Recent media reports indicate that David Byrne [of Talking Heads fame] sued former Florida governor Charlie Crist for $1 million on the basis that Crist did not seek permission to use Byrne’s “Road To Nowhere” in his US Senate campaign against Marco Rubio.
The matter appears to have now amicably reached closure, however it warrants discussion as to how Byrne may have reacted to a formal request to license the song in question:
1. If formally approached, would David Byrne have agreed to license “Road To Nowhere” for Charlie Crist’s political campaign?
2. If the answer was “Yes”, what would Byrne have sought in dollar terms for his license fee?
3. If the answer was “No’, what was Byrne’s rationale for the license rejection?
I have always viewed the art of writing songs in the same perspective as that of an inventor of a new machine, patent et al. It only makes sense that if you invent “something”, and it is party to public consumption, then you are entitled to seek some form of compensation for the ongoing use of your invention.
Let’s analyse David Byrne’s song writing career for one moment. “Road To Nowhere” was one of a handful of “commercial” songs released by Talking Heads in the mid-1980’s. Byrne’s solo career is a tad more esoteric these days, thus one would assume that his song writing royalties from Talking Heads’ halcyon days would represent the bulk of his present annual royalty statements. From a financial perspective, one would assume that it is in Byrne’s best interests to exploit his Talking Heads back catalogue.
Asides from having a staunch objection to Charlie Crist’s government policies, is there any meaningful rationale as to why Byrne would have rejected a license? “Road To Nowhere” has been public property since 1985. The song has a different meaning to each and every listener [and most likely a different meaning to the writer’s inspiration for the song], however this is what writing, recording & releasing songs to the general public is all about. Whilst legal ownership of the song remains with its creator [or to be legally precise, the song’s publisher], the song in itself lends itself to the public the moment that it is released. In general, the positive aspects of this point are multiple, including financial rewards and critical adulation!!
In an ironic sense, Crist’s illegal use of “Road To Nowhere” [and the subsequent media coverage of the incident] has most likely worked to Byrne’s favour. It is unknown as to whether Crist paid Byrne a financial settlement for closure of the matter, however publicity of this event shall generate a spike in mp3 and CD sales of “Road To Nowhere” and Talking Heads CDs in general.
If Crist had legally paid “market rates” for the song license, would the flow-on effect of song writer royalties to Byrne have been as large as they will be on the back of the subsequent media coverage? I guess not!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
“Road To Nowhere” has been public property since 1985.
ReplyDeleteNo.
It in fact remains a considerable distance from entering public domain. We will need to wait until Byrne's demise even before we begin counting the years towards that status.
In the meantime, it is clear that he has smartly NOT waived his moral rights and, indeed, exercises them willingly.
Your confusion between economic rights and moral rights in copyright law is something I recommend you remedy.