Interesting observations, Rich. I always enjoy getting the benefit of your experience in copyright-related issues. (BTW, on that note, would you agree with me that Ron's interpretation of First Sale is ill-founded in the case of "stolen" goods?)
It's probably true that the McCain campaign has been a lot more interested in establishing a response to Obama's corporate branding as pseudo-messiah than about the niceties of fair and unfair use. On the other hand, one thing no political party in 21st Century America is short of is lawyers, so I suspect they'd determined their legal or financial exposure would be de minimus, as the lawyers say. Otherwise, they may have grabbed the "we're not worthy" bit without worrying that they might be, as per Franc channeling Woody Allen, desecrating that great and important testament to late 20th Century artistic genius WAYNE'S WORLD. As for Jackson Browne, people indulging in outrage on his behalf need to understand that, though Browne went out of his way to name McCain among the defendants in the "Running on Empty" ad lawsuit, the ad was actually a product of the Ohio Republican Party, not the McCain campaign (and a TV ad, not one of these McCain web ads). The McCain campaign did, however, go pretty far with a web ad mocking the media's love affair with Obama done to the tune of an unsecured version of Franki Valli's "Can't Take My Eyes Off Of You." After protest, they re-did the ad with a generic romantic soundtrack (some urged them to try a porno feel, but by then the campaign had moved on). Before the "Love" ad, they had kicked off this web video campaign with an ad in the style of a '60s Bond film credit sequence or trailer, calling Obama "Dr No" and using familiar Bond music. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Zy50Dy6Zk I wonder if one of our Bond experts could isolate and specify the antecedents for this ad more precisely. I also wonder if the music on this ad might be covered by the trailer exception Rich mentioned. I'm also thinking that the McCain lawyers probably consider the latitude for "fair use" in political ads to be rather wide, and that there may be gray areas or simply a lack of case law affecting treatment of web ads . My limited experience in such matters is that, on the web, where there's any doubt, and where it's difficult if not impossible to show tangible harm, malign intent, or substantial ill-gotten monetary gain, simply taking down the infringing piece typically puts an end to whatever issue. Browne's TV-related claim may make for a better case (against the Ohio Republicans at least) since by his lights as a 30 - 40 year leftwing environmentalist tool, being used effectively by Republicans hurts him among other tools. Regarding the complaints of Myers and whoever actually owns "Can't Take My Eyes Off Of You," it seemed to me that the McCain camp's response amounted to "Fine, if you insist on being spoilsports, we'll try something else." As for copyright absolutists objecting to these particular infringements and their lethal effect on our artistic heritage, the McCain campaign provided the following response: McCain Campaign Response on Copyright Complaints <http://ckmac.com/blog/mccain_campaign_response_on_copyrights.gif> Personally, I find the will.i.am and Dave Stewart Obama music videos much more tragic as assaults on art and civilization than a mash-up that clips Wayne & Garth, but everyone's entitled to his or her own self-serving kneejerk opinion. Charlton Heston remains unavailable, but I am 100% fersure that, if he were available, he'd be laughing his head off and doing his best to help defeat the gun-grabbers and fellow travelers. Colin CK MacLeod Collectibles at ckmac.com <http://ckmac.com/> Kymar's on eBay <http://stores.ebay.com/Kymars-Stuff> -----Original Message----- From: MoPo List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Richard Halegua Comic Art Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 09:02 PM To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: [MOPO] McCain Ad Featuring The Ten Commadments At 08:45 PM 8/23/2008, Kirby McDaniel wrote: Wait. Something has been lost on me here. You mean the McCain campaign might have used the clip from THE TEN COMMANDMENTS without any kind of permission whatsoever?? I don't think anyone who is commenting has any idea if this is true or not Kirby There have been no news reports of anything such and if the campaign bought media - from for instance - Corbis or Getty Images, then royalties are paid by the lessee of the assets. IF any royalties are due. Did you ever notice that Biography has loads of clips from movies?? These are available from numerous sources and may not be required to pay any royalties because they are usually clips from trailers for which no copyright was secured. I believe the measure is that trailers from pre-1968 are usable in this way. I'm sure that Sean will know much more on the subject (but he's in Peru.. on his honeymoon) Rich=============== Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
