Graphic by Jack Spark

Typically, a presidential candidate’s main issue is their opponent. This year, however, it’s shaping up to be musicians instead.

With the 2024 local and national elections, politicians are using copyrighted songs to enhance their rallies and political campaigns more than ever before, sometimes against the artists’ wishes.

Politicians worldwide often use music to improve the quality of their campaigns. In America, this is especially prevalent.

“It makes a lot of sense,” current candidate for Carlsbad City Treasurer, Christian Peacox said. “You want to get people energized and excited. A good song with a great beat and backing lyrics to describe your campaign.”

On its own, using copyrighted songs in a political rally is not an issue. However, the issue becomes apparent when the songs are played without the artists’ permission.

“What’s happened lately, more on the Republican side is, there’s been a number of rallies that have been held, and they’ve played songs by particular artists,” said Peacox. “And those artists have come out in opposition to the use of their songs at the rallies.”

Some artists that have already come out in opposition include Beyoncé, Neil Young, Foo Fighters and Abba. If politicians do use copyrighted songs without artists’ permission in their rallies, they have two layers of defense. The first is if the venue they are speaking at has a blanket license.

“For many of the venues in the United States, they will have a blanket license with one of the performing rights societies,” explains Shoshanna Zisk, copyright lawyer and sole practitioner. 

A blanket license is when a large number of songwriters pool all of their songs and copyrights into one blanket license. So, instead of a restaurant having to seek out and purchase a copyright license from a hundred artists, they can instead purchase a blanket license and have the licenses for a hundred songs. Not every venue will have a blanket license. 

If the politician is performing at a venue with a blanket license, there isn’t much the artist can do. However, if the venue doesn’t have a blanket license, then the only remaining defense for the politician is that their use of the song qualifies as fair use.

Zisk says something resides under fair use if it’s “being used for an educational purpose or it’s being used for public commentary” or in a way “that it’s not commercially benefiting from the use of that person’s copyrighted work.”

When there isn’t a blanket license, the legality becomes a bit of a gray area. 

“Do these politicians benefit from having the music?” said Zisk. “If they’re using the music in a way to pump up the audience and achieve their personal agenda, which is different than in a school where you’re learning the music or you’re analyzing it for a paper. It’s not an easy case of fair use.”

This also affects the artists’ intended purpose or message behind the song. Some artists may believe that playing their song at a rally attaches political views to themselves and their music, negatively impacting what they want listeners to attach to their song. 

“Especially at the larger national campaign level, it’s almost like stating that you have an endorsement. By playing their song, it’s like saying, ‘Oh yeah, this artist endorses me and my campaign,’” said Peacox. “It’s almost like putting the image of Taylor Swift next to you on a political yard sign. That is going to imply that Taylor Swift backs your campaign when she may not.”

Playing copyrighted songs at a party or small event is not an issue. Larger scale events do become an issue. The cutoff point is a debated topic.

“It’s when it gets to the national level that it’s a different animal at that point,” said Peacox. “That’s where the cutoff is, is when it gets to a national scale.”

Beyoncé, Neil Young, Foo Fighters and Abba have already raised lawsuits against their songs being used in rallies. These lawsuits, however, will likely conclude long after the rallying is over.