Originally Posted By mawnck <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/19/fox-demands-mccain-campai_n_127782.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...782.html</a> >>Fox News Friday sent the John McCain campaign a cease and desist letter demanding they remove the voice of correspondent Major Garrett from a recent campaign ad, Politico's Michael Calderone reported... Please wait, your request is processed... Fox News Demands McCain Campaign Remove Major Garrett From Campaign Ad RSS stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com Huffington Post | Danny Shea | September 19, 2008 02:08 PM Read More: Fox News, Fox News Mccain, Major Garrett, McCain Ad Major Garrett, Media News Show your support. Buzz this article up. Buzz up! Get Breaking News Alerts never spam * Share * Print * Comments Fox News Friday sent the John McCain campaign a cease and desist letter demanding they remove the voice of correspondent Major Garrett from a recent campaign ad, Politico's Michael Calderone reported. The ad, seen below, includes audio of Garrett reporting that Barack Obama would not say whether he supported or opposed the government bailout of AIG. Fox News' letter, embedded below via DocStoc, says: "It has come to the attention of Fox News this morning that an ad for the McCain campaign uses the voice of our Correspondent, Major Garrett. We demand that you immediately remove Mr. Garrett's voice from this ad. As Mr. Garrett is a non-partisan news correspondent covering the Obama campaign for Fox News, it is highly inappropriate, among other things, of your campaign to use him in your ad..." Last week, CBS forced YouTube to remove another McCain ad that used video of Katie Couric in a manner the network described as "misleading."<<
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Meanwhile, Mawnck's cut-and-paste skills are blasted by both candidates.>> Don't worry about it. Reading the Huffington Post will do that to a person. ;-)
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains Okay I will go with a dumb question... Why don't the candidates just put these ads in their own voices... If they take the time to approve them - why not just speak for themselves?
Originally Posted By DAR Well one could say by doing this Fox News is trying to show that they are not biased and in fact fair and balanced.
Originally Posted By alexbook I've heard that the McCain campaign's also been sued for copyright violation over some of the music in their commercials. You'd think they'd know better--these seem like minor-league mistakes.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains Ahh yes but it seems to keep them at the top of the news -- And it makes me wonder how many people check out the ads on-line just to see what all the fuss is about...
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I've heard that the McCain campaign's also been sued for copyright violation over some of the music in their commercials. You'd think they'd know better--these seem like minor-league mistakes.< likely all muchado about nothing - Heart complained but it was baseless - and if we're goingto throw around minor league mistakes to characterize Barracuda use - what about the Dems and Obama using Brooks & Dunn's "Only in America " -- same kind of misrepresentation - but of course it's only one side that does it - sigh much ado about nothing - Nancy Wilson,I've been to your concerts - hearing your song doesn't make me thing you're suddenly a GOP supporter any more than if the Dems used Nuge's StrangleholdI would thing he suddenly became left wing. I also don't believe Jim Morrison liked Chevrolets's over other cars - ofthat the Rolling Stones ( Start me up) are huge American football fans....
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Okay I will go with a dumb question... Why don't the candidates just put these ads in their own voices... If they take the time to approve them - why not just speak for themselves?<< That approval is a formality. I doubt the candidates even see the ads before they're released. >>And it makes me wonder how many people check out the ads on-line just to see what all the fuss is about...<< Yer catchin' on.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <likely all muchado about nothing - Heart complained but it was baseless - and if we're goingto throw around minor league mistakes to characterize Barracuda use - what about the Dems and Obama using Brooks & Dunn's "Only in America " -- same kind of misrepresentation - but of course it's only one side that does it - sigh> Not quite. The rights to a song belong not to the singer but to the writer. The Wilsons (Heart) wrote Barracuda, therefore have a right to control its use (copyright). "Only in America" was not written by Brooks and/or Dunn, but by a guy named Don Cook. He seems happy Obama used it - in fact, he could have complained when Bush used it, but didn't. <a href="http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008/08/only-in-america.html" target="_blank">http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatc...ica.html</a> "Funnily enough, that number was cowritten by a buddy of theirs, Don Cook, who went on to found a fledgling organization called Music Row Democrats. Having 'Only in America' drafted as the new 'Hail to the Chief' wasn't really what Democratic activist Cook had in mind for his song (which isn't even that gung-ho — listen closely, and there's an ambivalence about the American dream to be found in the lyrics). But in Nashville, even of you're on the other side of the aisle, sometimes it's hard not to give at the office." I got Don Cook, the cowriter and Democratic stalwart, on the phone today to talk about the tune… and about how Brooks & Dunn themselves reacted to Obama’s use of it. Since Cook was a little taken aback when the GOP adopted it, does this feel like turnabout is fair play? “That’s exactly what Kix Brooks said to me when he called,” said Cook. “He said, ‘You had to endure George Bush using it, so it’s only fair that I would have to endure Barack Obama using it.’ But he said it in a real light-hearted way. For us as writers and them as performers, truthfully, we’re proud when anybody uses our song for something that’s substantial."
Originally Posted By gadzuux It wasn't just Heart - it was also usage of copywrited material from SNL (wayne and garth), pop tunes like "you're just too good to be true", film images like charlton heston parting the red sea and other examples. It's a repeating pattern of flagrant disregard for copywrited materials without payment or consent. It's cavalier behavior on the part of a campaign that - for some unknown reason - thinks that laws and rules don't apply to them. They just appropriate any material they want and use it for their own political ends. And that's wrong - and incidentally, illegal. Any of you "no big deal" people care to dispute?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Besides being illegal, it's just a dumb strategy. We now know how Heart feels about Palin/McCain because by swiping the music, they gave the Wilson sisters a chance to share their views in a larger way than they ever would have before. >>It's a repeating pattern of flagrant disregard for copywrited materials without payment or consent.<< Well, what you and I see as blatant "copyright infringement" they see as "maverick". (eye roll)
Originally Posted By mawnck >>The rights to a song belong not to the singer but to the writer.<< ... and the publisher, who is the *real* entity they have to get permission from. And if it's a public venue that's covered by ASCAP and BMI blanket performance licenses (which most are), they can pretty much play whatever the heck they want. Videos and commercials require specifically granted "synchronization licenses," and that's when you have to go to the publisher. In most of these cases, the problem isn't a question of rights at all, but a question of whether you want a tee'd-off recording artist on Extra every night for a week, decrying your candidate and the moose he rode in on.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^ it's air time- for every person who is upset along with the artist - there's another ticked that they're whining not saying that is right or wrong - but both will do the same things for the same reasons
Originally Posted By gadzuux Except that it's only one of them that's doing it. DAR and others try that tired refrain from time to time - "they're both to blame and equally as bad". But it's not true. When it comes to lies, distortions, misappropriations, and downright scandalous and appalling accusations, there's only one side that's playing that game. And the only accountability that matters - the voters - doesn't count for much because GOP voters do not expect or demand any better of their candidate. Not just this candidate - any candidate.
Originally Posted By mawnck Not many artists would complain if the Dems were using their song. Other than country, metal, and religious artists. See, they're all part of the liberal media.
Originally Posted By gadzuux This happened with bush. He started using "Won't Back Down" by Tom Petty. The minute Petty got wind of it, he issued an emphatic statement that he did not approve. But again - only after the republicans had already appropriated the song for their own political purposes.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>But again - only after the republicans had already appropriated the song for their own political purposes.<< Yes, but did they back down?
