Is this an example of "selling out"?

[Rondoraymundo]

For this example, imagine, if you will, that you are a beloved songwriter with legions of fans. You've written iconic songs that have touched millions. You are so successful that your financial security is assured many times over. You own all the rights to your songs. Now the question is, do you sell the use of one of your most beloved songs to a lying, thieving, scandal-ridden corporation who uses that song to scrub it's rightfully defiled image?

[HHP]

Its selling, but probably not selling out.

[RP]

No, you offer the same song gratis to a non-profit in whose mission you strongly believe...

[Silurian]

Originally Posted by Rondoraymundo

. Now the question is, do you sell the use of one of your most beloved songs to a lying, thieving, scandal-ridden corporation who uses that song to scrub it's rightfully defiled image?

it's probably financially astute, but judging from the tone of your post, probably not the best PR move.

[HHP]

Originally Posted by Silurian

it's probably financially astute, but judging from the tone of your post, probably not the best PR move.

That assumes, of course, that there is no affection for the lying, thieving, scandal ridden, defiled corporation.

[Song Writer]

People say he's crazy he's got diamonds on the soles of his shoes.

I call it skating a fine line between the outline of your counter culture image and the outline of Richard Cory.

[Gitfiddlemann]

No, because if the song is a good one, and has stood the test of time, nothing of the sort can assault its rightful place. Ditto for the songwriter.
For all we know, the songwriter may just use it to generate money for on of his or her favorite charities.
The slime ball corporation will be judged totally apart from this action. In the end, it is in a much too weak position to ever blemish the song or songwriter anyway, but if the song somehow helps its standing, then good on them.

[Mr. Jelly]

That's selling out. If the artist doesn't agree with the company or if they agree it's still selling out. So the question evolves to questioning the character of this supposed icon. Selling out and being a part of promoting a company and it's ideals that you don't agree with shows that the person does not have very high principals. So if they are phony their songs probably are also. And people would be mistaken to have put their faith in that artist.

[srick]

But sometimes, ya gotta pay the bills.

best,

Rick

PS - or let them use it at their own risk like Bruce Springsteen's, "Born in the USA" or Gretchen Peters', "Let Freedom Ring". Because the corporation never bothered to listen to the rest of the song (and maybe, just maybe, someone else will listen <G>)

[Cypress Knee]

Before you accuse an artist of "selling out" you should know who really controls the distribution rights to the product.

The most obvious example are political campaigns. Some candidates adopt very popular songs by very successful artists, only to have the artist protest because they do not support that particular politician. However, (and I may be mistaken on this) during the last national campaign one of the candidate's actually bought the rights to play specific music at rallies from the distribution company. Even though the artist objected to that candidate, his management team is the one that sold the rights.

Another example was Creedence Clearwater Revival/John Fogerty and Fantasy Records. Fogerty did not want his songs used in commercials and movies, but Fantasy owned the distribution rights and sold the music willy-nilly, much to Fogerty's chagrin.

I really would not want to charge an artist for "selling out" if what really happened was that the artist gave up control of his product in a business contract.

CK

[RP]

Originally Posted by Cypress Knee

Before you accuse an artist of "selling out" you should know who really controls the distribution rights to the product...CK

The OP specified in this scenario that the artist owned all rights to the song and therefore controlled its distribution...

[Basalt Beach]

It is the artist's work, not ours, they can do as they please, however I believe Neil has the best response....

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by RP

The OP specified in this scenario that the artist owned all rights to the song and therefore controlled its distribution...

True but besides being a "loaded question" , the OP is still far to vague to offer any kind of remotely informed personal opinion.

[Silurian]

I'm just glad that the Cash family prevented Ring of Fire being used in an ad for haemorrhoid cream.

[chitz]

Originally Posted by RP

No, you offer the same song gratis to a non-profit in whose mission you strongly believe...

^^^This works for me!^^^