# Don Henley battles Republicans over YouTube video



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

*Don Henley battles Republicans over YouTube video*

by Greg Sandoval

YouTube has become the battleground in a copyright fight between singer *Don Henley* and a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in California.

Henley, one of the founders of rock group The Eagles, has filed a lawsuit accusing Senate candidate *Charles DeVore* of violating his copyright. DeVore allegedly used two of Henley's hit songs "The Boys of Summer" and "All She Wants to Do Is Dance" in two YouTube campaign videos without authorization.

"Don Henley and Mike Campbell (Henley's producer) brought this action to protect their song, 'The Boys of Summer,' which was taken and used without their permission," Henley's spokesman told CNN. "The infringers have vowed to continue exploiting this and other copyrighted works, as it suits them, to further their own ambitions and agenda. It was necessary to file a lawsuit to stop them."

DeVore, who used Henley's music to attack opponent Sen. Barbara Boxer, maintains he is authorized to use the music as part of his First Amendment right to political free speech.

"We're responding with a counter-claim, asserting our First Amendment right to political free speech," DeVore said on his site. "While the legal issues play out, it's time to up the ante on Mr. Henley's liberal goon tactics. By popular request, I have penned the words to our new parody song."

Leading up to the lawsuit, YouTube had removed DeVore's videos at Henley's request. DeVore then challenged Henley's claims and the videos went back up. YouTube informed Henley that it would only again remove the clips if he filed a lawsuit.

This isn't the first time a Republican has been accused of violating copyright for using music without authorization. Singer Jackson Browne 



 against former Republican presidential nominee John McCain for allegedly using the song "Running on Empty" to attack Barack Obama in a campaign video.


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2009)

DANG, I'm disappointed by the story because when I first saw the headline all I saw was, *"Don Henly battles. . . ."

*I was hoping that the rest of the sentence would say, *". . . fast-moving fatal illness."

*


----------



## 7costanza (Aug 29, 2006)

Jeepy...im not up on much Don Henley ....why dont you like him?


----------



## kttref (Oct 5, 2004)

...I like the Eagles.


----------



## Johnny Law (Aug 8, 2008)

7costanza said:


> Jeepy...im not up on much Don Henley ....why dont you like him?


 Because he's obviously liberal. I like Joe Walsh better than Henley anyway.


----------



## 7costanza (Aug 29, 2006)

I guess with a little looking I found out,..

Snake Wise: DON HENLEY'S RICH LIBERAL ELITISM


----------



## Pats2009 (Aug 24, 2007)

Johnny Law said:


> Because he's obviously liberal. I like Joe Walsh better than Henley anyway.


+1


----------



## rg1283 (Sep 14, 2005)

Why is everyone I like or remotely like as a singer always a liberal? Whatever that is what Conservative Talk radio is for.


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

If these 'artists' don't want their music used, then don't release it to the public. Once it's out in the public sphere, then who ever pays the fee should be able to use it, and the artist can then STFU (as they have been payed).

Eff them...they made money from people of all political persuasions for their 'art'. As long as the fees are payed, they should have zero say in how the music is used.

Anybody notice how it's always the bolsheviks that whine about this?

And I agree with Johnny Law...Walsh is better any day. The James Gang rules!


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Legally, if you take copywritten music and use it in any other form of media (TV, movies, etc.) you have to negotiate the terms of it's use (usually a one-time fee) in the form of a "sync license". The copyright holder/music publisher has to agree to the terms and is usually to be paid what they wish. Led Zeppelin, for example, until recently notoriously guarded their catalog and rarely agreed to sync licenses; that's why their stuff is in so few movies, TV, and compilation releases. 

There are some exceptions where the copyright holder is compelled by law to issue a sync license (aptly called a "compulsory license"); most frequently seen in PBS broadcasts and re-recorded cover versions (just as long as the song has been recorded and released at least once before; for example, Jimi Hendrix never would have to get Bob Dylan's permission to cover "All Along The Watchtower".) 

If they also wanted to use the version Henley himself recorded (as opposed to a cover band's performance) they'd also have to get a master licnese to use that as well. Hence why Guitar Hero is full of covers; this is how the game company cicumvents having to negotiate one of the two licenses.

While it's obvious Henley's doing this to be a liberal douche, he well within his rights as the copyright holder and recording artist to prevent his works' usage.


----------



## dcs2244 (Jan 29, 2004)

I understand the "sync license" thing, but it was my understanding that during the last presidential campaign, the licenses were obtained by Sarah and whatsisname and they STILL BITCHED! "WAH, that's my art! I don't want it used by the evil Rethuglicans! Wah!" Or words to that effect. 

Like I said, if you put it in the public sphere, then it should be fair game for anybody to use...AS LONG AS THEY PAY! Period. They can agree to that or keep their 'art' to themselves...and not make any income from it. Sorry, just my $.02...


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

dcs2244 said:


> Like I said, if you put it in the public sphere, then it should be fair game for anybody to use...AS LONG AS THEY PAY! Period. They can agree to that or keep their 'art' to themselves...and not make any income from it.


So...how much do they pay? The sync license fosters that negotiation.

If the candidate really wanted to use the song, all he'd have to do is have a band cover it and pay the mechincals.

dcs, I do see your point, but IMO, artists in the industry have very little control over their music as it is. I have no problem with artists exercising the limited control they still have over their own intellectual property.

Most likely, the McCain/Palin campaign negotiated a sync with the artist's publishing company. Artists usually sell 50% or more of their copyright stake to a publishing company which in return promotes their work for just such ventures like TV and movies. An industry gorilla like Henley probably owns his own publishing company, therefore in effect still owns 100% of his copyrights.


----------

