Slashdot Mirror
Eye of Tiger Composer Sues Gingrich To Stop Campaign From Using Song
First time accepted submitter Joe_Dragon writes "The composer of the Survivor hit Eye of the Tiger has sued Newt Gingrich to stop the Republican presidential candidate from using the Rocky III anthem at campaign events. The lawsuit was filed Monday in federal court in Chicago by Rude Music Inc., the Palatine-based music publishing company owned by Frank Sullivan, who, with Jim Peterik, composed the song and copyrighted it in 1982. The lawsuit states that as early as 2009, Gingrich has entered rallies and public events to the pulsing guitar riffs of the song. In a lengthy section of the five-page complaint, Rude's attorneys point out that Gingrich is well aware of copyright laws, noting he is listed as author or co-author of more than 40 published works and has earned between $500,000 to $1 million from Gingrich Productions, a company that sells his written work, documentaries and audio books. It also notes Gingrich's criticism of the 'Stop Online Piracy Act' during a recent debate in South Carolina, where Gingrich suggested the law was unnecessary because 'We have a patent office, we have copyright law. If a company finds it has genuinely been infringed upon, it has the right to sue.' The suit asks for an injunction to prevent Gingrich from using the song, as well as damages and attorneys' fees to be determined by the court."
Deep down inside they are suing because they don't like Gingrich. Just my guess though.
He's not generating profit from this.
He's not playing the entire performance of the song...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
We go through this every election cycle. Stop using music. Just shuffle off the stage. Maybe when you're awkwardly doing so, think about changing music copyright laws if you get elected?
So many times, it happens too fast
You trade your passion for glory
File take down notices and get the web sites black listed.
Is that Jim Peterik, the co-author, is not suing, and doesn't mind that Gingrich uses it... "Chicago-born Frankie Sullivan co-authored the Grammy award-winning song with fellow Survivor founding member Jim Peterik. However, Peterik is not party to the lawsuit and reportedly said that he didn't have a problem with Gingrich using it, according to a Sun Times report." http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/290196/20120131/gingrich-sued-copyright-infringement-eye-tiger-rocky.htm
There Can Be Only One...
I guess they don't sue on behalf of actual artists.
I don't know why they don't check for permission first. Besides, Grinch Neutron hardly strikes me as a "Tiger". He probably should have contacted Ted Nugent and got the rights to "Cat Scratch Fever", would have suited him better.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
After Florida, he could start using Beck's "Loser".
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
I wonder if Sullivan bothered to simply send a letter to Gingrich asking him to stop using it? After all, it's been YEARS... sounds similar to a submarine patent, right? If Gingrich ignored such a request, then he's got it coming to him. I would feel pretty slimy using a song if I knew the composer didn't like it. That being said, he might be rationalizing a bit since co-writer Peterik is OK with it. I'm not sure what bearing Peterik's wishes have on this, as I don't know if he has a share in Rude Music.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Maybe he should try Weird Al's "Theme from Rocky XIII(The Rye or the Kaiser)". Not only is it more appropriate, Weird Al might let them use it for free.
Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
More likely than not, he's registered with BMI or ASCAP.
Indeed, Eye of the Tiger is available for public performance with ASCAP.
Speak for yourself, I hate that effin song. And i'm assuredly a Republican. Next thing, you'll be saying all Republicans want to ban abortion and birth control and be wrong again.
Sometimes you're just a Republican because the other side is even more odious. Not to mention arrogant and presumptuous.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Why wouldn't a political candidate double check to make sure that the composers/artists/etc responsible for music their using in their campaign is, at worst, neutral towards them?
Because, quite frankly, if I had total legal control over a piece of art that some dickwad I didn't like was appropriating for PR purposes, my first instinct would be to do my own counter-PR version and dump it on whichever public channels I could find.
For instance, a youtube video set to "Eye of the Tiger" which just shows a picture of Gingrinch on a punching bag being pummeled by various disadvantaged types with captions explaining their beefs against him and the Republican party might be an effective way to develop a negative association between him and the song.
Why in the world would a political campaign risk pissing someone off like that?
Log in or piss off.
By the same logic, Gingrich should write his own song.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
So how long till political campaigns get a fair use exception written into law? They did it for the do not call list after all.
No sir I dont like it.
At the time, the Democrats were the party of racism, trying to keep the blacks in their place. The Republicans were the party fighting racism, in large part originally founded on the abolitionist platform.
This whole supposed flip-flop on who's racist only happened with Nixon's Southern Strategy. Until then, the Democrats were the party of the KKK. Remember Robert Byrd saying you couldn't be in Democratic politics down South unless you were KKK?
Actually, the Native Americans welcomed the white men. That's why so many of us have mixed blood. Or, did you think that all mixed breed Americans were the result of rape?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
For example, a talk show radio host. He plays various intro and exit music, definitely covered under payments.
But what if he picks a song as his theme song and plays it constantly? I wouldn't think that would be covered under ASCAP any more than someone wanting to use a song in a movie.
Sounds like Newt's using it as his theme.
In other news, a new bill has been introduced that exempts political candidates from using copyrighted works in their political ads. This will join the existing bill that exempts the idiots from telemarketing rules so they can call you whenever the hell they want with a recorded message asking for your vote. (Because I form all my political judgments from 30-second pre-recorded phone calls...)
There's no place like
How long before a law gets passed that exempts politicians from copyright restraint?
It's a standard procedure to pass a law and then exempt themselves anyway.
In the mean time, any of them can feel free to use the following:
(to the beat of "I like Big Butts")
I'm a rich, white guy and I sure can lie!
I don't talk to brothers (you know why!)
A lobbyist walks in I gotta get a little taste
of the cash that's in my face,
I get sprung, wanna pull in the dough
It gets me so hot you know!
It's for power and cash that I'm caring
I'm hooked and I won't be sharing
I'm a real Good Ol' Boys fixture,
So now do ya get da picture?
Massive apologies to Sir Mix-A-Lot...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Funniest part of the story : "Eye of the tiger" was written is because stallone couldn't get the right to "Another one bite the dust". Maybe Gingrich should just commision a new version (or get the right to another one bite the dust :)).
Why should somebody profit indefinitely from a work they produced years ago? It makes no sense.
Umm so why should the publisher profit indefinitely from that same work without the creator getting any of it? That makes even less sense.
Some work generates revenue for decades. Sorry, but it does. That money's going to flow somewhere, so who is better entitled to it?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Government officials should be held accountable to the laws they create and enforce. This is *ESPECIALLY* true when the law is a bad law that blocks people from doing things that are completely reasonable. That helps ensure that "they" feel the same pain as "us," which in turn furthers the cause of getting the bad laws corrected.
One law for them and another for us is a basic ingredient of tyranny.
I do not see the point of allowing unskilled people into our borders. Why would we do that? For what purpose?
Oh, I don't know. Perhaps because they are people who, like you, and want to live in a free country where you have a chance to pursue your dreams. If you look at America's history, immigrants seem to be hard working and ambitious. Quite frankly, we could use more of that right now, and not just a bunch of stupid complacence idiots who think the most important thing to be focusing on is teaching creationism in schools.
By your logic, shouldn't we expel all the white people who are unskilled, and let in all the African, Hispanic, Asian, and Arabic people who are educated and skilled? Go see how that flies with the Republican party.
Unless you are of native American descent, you have no fucking right to complain about the immigrants anyway, seeing as how you are one...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Yes - of course. But, let's not forget that the natives had spent millenia killing each other too.
Off on a tangent with that now. The "big news" in "immigration" (or, alternatively, "invasion") issues are Mexicans. Or, Azteca. Funny that today's Azteca seem to claim the land that they attempted to take by way of genocide for a thousand years before the white man came. "We killed millions of Apache before you whites ever showed up, so it should be OUR land!"
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
In other words, if the Gingrich Campaign is paid up with ASCAP, they can play Eye of the Tiger all they want, even if the writers of that song disagree vehemently with Mr. Gingrinch's politics. The writers could go their own and not deal with ASCAP, which I kind of doubt they did, and hence retain more control over their works, but then they are on their own and lack ASCAP's "muscle" in getting the tithe paid.
If the Gingrich people are not paid up with ASCAP or BMI, well, some lame capitalists they are and Mr. Gingrinch doesn't deserve to run for President on account of legal ignorance.
Perhaps the creator should have demanded better compensation from the publisher when providing said work to the publisher? Or better yet, perhaps the creator shouldn't plan to make money selling copies of their work, but on actually 'creating' work.
Umm... okay, that doesn't account for the fact that some content generates revenue for years.
Yes, the issue is whether it should be locked up/monopolized by one party or allowed to the greater society for use by anyone to further expand on it.
I agree with shortening the copyright term. It's silly. However, the "it's not a real job" argument is, for lack of a better term, dumb. Cut him out of the profits generated from the content he's created and all you've done is hurt the little guy and give more money to the corps. Brilliant.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Newt Gingrich is using this song? Well, then it is clearly legally protected parody.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
You're right. Whenever someone writes a new song, we should just pay them millions of dollars up front and make it public domain immediately.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
The profit from a copy argument is still a vestige of the pre-digital days of music labels controlling everything. There are no profits from copied digital works. They cost nothing to create and and can be infinitely created. They have no value in and of themselves.
There are profits to be made from 'convenient delivery' of digital works...see iTunes. There are profits to be made using digital works to drive people to buy scarce physical things like concert tickets, t-shirts and other merchandise.
See xkcd.com. A free online comic that built up enough fans to be able to sell physical copies of something that is widely available for free. LOLCats is another site doing fairly well by providing something for free.
The little guy has never had it so good as today. The old gate keepers (RIAA/MPAA/publishers) that controlled who would be successful and who wouldn't are becoming irrelevant.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Show me any significant cost in creating a 'copy' of a digital file, that wouldn't already have been spent by the computer already being turned on. Any cost of electricity or wear on the equipment is so small as to be utterly meaningless.
Original content certainly costs money to create, but digital COPIES of that content do not cost anything to create.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Is he legally bound to ask or does he just do it to stay on everyones good side?
The only place I can see where they'd have a case is if someone decided that their blanket ASCAP license covered this and didn't get the one that applies to embedding the song in a repeated performance for branding purposes.
As soon as you attempt to associate a piece of music with a brand (Newt being the brand), blanket ASCAP doesn't apply.
He'd have similar issues if he ran up on stage wearing an LA Raiders jersey every time.