Queen might not have liked it, but they wouldn't have any say if the license was paid for.
If you read your own source past the headline, you'll see that the article says the same thing.
All things being equal, you wouldn't defer to bands assertions that this is true? Like, your prior is towards band management licensing songs to a xenophobic politician without the band knowing, rather than the campaign being sloppy on their licensing? Even given the reporting of Trump not paying contractors and other contract violations? That's the benefit of the doubt taken to a new extreme.
You of all people I would have expected to be more familiar with copyright and music licensing and how it all works. Now if you had said that ASCAP or BMI were accusing Trump of not paying the license fees, I would agree that benefit of the doubt probably falls on them. But you're talking about people who, due to the nature of how PROs are setup, complaining that they don't like the person who licensed it.
That's fine. They don't have to like him individually, but so long as the campaign secured the appropriate licenses from the PROs (and there are no claims that it didn't, only that individual artists with work managed by the PROs didn't like Trump using the music), then Trump and Co. are legally within their rights to use it.
1) Rolling Stones - ASCAP / BMI
2) Adele - ASCAP / BMI
3) Twisted Sister - ASCAP / BMI
4) Neil Young - ASCAP
5) Steven Tyler - ASCAP / BMI (BMI specifically for Dream On)
6) R.E.M. - ASCAP / BMI
Maybe instead of just spamming a random link, you might want to actually address the point directly. Because anyone who spends more than 30 seconds at that Raw Story link and does just the tiniest bit of research would find that the list of artists posted actually supports my point, not yours.
A quick Google search would tell you otherwise.
Actually, a quick Google search would agree with me. Perhaps you should take your own advice and google US copyright law, PROs and music licensing.
Damn boy, have you been living under a rock ?
No, I just have a basic understanding of how ASCAP/BMI blanket licensing works.
If you're going to make a smart ass quip, perhaps you should do just the tiniest bit of research on the subject first.
It's always amazing how the general public's view of copyright law and licensing seems to be colored by their like or dislike of the person using the IP.
For example, in this thread none of you seem to like the fact that the law and the standard PRO license agreements give Trump the right to use covered music. The law is on his side, but we've got a handful of posters who see Trump as a vile man, so they'll argue that he is in the wrong for using the music.
In the Star Trek Axanar thread there were folks complaining about CBS coming down on the Axanar team because it was a "fan film" and CBS should "respect the fans" despite the fact that CBS has the law on its side.
Copyright law and licensing doesn't care about morals. It is very black and white as far as rights are concerned.
Trump has done so many things worthy of criticism, focus on those. Complaining about one of the few public things that he very likely did correctly is a poor argument that is very easy for Trump supporters to knock down.
