Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Sinéad O’Connor estate calls on Donald Trump to stop using her music


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

Sinéad O’Connor’s estate has said she would have been “disgusted, hurt, and insulted” at her version of Nothing Compares 2 U being used at Donald Trump’s political rallies.

A joint statement from the late Irish singer’s estate and record label Chrysalis Records demanded the former US president “desist from using her music immediately”.

It said O’Connor, who died last July aged 56, lived by a “fierce moral code” and had previously referred to Trump as a “biblical devil”.
 
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL. I'm sure that'll stop him in his tracks.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, you can't even steal from dead people anymore!  What is this world coming to.........

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find ironic about this situation was how much Trump cried when his fellow Republicans used his name to fund raise without giving hime a cut.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Is using music from a dead singer illegal now? Serious question, it may be a copyright issue. If it's a copyright issue, maybe he's got a problem. If it's just a personal request and all the legal ducks have been set up correctly, too bad Ms O'Connor. 

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her estate doesn't own the rights.  If they cared about it they shouldn't have sold their right to say. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Is using music from a dead singer illegal now? Serious question, it may be a copyright issue. If it's a copyright issue, maybe he's got a problem. If it's just a personal request and all the legal ducks have been set up correctly, too bad Ms O'Connor. 

Someone, probably her estate I will guess, sold the rights to a publishing company probably for a fee and monthly residual payments based on listens.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Is using music from a dead singer illegal now? Serious question, it may be a copyright issue. If it's a copyright issue, maybe he's got a problem. If it's just a personal request and all the legal ducks have been set up correctly, too bad Ms O'Connor. 

Trump has a history of just stealing songs for his rallies: All The Artists Who Have Told Trump To Stop Using Their Songs At His Rallies (forbes.com)

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

Trump has a history of just stealing songs for his rallies: All The Artists Who Have Told Trump To Stop Using Their Songs At His Rallies (forbes.com)

So what? If it's not illegal he can do whatever he wants. If it is a copyright issue then I agree the musicians have the right to refuse the use of their intellectual property.  But if Trump has paid the relevant royalities, or if the royalities are not relevant to use, then Trump can do whatever he wants, and these people have no recourse, imo.

Your article doesn't answer the relevant question that I have about the use of this song. 

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Is using music from a dead singer illegal now? Serious question, it may be a copyright issue. If it's a copyright issue, maybe he's got a problem. If it's just a personal request and all the legal ducks have been set up correctly, too bad Ms O'Connor. 

O'Connor did not write the song, Prince wrote it. He owns it.

Her artistic version of the song is owned by her estate through contract with Chrysalis records. 

It's not too bad for Ms O'Conner as she is dead. Things won't get worse for her. 

Prince hated Trump too and also sent Trump cease and desist instructions for using other songs he wrote. 

What you don't seem to get are the moral and ethical issues. Not surprising. Trump like anyone can use the music and pay for any profits he may make to the estate. He can claim no direct funds from the song so he is just taking the advantage. The initial artists saying they cannot stand the man, did not write music for him and don't want to be associated. He is using it against the will of the creators. A crappy thing to do and a scummy thing to do when recently deceased. 

It just takes a prick of a person to be such a self centred ahole who enjoys insulting people like this. It should say a lot about him and his supporters.

Well, actually, it does. It says plenty. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

So what? If it's not illegal he can do whatever he wants. If it is a copyright issue then I agree the musicians have the right to refuse the use of their intellectual property.  But if Trump has paid the relevant royalities, or if the royalities are not relevant to use, then Trump can do whatever he wants, and these people have no recourse, imo.

Your article doesn't answer the relevant question that I have about the use of this song. 

It is illegal to steal copyrighted songs.   But I guess since everyone does it, it's okay for Trump too.  He hasn't paid royalties for this or any of the other songs in my previous link.

And yes, my article doesn't answer your question because it was in the OP link. It tells you that the estate and Chrysalis Records demanded that he desists from using her song.

I've got to ask, why is that your arguments hinge around an unanswered question that you always seem to have but are too lazy to answer for yourself?

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

It is illegal to steal copyrighted songs.   But I guess since everyone does it, it's okay for Trump too.  He hasn't paid royalties for this or any of the other songs in my previous link.

And yes, my article doesn't answer your question because it was in the OP link. It tells you that the estate and Chrysalis Records demanded that he desists from using her song.

I've got to ask, why is that your arguments hinge around an unanswered question that you always seem to have but are too lazy to answer for yourself?

 

Gromdor, I demand you delete post #11 in this thread. 

Now, does the existence of my demand give any onus on you to remove it, or does this demand suggest I have a right to demand it? 

Just because Ms O'Connor's estate "demanded" it, it does not mean that they have a legal right to demand it, nor does it mean that Trump has any obligation to follow it. Maybe it does, and if so great - they are exercising their copyright rights as owners. I respect that. 

But if the royalties are either already paid or use of the song is considered free to all, then the artist has already been paid for their work and has no right to deny its use just because they disagree with the person using it. 

Like I said, I honestly don't know whether this is just an informal request by the O'Connor Estate or a legal demand. If it is a legal demand and they have the right to demand it I 100% stand behind their rights and agree that Trump should stop using intellectual property that he has no legal access to. If they are just whinging because they don't like the person using their music but have no legal recourse to complain then I have no sympathy for them and Trump can do whatever he wants. 

One of these outcomes will be true, and I'm honestly comfortable with both, regardless of how it plays out. 

Edited by Paranoid Android
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Gromdor, I demand you delete post #11 in this thread. 

Now, does the existence of my demand give any onus on you to remove it, or does this demand suggest I have a right to demand it? 

Just because Ms O'Connor's estate "demanded" it, it does not mean that they have a legal right to demand it, nor does it mean that Trump has any obligation to follow it. Maybe it does, and if so great - they are exercising their copyright rights as owners. I respect that. 

But if the royalties are either already paid or use of the song is considered free to all, then the artist has already been paid for their work and has no right to deny its use just because they disagree with the person using it. 

Like I said, I honestly don't know whether this is just an informal request by the O'Connor Estate or a legal demand. If it is a legal demand and they have the right to demand it I 100% stand behind their rights and agree that Trump should stop using intellectual property that he has no legal access to. If they are just whinging because they don't like the person using their music but have no legal recourse to complain then I have no sympathy for them and Trump can do whatever he wants. 

One of these outcomes will be true, and I'm honestly comfortable with both, regardless of how it plays out. 

If you owned my post you could do just that and I would comply.

I am skeptical of your statement that you would honor their copyright rights as an owner as you are literally here on this thread casting doubts on whether the record label even has that right- when clearly they do.

 

In the past, I was honestly bewildered on why the song "Happy Birthday" was copyrighted and why even restaraunts and places couldn't sing it: Happy Birthday Song Copyright Lawsuit: The Strange History of a Song | TIME

But seeing people like Trump abuse other people's songs without care, compensation, or remorse has kinda made me understand.  He's that one douche-bag that takes everything too far, forces people to crack down, and ruins it for everyone else.

He's the guy that forces people to go to court and makes it into such a big (and legal) issue that the end result is a big hammer.

And yet he cries like a baby when someone profits off the Trump name.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Gromdor said:

If you owned my post you could do just that and I would comply.

I am skeptical of your statement that you would honor their copyright rights as an owner as you are literally here on this thread casting doubts on whether the record label even has that right- when clearly they do.

So I tell you 100% that if it's a copyright issue then so be it, and you don't believe me. Good to know where your biases are. 

 

7 hours ago, Gromdor said:

In the past, I was honestly bewildered on why the song "Happy Birthday" was copyrighted and why even restaraunts and places couldn't sing it: Happy Birthday Song Copyright Lawsuit: The Strange History of a Song | TIME

But seeing people like Trump abuse other people's songs without care, compensation, or remorse has kinda made me understand.  He's that one douche-bag that takes everything too far, forces people to crack down, and ruins it for everyone else.

He's the guy that forces people to go to court and makes it into such a big (and legal) issue that the end result is a big hammer.

And yet he cries like a baby when someone profits off the Trump name.

Allow me another way of looking at it. This is the statement released by Ms O'Connor's estate: 

Quote

 

“Throughout her life, it is well known that Sinéad O’Connor lived by a fierce moral code defined by honesty, kindness, fairness, and decency towards her fellow human beings.

“It was with outrage therefore that we learned that Donald Trump has been using her iconic performance of Nothing Compares 2 U at his political rallies.

“It is no exaggeration to say that Sinéad would have been disgusted, hurt and insulted to have her work misrepresented in this way by someone who she herself referred to as a ‘biblical devil’.

“As the guardians of her legacy, we demand that Donald Trump and his associates desist from using her music immediately.”

 

What does it mean to be "the guardians of her legacy"? Is that a legal term or a sentimental one? 

Why does the text not say "Mr Trump is illegally using copyrighted material and we demand the removal of the artwork, demand compensation for the use of the music for the time it was, and this must be done within 7 Business Days or legal proceedings will be brought against Mr Trump and his associates for the illegal use of this copyrighted material"?  

I'm not saying you're wrong, and if so then so be it (despite your allegations to the contrary, I really don't care if it turns out to be a copyright issue) but I've not seen a single indication that the O'Connor estate has any legal authority to demand what they have demanded! There is no legalese in the statement, and without any legalese it's impossible to know whether they have any legal right. 

 

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

So I tell you 100% that if it's a copyright issue then so be it, and you don't believe me. Good to know where your biases are. 

 

Allow me another way of looking at it. This is the statement released by Ms O'Connor's estate: 

What does it mean to be "the guardians of her legacy"? Is that a legal term or a sentimental one? 

Why does the text not say "Mr Trump is illegally using copyrighted material and we demand the removal of the artwork, demand compensation for the use of the music for the time it was, and this must be done within 7 Business Days or legal proceedings will be brought against Mr Trump and his associates for the illegal use of this copyrighted material"?  

I'm not saying you're wrong, and if so then so be it (despite your allegations to the contrary, I really don't care if it turns out to be a copyright issue) but I've not seen a single indication that the O'Connor estate has any legal authority to demand what they have demanded! There is no legalese in the statement, and without any legalese it's impossible to know whether they have any legal right. 

 

Eh, I don't know about in Austrailia but in the US a "Cease and Desist" letter is considered a legal demand. Sinead O'Connor's Estate Gives Trump a Cease and Desist (msn.com)

And just out of curiosity, where are you even getting the hairbrained idea that the record company and her estate doesn't have the copyright for her song?  Is it something you just arbitrarily decided?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gromdor said:

Eh, I don't know about in Austrailia but in the US a "Cease and Desist" letter is considered a legal demand. Sinead O'Connor's Estate Gives Trump a Cease and Desist (msn.com)

And just out of curiosity, where are you even getting the hairbrained idea that the record company and her estate doesn't have the copyright for her song?  Is it something you just arbitrarily decided?

 

I'm not saying they don't have the copyright. But since they aren't complaining about copyright, have you considered that Trump paid the appropriate fees for the use of her song, the company accepted payment, not realising it was a Trump rally the payment was made for, and now they are upset and want it removed. 

I'm not saying that's what happened either, but there's literally not enough information in the available press releases. I've looked at half a dozen different articles, all of them quote the same text I quoted above, none of them suggest that Trump's team did anything illegal. Unless I receive something more solid than that, I have no evidence that Trump did this illegally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paranoid Android said:

I'm not saying they don't have the copyright. But since they aren't complaining about copyright, have you considered that Trump paid the appropriate fees for the use of her song, the company accepted payment, not realising it was a Trump rally the payment was made for, and now they are upset and want it removed. 

I'm not saying that's what happened either, but there's literally not enough information in the available press releases. I've looked at half a dozen different articles, all of them quote the same text I quoted above, none of them suggest that Trump's team did anything illegal. Unless I receive something more solid than that, I have no evidence that Trump did this illegally. 

They gave a "cease and desist".  What more do you need.  Trump has not paid the appropriate fees.  I'm telling you flat out.

It has been reported with regularity how he just steals the music without permission or any fees.  Heck, Trump doesn't pay for half the things that he has taken- City police protection, lawyer's fees, contractors pay.  He's proud of ripping people off.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

They gave a "cease and desist".  What more do you need.  Trump has not paid the appropriate fees.  I'm telling you flat out.

It has been reported with regularity how he just steals the music without permission or any fees.  Heck, Trump doesn't pay for half the things that he has taken- City police protection, lawyer's fees, contractors pay.  He's proud of ripping people off.

Gromdor, I demand you cease and desist posting in this thread. 

Ok, what more do you need, I've said it so my authority is good, right? This is the same level of argumentation you are using. There is no indication that Ms O'Connor's estate has a right to ask what they have (and just in case it's not clear, I don't have any right to ask you to cease posting), and since they aren't discussing copyright, the implication is that Trump paid the relevant copyright fees. I'm happy to be proven wrong, and if so I will shrug my shoulders and say "ok, who cares, move on". But reading between the lines, the implication is that Trump had the legal right to do what he did and Ms O'Connor's estate are just whinging hacks who are upset that someone they didn't like used a song that has made them millions of dollars. 

Surely if they had copyright and Trump didn't get it that they would ask for royalties to be paid! That they aren't suggests that royalties already have been paid! Like I said, maybe I'm wrong on that. If I am, who cares. Contrary to your assertion, if Trump used that music without the legal authority I do 100% support the right of Ms O'Connor's estate to act. 

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Gromdor, I demand you cease and desist posting in this thread. 

Ok, what more do you need, I've said it so my authority is good, right? This is the same level of argumentation you are using. There is no indication that Ms O'Connor's estate has a right to ask what they have (and just in case it's not clear, I don't have any right to ask you to cease posting), and since they aren't discussing copyright, the implication is that Trump paid the relevant copyright fees. I'm happy to be proven wrong, and if so I will shrug my shoulders and say "ok, who cares, move on". But reading between the lines, the implication is that Trump had the legal right to do what he did and Ms O'Connor's estate are just whinging hacks who are upset that someone they didn't like used a song that has made them millions of dollars. 

Surely if they had copyright and Trump didn't get it that they would ask for royalties to be paid! That they aren't suggests that royalties already have been paid! Like I said, maybe I'm wrong on that. If I am, who cares. Contrary to your assertion, if Trump used that music without the legal authority I do 100% support the right of Ms O'Connor's estate to act. 

Are you drunk?  Where are you even getting the idea that her estate and the record company don't have a right to send a "Cease and Desist" letter?  

Here's a news flash, they do have the right and they did.... Trump Faces New Legal Action: a Cease and Desist Letter from Sinead O'Connor's Estate | Watch (msn.com)

Your arguments aren't even based in reality, but in some delusion that someone else owns the rights to her song and that unless they phrase a cease and desist letter in language you personally accept, it's not vaild.

  • Like 4
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Are you drunk?  Where are you even getting the idea that her estate and the record company don't have a right to send a "Cease and Desist" letter?  

If Trump paid the royalties then Trump legally used their music, whether they knew it was him paying for it when he used it.

 

32 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Ok, can you quote where the video host said that Trump broke the law or that Ms O'Connor's estate is suing for copyright claims? I couldn't hear any. In fact, the video host goes out of their way to point out all the moral issues that Ms O'Connor has with Trump and..... well, that's literally all it does. Can you cite the relevant quote in this video where it shows Trump illegally used the song, I've transcribed the video to help you....  

"Sinead O'Connor's estate sent a cease and desist letter demanding Donald Trump stop using her song "Nothing Compares 2 U" at his political rallies. This came after the estate learned that Trump had been playing the song, which violates O'Connor's moral code. O'Connor was a vocal critic of Trump and called him the biblical devil in past interviews. She passionately criticised his policy separating families at the border and felt he was unfit for office. O'Connor's estate joins many other artists who have banned Trump from using their music at rallies. Trump is currently campaigning for the 2024 Republican nomination as he eyes a potential rematch with Joe Biden".

In fact, arguably this video is more clear than any other article, as the REASONS for the cease and desist are laid out - and it's because of Ms O'Connor's moral views on Trump, not because of copyright. 

 

32 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Your arguments aren't even based in reality, but in some delusion that someone else owns the rights to her song and that unless they phrase a cease and desist letter in language you personally accept, it's not vaild.

I'm not saying it's not valid. I'm saying there is no evidence that it is valid, and if it was valid the letter would likely be written in a different way. But I also realise that this is based on contextual reading and so I may be wrong, and if I am it really doesn't matter - whether Trump used a song or not at a rally really isn't anywhere near the top of my list of important issues. 

Edit: and just so we're 100% clear, I'm not arguing someone else somehow owns the copyright. The song is a cover song, so technically Prince owns something, but this particular rendition is owned by her. But if Trump paid for its use, then it's not illegal, even if the estate has moral issues with Trump. 

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Something to consider, I've been doing some research, and it turns out  Trump almost certainly had legal access to Ms O'Connor's music:

 

Quote

Can Artists Prevent Politicians from Using Their Music?

President Donald Trump and numerous other politicians have been warned by multiple musicians to stop using their music at rallies, in videos and in campaign advertising. The question is, do politicians have the legal right to play the songs? The answer is not clear cut.

 

Artists rarely have full control over where and when their music can be played. The writer or writers of a song automatically receive copyright for their original creation, and U.S. copyright statutes prohibit the dissemination of copyrighted work online without permission. If a politician uses a song in an online video without approval, the copyright holder(s) can file for a copyright violation.

 

If a song is played in a public venue like a stadium or arena that has a public performance license, no permission is needed. The license is typically granted through a songwriters’ association like the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) or Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI). Even so, ASCAP recommends that political campaigns seek permission from the musicians or songwriters, as these licenses exclude music played during conventions or campaign events.

Feel free to read the whole article at your liesure. The third paragraph quoted mentions specifically that venues have broad licensing and could theoretically be used, however it also says that campaign events are explicitly excluded, so that may not be the most appropriate.

The "money paragraph" is a little bit lower, and quoted below for reference: 

Quote

However, savvy campaign managers typically purchase the rights to play music in public for their events. These licenses grant broad access to thousands of songs which a politician can use at rallies and conventions, as long as the music is not used digitally without permission. If an artist's song is part of the licensing agreement and is played at a campaign event, they have traditionally had little legal recourse outside of sending a cease and desist letter.

Look at that - "they have traditionally had little legal recourse outside of sending a cease and desist letter", and clearly the only action Ms O'Connor's estate has taken is to send a cease and desist letter - a cease and desist letter that made no mention of the action being illegal, only highlighting how much of a moral problem it is for the artist. 

There's more in the article, including the recourses that Ms O'Connor does have if Trump's campaign did in fact buy the rights to her music. But I am happy with this available information that Trump did in fact have the legal right to play this music, even if the estate disagrees. Chrysalis Records can whinge all they like, Trump has a legal right to play the music his campaign legally paid for, even if it goes against the morals of the artist. If Chrysalis Records wishes to argue that it may be misconstrued as O'Connor endorsing Trump, then they can take it to court and force Trump to stop. Until then, don't expect Trump to take it seriously.

Sounds like my comments aren't as "hairbrained" as some seem to think :no: 

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Nothing compares to you? What an ego. It's not true either. 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcShiEtguZ_rT2bw4ERH1-a

Apparently decency and respect is something trumpers just don't understand. No wonder they don't see anything wrong here. 

Sinead O'Connor ignites Twitter storm for saying she hopes COVID 'takes' Donald Trump

 

She really didn't like him at all. I'm was never a fan of hers either but I get why he really is being a jerk here. Seems to be beyond some. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Feel free to read the whole article at your liesure.

@Gromdor and others reading along, I was reading through this thread and realised I didn't quote the source of that article in my post I quoted, which I've rectified with this hyperlink thingy.

Thanks for being patient, it wasn't intentional 🤗

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

@Gromdor and others reading along, I was reading through this thread and realised I didn't quote the source of that article in my post I quoted, which I've rectified with this hyperlink thingy.

Thanks for being patient, it wasn't intentional 🤗

I think your link sums it up nicely.  Trump does not pay for the use for quite possibly the reason why your article says:

"Arguments also can be raised through the Lanham Act, the law governing trademarks. Under the Lanham Act, trademark infringement can occur if the use of a song by a politician is likely to create confusion in the marketplace that the musician endorses the politician, especially if this association harms the musician’s reputation. Aerosmith’s Steven Tyler was successful in getting Trump events to agree to stop using the band’s music when his attorney argued that the use of her client's music at Trump rallies gave consumers the false impression that Tyler supported Trump. Representatives for the singer Rihanna used similar methods to prevent Trump from using her music.

Whether due to campaign negligence or political calculation, the impact of unauthorized use can be damaging to a songwriter – but it is not always advisable to take legal action. A contentious legal confrontation can often result in more publicity for the politician than if a musician simply let the campaign continue uninterrupted."

 

Edited by Gromdor
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gromdor said:

I think your link sums it up nicely.  Trump does not pay for the use for quite possibly the reason why your article says:

"Arguments also can be raised through the Lanham Act, the law governing trademarks. Under the Lanham Act, trademark infringement can occur if the use of a song by a politician is likely to create confusion in the marketplace that the musician endorses the politician, especially if this association harms the musician’s reputation. Aerosmith’s Steven Tyler was successful in getting Trump events to agree to stop using the band’s music when his attorney argued that the use of her client's music at Trump rallies gave consumers the false impression that Tyler supported Trump. Representatives for the singer Rihanna used similar methods to prevent Trump from using her music.

Whether due to campaign negligence or political calculation, the impact of unauthorized use can be damaging to a songwriter – but it is not always advisable to take legal action. A contentious legal confrontation can often result in more publicity for the politician than if a musician simply let the campaign continue uninterrupted."

 

Cool. Are you in agreement they Trump legally paid for the rights to the song? Or am I still drunk?

Once we've agreed that Trump's team paid for the song we can start a distemper argument about whether the O'Connor Estate has a legal chance of winning under the Lanham Act, or whether they'll just be the music equivalent of the Streisand Effect. That's a completely separate discussion than the one we've been having so far!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.