Joe Walsh (famous guitarist) teaches Joe Walsh (Republican candidate) about copyright law

By Eriq Gardner

Another musician is claiming that a political candidate is tone deaf to the nation's intellectual property laws. And this one has an amusing twist.

Joe Walsh of the Eagles isn't happy that a Republican congressional candidate in Illinois has co-opted his song "Walk Away" and added silly new lyrics. The candidate's name? Also Joe Walsh.

Now Peter Paterno, the musician's LA-based lawyer, has sent a laugh-out-loud letter to the politician, demanding he cease using the song.

The letter begins by schooling politician Joe Walsh that it "might be beneficial" for him to learn a thing or two about the United States Copyright Act:

"It says a lot of things, but one of the things it says is that you can't use someone else's song for your political campaign promotion unless you get permission from the owner of the copyright in the song. As far as we can tell you didn't do that. Maybe you got so busy with the campaign that you just forgot. But that's not OK.

Second, under that same United States Copyright Act, you're not allowed to take someone's song and change the lyrics. This is not to say you're not allowed to write silly lyrics, you just have to write them to your own music. Now, I know why you used Joe's music -- it's undoubtedly because it's a lot better than any music you or your staff could have written. But that's the point. Since Joe writes better songs than you do, the Copryright Act rewards him by letting him decide who gets to use the songs he writes."

Then the letter gets pretty interesting in its discussion of trademark issues. Because the two guys share the same name, Paterno mentions the public could be confused as to the source of material or whether there's an endorsement being made. The letter continues:

"Given that your name is Joe Walsh, I'd think you'd want to be extra careful about using Joe's music in case the public might think that Joe is endorsing your campaign, or, God forbid, is you."

Here's the complete letter. 

Joe Walsh v. Joe Walsh follows a litany of legal disputes between musicians and Republican politicians over the past year. Earlier this year, John McCain had to apologize to Jackson Brown as part of a settlement over the presidential candidate's use of "Running on Empty" in his campaign. Joe Walsh's "Eagles" bandmate, Don Henley, is also battling with Congressional candidate Charles DeVore over the use of songs in a campaign.

UPDATE: Candidate Walsh's campaign manager is defending the song to the Lake County News-Sun: "Obviously, it's not using the original Joe Walsh lyrics or anything," he said.

Comments

[AreaMan]

Since Joe writes better songs than you do, the Copryright Act rewards him by letting him decide who gets to use the songs he writes."

Not so fast there shyster...the Copyright Act is not set up to protect "better" music. If that were the case then none of Joe Walsh's music would be protected.

[coma]

rofl. AreaMan misses points.

[RealityChuck]

The campaign manager is an idiot. The candidate not allowed to use the >music< without permission for an advertisement. Otherwise, ads could use instrumental versions of any song they wished. The candidate can write any words he wants, but if he uses Joe Walsh's music in an advertisement, he's obligated by law to get permission.

[Matt Wilkerson]

People in charge of writing our copyright laws not understanding or obeying current copyright laws. This isn't news.

[Babs]

Irving Berlin et al. v. E.C. Publications, Inc. would says that if the song is a parody it may be legally permitted by law. Parody is what it seems to be, but with a politician one never knows.

[AreaMan]

No, I got the point. I was just trying (and apparently failing) to be funny.

The Copyright Act protects intellectual property regardless of the quality.

[me]

Dont tell Weird Al... BTW He only gets permission from the other artists as professional courtesy.

http://www.weirdal.com/faq.htm

[Morgan]

Parody is only a defense if the derivative work is parodying *THE ORIGINAL WORK*

That's why Weird Al can do what he does. He's making fun of the original work when he does one of his covers. This political hack is not; he's using the musician's song to further his own political ends, which use can certainly be forbidden by the copyright holder, or if not forbidden, charged for.

[Cloudchaser Sakonige]

The same Eagles who also tried to sue the American Eagle Foundation for copyright infringement?

[sally stevens]

Just to inform that Weird Al does NOT get permission from anyone. Satire is not considered an infringement under US copyright laws.

[sally stevens]

And, just to nitpick, it's Jackson BrownE. With an 'e.' Thanks!

[IP Lawyer]

The Attorney Peter T. Paterno, of King, Holmes, Paterno & Berliner, LLP, doesn’t know much about copyright law. Well, read this, straight from his rather obnoxious cease and desist letter:

[U]nder that same United States Copyright Act, you’re not allowed to take someone’s song and change the lyrics. This is not to say you’re not allowed to write silly lyrics, you just have to write them to your own music. Now, I know why you used Joe’s music — it’s undoubtedly because it’s a lot better than any music you or your staff could have written. But that’s the point. Since Joe writes better songs than you do, the Copyright Act rewards him by letting him decide who gets to use the songs he writes.

Now lets take these erroneous statements of the law from this single paragraph of the letter one at a time, shall we?

First, Attorney Paterno is obviously not at all familiar with fair use and probably isn’t familiar with the United States Supreme Court, or their decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994), where the 2 Live Crew parody of Roy Orbison’s song “Oh, Pretty Woman” was at issue. Any law student who has taken a basic Copyright Law class would know that copyright fair use and parody protections do, in fact, allow artists to take music and change the lyrics to their own. Kinda makes you wonder what Attorney Paterno was thinking, or if he was thinking or just chest pounding.

Second, the Copyright Act does not give Joe Walsh (the Rockstar) the right to decide who gets to use the songs he writes. In fact, there are a tremendous number of fair uses that Joe Walsh (the Rockstar) or any other copyright owner for that matter, could never prevent. There are fair use rights to use music and lyrics for teaching purposes, there are well established rights for anyone to do cover versions of any songs, and then there are those pesky parody rights already mentioned. So, Attorney Paterno has once again well overstated his case, which is not at all surprising in a cease and desist letter unfortunately.

This ill informed paragraph aside, perhaps the most illuminating (and disgusting) thing that Attorney Paterno said in his cease and desist letter was:

I’m sure that when you take this letter to a lawyer with a passing knowledge of copyright and trademark law, he’ll give you some good lawyer words to put in a letter back to us — things like “First Amendment”, “fair use,” “parody” and “so’s your old man.” Having dealt with situations like this in the past, we know that the first refuge of political scoundrels is the First Amendment. Just know that this is an area in which I’ve practiced my entire career and I can promise you that none of those buzzwords (or the law they represent) works for you here.

So the First Amendment is refuge for scoundrels? Really? How interesting. Well let me say loud and clear — the First Amendment is one of the most precious rights we have and there is no room for ignorance or arrogance when it comes to restricting the First Amendment. It is naive and condescending all at the same time to suggest the First Amendment is for scoundrels. Yet this sadly seems to be the view of many, particularly those in the liberal fringe, who are “tolerant” and supportive of First Amendment rights only so long as they agree with the message. That is disgusting and there is no room for such hypocrisy in political debate, daily life or in the law, PERIOD.

Let me say something else as loudly and clearly as I can. I am not one with “passing knowledge of copyright and trademark law,” but rather I am one who knows a heck of a lot about the topic. To the extent I can be of any assistance to Joe Walsh (the Republican) I will. Bogus, puffing, arrogant and condescending cease and desist letters are, in my opinion, the scourge of intellectual property practice. I am glad to see that Joe Walsh (the Republican) is not backing down (see The Candidate Defends the Tea Party Movement), and I hope he continues to stick to his principles and doesn’t let himself get bullied by someone who is more interested in grandstanding than resolving a matter for his client.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/05/copyrights-meet-politics-joe-walsh-rockstar-v-joe-walsh-republican/id=8736/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Ipwatchdog+%28IPWatchdog.com%29

[Fred]

Joe Walsh has been hanging out with Don Henley too long.

[Craig Montague]

IP Lawyer-

There is no room for [such] hypocrisy in political debate, daily life or the law PERIOD. Agreed.

So you would also have to agree then that Sarah Palin's call to fire Rahm Emmanuel for using the word "retard" in a PRIVATE meeting and then saying no such thing with regard to Rush Limbaugh would ALSO have no place in politics or daily life since it is entirely hypocritical, yes?

And perhaps you may be right in picking apart Mr. Paterno's letter, but really- why is it that SO MANY Republicans can't simply just GET A CLUE and ask artists if they can use their music? Maybe because they would almost always say no?

[IP Idiot Savant]

"Any law student who has taken a basic Copyright Law class would know that copyright fair use and parody protections do, in fact, allow artists to take music and change the lyrics to their own."

No, parody exceptions to copyright apply only to works whose purpose is to parody the original music, as already discussed. There's no parody or fair-use exception that would allow this wholesale infringement.

"It is naive and condescending all at the same time to suggest the First Amendment is for scoundrels. Yet this sadly seems to be the view of many, particularly those in the liberal fringe, who are “tolerant” and supportive of First Amendment rights only so long as they agree with the message. That is disgusting and there is no room for such hypocrisy in political debate, daily life or in the law, PERIOD."

Here your true motives become apparent. This political candidate is a conservative, therefore all challenges to him are based in liberal politics, which is reason enough for you to oppose them reflexively. How hypocritical of you to discard intellectual property rights, normally championed by conservatives, as soon as a conservative candidate runs afoul of them.