SamTherapy posted at 4:11PM Wed, 11 May 2016 - #4268833

Wolf has it right that the current trend is "Everything belongs to somebody" and the "somebodies" will try to squeeze as much cash out of it as possible.

The issue isn't always money, though; many brand owners are concerned that their products aren't used in a way they don't agree with. BBC have, on several occasions, acted to stop what they call improper use of their creations, such as the Daleks, and other Doctor Who related characters, Tom Waits has an absolute ban on any of his songs being used for any advertising, marketing or political purposes, and many bands have waded in when politicians have used their music.

Since you brought up the political aspect of it, in my mind the musicians who ask a particular politician to stop using their music is in the wrong. In most cases, these politicians have paid a blanket license fee to play whatever music they want. If the musician doesn't want, say Trump, playing his music, because he doesn't like Trump, then Hillary should also be banned from using the same music. They do have the right to exclude certain music or even their whole library from the license, but once the politician has paid, unless the musican is going to give them their money back, and they never do, (strange how that works, isn't it) they should just suck it up and be quiet. In most cases, the politician would simply stop playing the music. I wouldn't. In fact, I'd play it more, just because I could.