Henley v. DeVore

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Well I repeat, it's pretty confusing to me. I'm assuming there is some legal explanation for why Kortchmar was not a party in the suit, or why the judge accepted Henley's interest in the song without litigating the copyright issue.

[sodascouts]

I went over to the Copyrights & Campaigns Blog that always seems to be able to explain things well to laypeople like us. Here's the pertinent excerpt:

Tentative Ruling Favors Henley over DeVore on Copyright Claims, Rejecting "Parody" Argument

"While the tentative went for Henley on his copyright claim, KTTV's report says Selna sided with DeVore on Henley's Lanham Act claim, which was premised on the allegation that the use of his songs falsely implied that the liberal singer had endorsed the conservative Republican's campaign. (Didn't someone predict exactly this result?)

Again, keep in mind that Judge Selna's ruling is tentative, and he is free to change his mind before issuing a final ruling."

ETA: I posted a question to the blog about this - we'll see what he says.

[sodascouts]

My question was answered - he said basically that the tentative ruling didn't differentiate between Henley's copyright and Kortchmar's copyright because the salient point was whether or not the videos were fair use parody, not to whom they were copyrighted.

What we've been missing is that Kortchmar is now a co-plaintiff along with Henley and Campbell, so the video can be taken down due to violation of Kortchmar's copyright even if Henley's Lanham claim does not go through.

[Troubadour]

I wish I could grasp these technical details with a little less difficulty, but I have enjoyed keeping up with this thread. I think I have learnt a few things along the way. Soda - thanks so much for keeping us up to date with things like this, and for your obvious interest in them. Your discussions and clarifications help me to understand the legal spiel a bit better!

I'm obviously very pleased that Don was successful, and it's also nice to hear that my second favourite 'D' (Danny Kortchmar) is now a co-plaintiff! To provide the inevitable shallow note, I like the bit about Henley's "soothing vocals".

[Ive always been a dreamer]

My question was answered - he said basically that the tentative ruling didn't differentiate between Henley's copyright and Kortchmar's copyright because the salient point was whether or not the videos were fair use parody, not to whom they were copyrighted.

What we've been missing is that Kortchmar is now a co-plaintiff along with Henley and Campbell, so the video can be taken down due to violation of Kortchmar's copyright even if Henley's Lanham claim does not go through.

Okay - well if Kortchmar is indeed a party in the lawsuit, that provides the missing link. Everything makes sense to me now. I have never seen anything before that indicated that Kortchmar was a named plaintiff.

It seems to me with Kortchmar on board, Henley's Lanham Act claim does, in fact, become a non-issue.

Thanks Nanc, for the inquiry and trying to get to the bottom of this. I didn't mean to flood this thread, but as I said, something wasn't adding up, and inquiring minds need to know.

Anyway, I searched to see if their was any info about the final ruling yesterday, but didn't see anything. I suppose yesterday was just a formality where the judge made his ruling official.

[Troubadour]

This names Danny Kortchmar as a plaintiff:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/32384214/T...enley-v-DeVore

[sodascouts]

I know we are talking about the interview following this decision in the "Don in the Press" thread, but I think the decision itself should be noted in this thread for archival purposes now that the ruling is official.

Eagles Singer Wins Case Against US Politico

Congrats to Mr. Don Henley and his co-plaintiffs, Mike Campbell and Danny Kortchmar.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Wow - It seems DeVore issued the following apology, which I assume must have been mandated by the court.

“We apologise for using the musical works of Don Henley, Mike Campbell and Danny Kortchmar without respect for their rights under copyright law. The court’s ruling in this case confirms that political candidates, regardless of affiliation, should seek appropriate licence authority before they use copyrighted works.”

And Don's remarks in the interview:

“We set a precedent that will likely discourage this kind of behaviour [use of copyrighted songs in political campaigns],” Henley remarked. "I think this is going to have a very positive effect on the creators of music."

I hope Don is right about this setting a precedence. That has been my concern all along. As I said earlier, to me, it is just fundamentally wrong for a politician to use someone else's property without their approval to further their political agenda.

IMO, Don was the victim here, and I am so glad that he pursued this matter legally. It is an important ruling, which will help further clarify and draw the lines between the copyright and fair use laws. The YouTube thing is a whole 'nother matter, and not related to the outcome of this lawsuit.

Congratulations Don, Mike, and Kootch!!!

[Troubadour]

Yes - well done boys!

I bet having to give that apology left a bad taste in DeVore's mouth.

[sodascouts]

DeVore also apologized for maligning Don personally, according to this article:

"We regret all inaccurate, derogatory or disparaging remarks made about Mr. Henley during the course of this dispute."

Maybe this will also teach politicians not to mud-sling...

Yeah, right. lol