US Musicians Can’t Control Where Their Recordings Are Played
In 1948, 20th Century Fox (Fox) used excerpts from works by Dmitri Shostakovich, Sergei Prokofiev, Aram Khachaturian, and Nikolai Myaskovsky in the film The Iron Curtain. Fox obtained licenses for use with the recording company but did not obtain the consent of the composers.
The composers filed a lawsuit in New York, claiming the film, which dramatized the 1945 defection of a Soviet cipher clerk, claiming that that film's use of their music misrepresented their works and associated them with anti-Soviet propaganda. The court dismissed the case, stating that the composers' works were in the public domain in the United States. The court also noted that unlike in many European countries, US copyright law does not recognize composers’ moral rights.
Unfortunately, US law in this area hasn’t changed in the last 75 years. Musicians still have limited control over how or when their music is performed. This article discusses recent situations where musicians couldn't stop their music from being played at political rallies and in other contexts they didn’t support.
Why US Musicians Can't Stop Their Recordings from Being Played in Venues They Don’t Support
US copyright law gives musicians the exclusive right to perform their music publicly. So, music can’t be performed at a concert, on the radio, in a store, at the gym, or at a political or other gathering without the copyright owner’s approval, which usually involves payment of a royalty to the musician.
However, musicians’ royalties are administered through a blanket licensing system employed by performance rights organizations (PROs), such as ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. These PROs issue blanket licenses to anyone who applies for one, and it’s common for broadcasters, businesses, and event organizers to obtain licenses to perform any song into the PRO's catalog. Artists receive royalties through the PRO.
The US system’s use of PROs to license music is efficient and enables widespread access to music at the cost of artist control over the use of their recordings. Once an artist's music is in the PRO's catalog, they essentially give up the right to dictate when and where their music will be played.
US law recognizes “moral rights” for visual artworks under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA), which I discussed in a previous article, How Artists’ Moral Rights May Affect Your Real Estate. However, VARA doesn't apply to musicians. So, unlike visual artists, musicians can’t block the use of their work in environments they find offensive or harmful. Without these protections in the US, musicians cannot prevent their songs from being used in political events, advertisements, or public performances that conflict with their values.
Examples of Musician Objections to the Use of Their Recordings
Rihanna and Celine Dion and the Trump Campaign
In 2018, pop superstar Rihanna objected to the Trump campaign’s use of her hit "Don't Stop the Music," which was played as campaign workers tossed T-shirts to the crowd at a Tennessee rally. A journalist attending the rally tweeted about the surreal moment, prompting Rihanna to respond: “Not for much longer… me nor my people would ever be at or around one of those tragic rallies.”
Rihanna’s team issued a cease-and-desist letter. However, the Trump campaign had a blanket performance license from BMI, which allowed it to play the song. BMI then changed its policy and offered artists the option to withdraw songs from political event licenses. After Rihanna removed her songs from the “blanked political license” category, the Trump campaign could no longer play her songs.
Celine Dion had a similar experience in 2024 when Trump played her song “My Heart Will Go On.” Dion responded on social media, “In no way is this use authorized, and Celine Dion does not endorse this or any similar use.” Poking fun at the campaign’s section of a song associated with the movie Titanic, about one of the most publicized failures and tragedies in history, Dion added, “…And really, THAT song?”
Other Musicians’ Objections to Use of Their Recordings by Political Campaigns
The Trump campaign isn't the first to receive a cease and desist letter from a musician who objected to the campaign's use of their music. In 1984, Bruce Springsteen objected to Ronald Reagan’s use of “Born in the USA.” ABBA objected to John McCain’s campaign’s use of “Take a Chance on Me,” and the campaign voluntarily stopped using the song.
Jackson Browne sued the McCain campaign for using the song “Running on Empty” to mock Obama’s position on gasoline consumption, and the campaign publicly apologized and paid Browne a settlement. However, Bon Jovi didn't have the same luck stopping McCain from using its song "Who Says You Can't Go Home."
Twisted Sister and the Anti-Vaccine Movement
In 2021, Twisted Sister’s hit “We’re Not Gonna Take It” was used as a rallying cry by anti-vaccine and anti-mask protestors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Crowds at rallies chanted the lyrics and played the song over loudspeakers as part of their demonstrations against government health mandates. In one instance, a flash mob played the song in a Florida Target store while violating a mask mandate. Twisted Sister's Dee Snider publicly condemned the use, calling the protest "moronic," but could not stop the use. Notably, Snider had previously objected to the Mitt Romney campaign’s use of the same song.
The Beatles and Nike
In 1987, the Beatles' hit recording of “Revolution” was licensed to Nike for use in a commercial. Nike obtained the required licenses after an extensive discussion with the license owner about the advertisement's content. One reason permission was granted is because Nike had said its backup plan was to have another band record the Beatles' music, which would have been permissible since Nike also had obtained a license to use the song for advertisement. However, the Beatles objected to their recordings being used for commercial purposes. So, the Nike ad was the only time the license holder authorized a Beatles recording to be used in an advertisement.
Musicians Have Little Recourse if They Disagree with How their Recordings are Used
The Beatles example reminds musicians and advertisers that multiple copyrights can be involved when music is performed. Nike sought both the right to use the song “Revolution” and the right to play the Beatles’ recording of the song. In that instance, Nike obtained both licenses.
However, if Nike hadn’t obtained the right to use the Beatles’ recording, Nike could have hired a cover band to record “Revolution” and used that recording instead of the original Beatles one. As long as the cover band had a license to record the song and the cover band’s recording wasn’t misattributed to the Beatles, the Beatles would have been helpless to object under US law.
As long as a recording isn’t used in a manner that inaccurately indicates a musician supports the political cause or product, under the US system, the musician has little control over how their recordings are used. BMI now allows musicians to opt out of all political use of their recordings, but recordings still can be used in a commercial setting that doesn’t align with the musicians’ values.
The only “remedies” musicians have are to have attorneys send cease and desist letters and to publicize their objections on social media, through public statements, and via news outlets. Depending on public reaction, these actions might incentivize an organization to stop using the musician’s recordings.
However, there remains little a musician can do under US law to control the use of their recordings. Unless US law changes to grant musicians moral rights similar to those enjoyed by visual artists under VARA, musicians will continue to be confronted with the use of their recordings by organizations or in contexts that do not align with their values, brand, or political positions.
© 2025 by Elizabeth A. Whitman
Any references to clients and their legal situations have been modified to protect client confidentiality.
DISCLAIMER: The content of this blog is for informational purposes only and does not provide legal advice to any person. No one should take any action regarding the information in this blog without first seeking the advice of an attorney. Neither reading this blog nor communication with Whitman Legal Solutions, LLC or Elizabeth A. Whitman creates an attorney-client relationship. No attorney-client relationship will exist with Whitman Legal Solutions, LLC or any attorney affiliated with it unless a written contract is signed by all parties.