Axl Rose: Guns N' Roses has told Trump not to play our music at his rallies

[Judi Lynn]

Source: The Hill


BY MORGAN GSTALTER - 11/04/18 06:20 PM EST

Guns N' Roses frontman Axl Rose tore into President Trump on Sunday night for playing their music at his political rallies after they formally requested him not to.

Rose took to Twitter to vent his frustrations about his music being played at Trump-associated events.

"Unfortunately the Trump campaign is using loopholes in the various venues’ blanket performance licenses which were not intended for such craven political purposes, without the songwriters’ consent," Rose wrote. "Can u say “shitbags?!”

Several musicians have instructed Trump not to use his songs during his rallies, including Aerosmith's Steven Tyler, Twisted Sister, Elton John and members of Prince's estate.

Read more: https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/414810-axl-rose-guns-n-roses-has-told-trump-not-to-play-our-music-at

[True Dough]

1. This has happened with several musical acts

Trumpy shows disregard for them all!

[keithbvadu2]

2. When someone uses your intellectual property or image without your permission, it should be legal to

When someone uses your intellectual property or image without your permission, it should be legal to use theirs for whatever purpose you wish.

[former9thward]

13. They gave their permission.

They signed a contract to give up their music rights for money. This is just meaningless PR by the band.

[keithbvadu2]

15. They specifically gave Trump the rights to use their music?

They specifically gave Trump the rights to use their music?

[GumboYaYa]

3. GNR hates Trump.

Richard Fortus, one of the guitar players in the band, is a friend of ours. Those guys despise Trump.

[SergeStorms]

4. Don't mess with Axl, Trump.

He will fuck your shit up!

[BigmanPigman]

5. I believe you need to have permission to play their songs.

If not, they can be fined or sued until they stop.

[Calista241]

10. The labels actually license the venue, and the venue has the ability to play their songs.

These cease and desists are just for public show, and they can't force Trump, or any other politician, to do anything. The venues typically have a license that declares them a 'performance rights organization', and they can play whatever music they want.

As long as Trump keeps throwing his rallies at these venues with this license, he can play what he wants.

It might be better for people to start boycotting venues that make time for Trump. If we stoped going to concerts and sporting events at these domes and stadiums, they might think twice before booking Trump and his 30k fans next time.

[Bengus81]

11. Yeah,except many of them are just an airplane hanger or a high school gym just a few days ago...

I thought it had to do with the label or the recording industry being able to let a POS like Trump license the right to use Rolling Stone music as long as he pays the fee. I remember long ago artists like Aerosmith being really PO about this.

[Flaleftist]

6. Are there any musicians besides Ted Nugent who would approve of Trump using their music.

My apologies for referring to Nugent as a musician and calling what he makes music.

[mr_lebowski]

8. Skid Jock ... errr I mean Kid Rock I'm sure would ... (nt)

[ck4829]

7. K&R

[The Mouth]

9. I has everything to do with the mechanical license

If the proper license has been purchased, the artist can say very little, IIRC.

It wasn't Heart that 'gave permission' to Sarah Palin, the license to use the music was paid to the publisher by a campaign. Likewise, if the Trump campaign has purchased the rights to use that music for that time period for that purpose, Axel's S.O.L.

*Some* contracts allow the artist to have a say, but if you've sold the rights, you're hosed.

[LiberalLovinLug]

12. I wish congress would propose a law that even if musicians have signed away their rights

to music companies, that a special provision should be allowed that if a song is to be used for political purposes, they need to have their permission first.

[former9thward]

14. The bands are free to put that in the contracts they sign.

Why would they need Congress? They have excellent lawyers who know how to do that stuff. They would rather make money than limit the use of their music.

[LiberalLovinLug]

16. I guess I was thinking more of Congress because it would take a law to stop it.

It should be another inalienable right. That the work of any artist, be it music, painting, writing etc..should, no matter what their contract says, have final say in how their art is used. So that in effect, big music companies would still be able to make a lot of money on reuse of the music they hold rights to, but there would be a required clause when it came to political rallies and events where the original artist must approve of that. So that it would not even come up in artist / company negotiations.