Does your argument also extend to you tubers (or other platform equivalents) getting hit with dmca complaints because their use of background music implies the source of the music supports their video? If I make a video essay and use beneath the mask from persona 5, is the implication that p studio, Atlus, and Sega all support my conclusions, or that I found the song to be thematically appropriate for the moment to accompany my message, even if not what the original creator intended.
Similarly, can ramswamy’s use of the song not be considered in a sort of death of the author kind of way, where regardless of what Eminem thinks, ramaswamy personally finds different meaning in the music and shares it based on his own feelings of what it means? Because when I hear someone make a reference, especially politicians, I don’t assume that the reference’s author has pledged support to the cause, rather, the politician finds the content apt for the meaning. I don’t assume pokemon go is a diehard Hillary supporter because of her God awful joke, nor do I assume that Hajime isayama supports congressman Paul gosar just because gosar published an attack on titan meme.
This kind of thing, sharing creative works in your own manner because you personally draw meaning from them should absolutely be protected against copyright trolls. Copyright should be a tool to ensure creative can reap the fruits of their work. Not one to give creatives a legal monopoly of any and all discussion surrounding their work.
The difference is in the messaging.
I fully support Ramaswamy illegally downloading some Eminem tracks to listen to in the comfort of his own home.
However, using those songs as an advertisement for your presidential campaign carries an implication that the artist supports you and your policies.
Also, it’s playing the song for money (donations), without paying royalties. Or, at the least, distributing copyrighted material.
Does your argument also extend to you tubers (or other platform equivalents) getting hit with dmca complaints because their use of background music implies the source of the music supports their video? If I make a video essay and use beneath the mask from persona 5, is the implication that p studio, Atlus, and Sega all support my conclusions, or that I found the song to be thematically appropriate for the moment to accompany my message, even if not what the original creator intended.
Similarly, can ramswamy’s use of the song not be considered in a sort of death of the author kind of way, where regardless of what Eminem thinks, ramaswamy personally finds different meaning in the music and shares it based on his own feelings of what it means? Because when I hear someone make a reference, especially politicians, I don’t assume that the reference’s author has pledged support to the cause, rather, the politician finds the content apt for the meaning. I don’t assume pokemon go is a diehard Hillary supporter because of her God awful joke, nor do I assume that Hajime isayama supports congressman Paul gosar just because gosar published an attack on titan meme.
This kind of thing, sharing creative works in your own manner because you personally draw meaning from them should absolutely be protected against copyright trolls. Copyright should be a tool to ensure creative can reap the fruits of their work. Not one to give creatives a legal monopoly of any and all discussion surrounding their work.