Eminem to Ramaswamy: stop using or attempting to perform my music

Originally published at: Eminem to Ramaswamy: stop using or attempting to perform my music | Boing Boing


I understand he is running for President, but I think we need to constantly remind people that he’s a con artist.


Oh, you’ve heard that Vivek is a con-artist too? I’ve heard that lots of people are saying that Vivek is a con-artist. One doesn’t like to lend credence to the rumour that Vivek is a con-artist; but there is no smoke without fire, eh? #vivekisacon-artist seems to be trending; so maybe we need to take these accusations, the Vivek is a con-artist, seriously? I’m just asking questions. :thinking:


As far as Republican candidates go, it’s becoming more of a distinction without a difference as each day passes.


On the other end of the spectrum we have Maria Isa, Minnesota state representative, who dropped her hip-hop/reggaeton album Capitolio the day she was sworn in. It’s excellent.


Maybe political parties should have to apply for permission to use songs.


But his Hindu faith and other attributes are a “challenge” for conservative voters, while his right-wing ramblings give him little chance of attracting anyone else

Being of South Asian extraction? For them, ya think?


Legally, US politicians don’t always need direct permission from artists. Their campaigns can buy licensing packages from music rights organisations like BMI and ASCAP, which gives them legal access to more than 20 million songs for political rallies.

However, artists have the right to remove their music from that list. The Rolling Stones have done so, and Eminem has followed suit after objecting to Mr Ramaswamy’s apparently impromptu rendition of Lose Yourself.

It seems that the rapper didn’t know his music was covered by the blanket licence until then - an apparent problem with the US model, which resulted in artists like Adele, Neil Young, Phil Collins and the estates of Tom Petty and Prince objecting to Mr Trump’s use of their music in 2016 and 2020 after the fact.


In the UK, the situation is clearer. PPL - the body that licences the use of recorded music - requires political events like party conferences to “obtain permission from the relevant rights holder” before using a song.


Hindu faith and other attributes

That’s a nice way of saying “he’s brown and trying to get racist white people to vote for him”.

Aside from that, he’s a tool and his politics are terrible. But that doesn’t really set him apart from the other condidates does it?


It’s a bit of a question mark about whether or not BMI could do anything if Ramaswamy decided to continue performing Eminem songs since BMI along with ASCAP have been under a consent decree since the 1940s that prohibits them from withholding parts of their catalog from license.

Of course, Matters could pull his works from BMI and sue directly, but that’s a costly path.

You’d think it would be in a similar category to using a song in an ad. I’m not even seeing a fundamental difference, though I am sure there is a legal distinction. But IMO it’s much closer to an ad than, say a random corporate event playing Rolling Stones while an executive comes to the stage. There’s an implication of endorsement that changes things.


It is just how music licensing is structured in the US.

TV ads require something called a synchronization license to sync a composition with pictures.

Public performances, which include everything from cover bands performing your composition to venues playing a song recording of a song you composed, require a performance license.

Performance licenses are usually obtained through one of the performance rights organizations who act as a licensing agent and sell blanket licenses for the songwriters they represent while synchronization rights typically have to be negotiated directly with publishers.

Of course, performers have no involvement in any of this unless they’re also the songwriter since all these rights have to do with the composition, not the sound recording.

The BBC article that I posted states that artists can remove their music from the blanket licence.

Which is why political events here in the UK are not covered by blanket licences.

1 Like

Yeah. They have a process that lets artists essentially send a letter to the licensee saying not to use their work, but that’s not necessarily something they can enforce.

They aren’t actually permitted to withhold any part of their catalog due to an antitrust consent decree as best as anyone can tell.

Of course, they can send letters saying not to use it all they want.

1 Like

Thanks for that. I didn’t understand how something like this happens in the first place (or why it’s so common for artists to have to stop douchebags from using their music).


It sort of worked in the UK, if by worked you mean “Sunak lost the leadership election because all the racists voted for someone so incompetent she nearly caused a global market crash within weeks of becoming PM before standing down in record time, so the Tory party leadership offered him the job instead of having another leadership election.”


Not that it stops them

“They (the band) are livid," M People founder Mike Pickering said.

"Heather’s boy James is a Labour councillor. Hopefully most people will know that they have pirated it off us.
“She (Liz Truss) won’t be around to use it again for very long. I would imagine.”


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.