 14-dimensional chess: When Obama sings to a crowd, he sings a song that’s not in the public domain, so it can never be used in a commercial against him. Mittens, meanwhile, sings a public domain song that leaves him wide open for an attack ad. Checkmate!

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 7
    • DanSanto says:

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      Disliked! Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 18
      • RJ Roy says:

        No, he’s saying that since the song sung by Obama is copywrited, it would be taken down if someone tried to use that performance against him.

        This is opposed to Romney, who performed a song in the public domain, and thus can’t have a claim of infringement levied against it if it was used in an attack.

        Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
    • ltlrags says:

      Wow! That would be 14 dimensional. I’m sure the Obama campaign would appreciate the credit you give them for thinking so many moves ahead in choosing a song for him to sing “spontaneously.” Too bad Romney has such a short-sited team or that he needs someone to choose a song ahead of time for him to sing “spontaneously.”

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
    • James says:

      Perhaps I’m biased (I can’t sing either), but my vote is not going to be swayed by a candidate’s singing ability, or lack thereof.

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
  7. DanSanto says:

    Oh boy.

    If the music copyrights industry is supporting President Obama, I’m afraid I’m going to have to vote against him.

    That is the depth of my abhorrence for companies like BMG. For years I used “Disney lawyers” as my measure of the absolute scummiest people in the universe. About three years ago I shifted to “music copyright lawyers” as my new base of scumbag-ness.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 4
  8. David Bley says:

    Somebody needs to send BMG a bill for advertising their music. Copyright has gotten way out of hand. When did our laws change from protecting the powerless individual from the wealthy and powerful to the inverse? I don’t just mean copyright. How about patents or contract disputes, to name but a couple?

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1