Trump campaign disputes claim over use of Foo Fighters song at rally

>>> WE ARE BACK WITH ONE OF TH BIGGEST DEBATES THIS CAMPAIG SEASON, OVER THE CANDIDATES' SELECTION OF A PLAY LIST WHILE ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL. >> THERE HAS BEEN A WAVE O ARTISTS AND ESTATES THAT HAV ASKED THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN NOT T USE THEIR MUSIC. SOME OF THEM INCLUDE RIHANNA AND CELINE DION. NOW THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN I PUSHING BACK AGAINST THE FOOFIGHTERS WHO SAY THE USE OF THEIR SONG MY HERO WAS UNAUTHORIZED DANNY CEVALLOS IS JOINING US NOW ON SET THIS GETS CONFUSING BECAUSE YO HEAR ABOUT ARTISTS, LABELS ESTATES. WHO GETS TO SAY YOU CAN USE IT OR NOT >> GEORGE WASHINGTON'S CAMPAIG USED AN ALTERED VERSION OF THE BRITISH SONG, GOD SAVE THE QUEEN. POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS HAVE USE MUSIC SINCE THE BEGINNING OF OUR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS. FOR THE 200 YEARS SINCE, SOMETIMES ARTISTS HAVE OBJECTE TO CAMPAIGNERS OR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES USING THEIR SONGS HOWEVER, IT REALLY ESCALATED REALLY ACCELERATED DURING NO SURPRISE THE TRUMP ERA NOW MUSICIANS ARE BRINGING LEGAL ACTION THE WAY IT WORKS IS MORE COMPLICATED THAN YOU MIGHT THINK. FOR THE MOST PART, VENUES LIKE PLACES WHERE YOU HAVE TH RALLIES ENTER INTO LICENSING AGREEMENTS WITH THE COMPANIE WITH NAMES LIKE BMI. IT IS THE SAME REASON AT A RESTAURANT, YOU CAN'T PLAY WHATEVER MUSIC YOU LIKE THERE. YOU HAVE TO BUY A LICENSE TO B ABLE TO PLAY MUSIC AT A VENUE. SO THE VENUES, IF THEY HAVE TH LICENSES, THEY CAN USUALLY HAV ACCESS TO LITERALLY MILLIONS O SONGS. BUT NOW THOSE COMPANIES AR ALLOWING AN OUT. IF YOU ARE AN ARTIST WHO SAYS HAVE GIVEN MY MUSIC TO THE LICENSE BUT IF IT IS POLITICAL I WANT IT OUT. THE VENUES ARE ALLOWING IT IT. THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN SAYS WE HAV THE LICENSE AT THE VENUE AND W WILL USE IT ANYWAY THAT'S WHERE THE CONFLIC STARTS >> SO YOU LAID IT OUT. CAN THE FOOFIGHTERS SAY YO CAN'T PLAY OUR SONG? DO THEY HAVE AN ARGUMENT >> THE FIRST STEP IS TO LET BM KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T USE MY SONG. THEN IT IS CONTRACTUAL ARE THEY PART OF THE DPREEMENT NOW THERE IS AN EXTRA LICENS THAT YOU HAVE TO BUY A POLITICAL LICENSE. SO IF I'M A CAMPAIGNER, NOW HAVE TO BUY AN ADDITIONA LICENSE AND I MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE ACCESS. IT SEEMS STRANGE THAT IF YOU BOUGHT INTO THE LICENSE AN LATER AN ARTIST SAYS I WANT MY MUSIC OUT, WHAT IF YOU REALL WANTED THAT MUSIC? THE BOTTOM LINE IS WHAT DOES THE CONTRACT SAY DID THE FOOFIGHTERS SAY THEY DIDN'T WANT THE MUSIC OR WAS I A PART OF THE CONTRACT TO BEGI WITH THEN THEY HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON AND THEY CAN SUE AND GET A CEASE AND DESIST >> IF YOU TAKE OUT THE CONTRACTUAL CAN YOU PLAY IT CA YOU NOT ARGUMENT AND LOOK AT WHY AN ARTIST WOULD WANT THIS, I THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH THEI BRAND AND BEING ASSOCIATED WIT A POLITICAL PARTY THAT THE DON'T WANT TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH NECESSARILY. IS THERE AN ARGUMENT THERE THA THIS IS BRAND REPUTATIONAL HARM? >> THAT IS ANOTHER SEPARAT ISSUE THAT HAS NOT BEEN FLESHE OUT. IT IS NOT ONLY A BRAND BUT YOU AS AN ARTIST AS A FIRS AMENDMENT RIGHT TO NOT HAVE YOUR MUSIC ASSOCIATED WITH. IS THIS COMPELLED SPEECH IT HAS NOT BEEN LITIGATED BUT IT IS A VALID CONCERN THAT ARTIST MAY RAISE. BUT FOR MOST OF AMERICAN HISTORY, IT HAS GONE LIKE THIS THE ARTIST SENDS A CEASE AND DESIST AND CAMPAIGNS STOP USIN IT THAT HAS BEEN THE WAY OF THE WORLD UNTIL NOW. TRUMP HAS CHANGED THAT PEOPLE ARE FILING SUIT NOW AND IT IS GETTING LITIGATED. MOST RECENTLY, THERE HAVE BEEN ALREADY INVOLVEMENT WITH ROLLING STONES, OTHER ARTISTS WHO HAVE SUED SO WE WILL GET CASE LA DEVELOPING IN THIS AREA BUT IT WILL BE CONTRACTUAL AND IT WIL HAVE TO DO WITH THE FIRS AMENDMENT. >> IF THE FOOFIGHTERS CAN'T STOP THIS AND THEY CONTINUE TO US THE MUSIC, THE FOOFIGHTERS SAY THEY WILL TAKE THE MONEY AND USE IT FOR HARRIS' CAMPAIGN, IS THIS A LOT OF MONEY OR NOT THAT MUCH? >> IT DEPENDS ON THE LICENSING ARRANGEMENT WITH VENUES. THEY CAN TAKE THE MONEY AND DO WHATEVER THEY WANT THEY WILL BE PROFITING THEY WILL BE PAID. BUT TO THEM, THE VALUE O GETTING PAID IS LESS THAN BEIN ASSOCIATED WITH THE CAMPAIGN THAT THEY DON'T AGREE WITH BUT THIS IS A FASCINATING AREA OF THE LAW WITH CONTRACTUAL AN CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES THAT HAS NOT BEEN FLESHED OUT IN TH COURTS >> YOU THINK OF BIG HEADLINE LIKE TAYLOR SWIFT, REALLY YO THINK ABOUT WHEN SHE FOUGHT TO OWN HER MUSIC AND DOESN'T AN ARTIST PAUSE THEY WROTE IT AND CAME UP WITH IT BUT THERE IS S MUCH BEHIND THE SCENES DO YOU THINK WE COULD SEE MORE CASES THAT GIVE US MOR FRAMEWORK FOR HOW TO HANDLE THIS IN THE FUTURE? >> YES, YOU'RE RIGHT PEOPLE ARE OFTEN SURPRISED THA AN ARTIST MAY NOT OWN RIGHTS T THEIR OWN MUSIC. TAYLOR DEBACLE, WE COULD D HOURS ON, WHEN SHE RECORDED AL OF OUR OLD SONGS SOME ARTISTS LOSE THE RIGHTS T THEIR MUSIC AND THEY MAY NOT OWN IT THAT IS AN EVEN THORNIER ISSUE IF YOU HAVE ALREADY GIVEN TH COMPANY THE POWER TO LICENSE THE SONGS, DO YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO COME IN LATER AND SAY BUT I DON'T LIKE THIS POLITICA CAMPAIGN IT IS DIFFERENT THAN YOUR MUSI BEING PLAYED AT A CHAI RESTAURANT THIS IS A POLITICAL SPEECH YOU MAY HAVE A VALID CONCERN ABOUT YOUR BRAND, AND NUMBER TWO THAT YOU ARE BEING COMPELLED T ENDORSE SOMEONE THAT YOU ARE