Posted in music on February 4, 2008

Arcade Fire

Arcade Fire have accused a TV network of using their music in an advertisement without permission. The band claims their song "No Cars Go" was used in a commercial for the NFL, which was aired on FOX TV during the Super Bowl half-time show on Sunday.

Advertising time during the Super Bowl half-time show costs around $100,000 per second. [Starpulse]

---

      

Comments (36)

plaxico burress is the new owen pallett.

Posted by burp! | February 4, 2008 3:00 PM

i can't believe the Arcade Fire watch the Super Bowl

Posted by Anonymous | February 4, 2008 3:04 PM

Wow. I noticed this and posted it to a sports board I belong to. The song wasn't used in an ad. It was used as a "bump" over a couple of highlights when they returned from a commercial break. It was also like the last 10 seconds of the song.

C'mon, Win.

Posted by Anonymous | February 4, 2008 3:07 PM

fuck em. AF should milk the corporations for every penny.

think about all the college students who have been sued by RIAA. let's see merge records get some back.

Posted by eric | February 4, 2008 3:15 PM

That's a piss-poor Daft Punk costume.

Posted by Anonymous | February 4, 2008 3:20 PM

i agree that football is for fat losers.

Posted by Anonymous | February 4, 2008 3:20 PM

yea ive def heard it used before during other nfl games but not as an ad, just during the montage of highlights.

Posted by Anonymous | February 4, 2008 3:21 PM

ha...i called that out last night and made a point about how surprised i was. apparently Arcade Fire was just as surprised as i was.

Posted by ROCK STARchitect | February 4, 2008 3:22 PM

wow that definitely launched a conversation at the party I was at about what sellouts Arcade Fire were.

I guess we judged too soon. those guys are punk rock to the core.

Posted by Anonymous | February 4, 2008 3:25 PM

I agree that they should sue. They obviously used the song because of its intense emotional impact, which can be felt even in just 10 seconds of use. They could have tried to create their own song that would have the same climactic urgency, but that would have taken time and creativity...and they probably would have had to pay someone a shit load of money for that! So just steal it...who's gonna know, right?


I hope they get it good. They probably won't though.


Posted by rob | February 4, 2008 3:33 PM

last night's superbowl was not the first time they used that song. they've been playing that song during fox football for weeks now, for most of the season that i can remember.

Posted by Anonymous | February 4, 2008 3:37 PM

Please get a life.

Posted by Anonymous | February 4, 2008 3:44 PM

AF need to get a fucking clue. Being played on the superbowl, with or without permission is free advertising and they shouldn't be bitching about it. They should be grateful

Posted by Anonymous | February 4, 2008 4:03 PM

This is great news. AF suing to stop having their music played means audiences not having to be subjected to it! You go girls!!

Posted by Anonymous | February 4, 2008 4:03 PM

In the words of The Village Voice:

"You play with arcade fire, you gonna get arcade burned!"

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/archives/2008/01/ivoice_exclusiv.php

Posted by M | February 4, 2008 4:08 PM

Arcade Fire is truly the victim of having several million people exposed to their song.

But yeah, they probably have zero chance to fight this, because fox most likely pays for songs like radio does(per play). Those huge corporations aren't dumb enough to get sued over shit like that.

So is someone doing a mash up of "No Cars Go" and "Let's Get it Started(Retarded)" or that Gary Glitter song yet? make it happen.

Posted by Fox, for the Win | February 4, 2008 4:09 PM

Are you sure it wasn't a Springsteen song that Arcade Fire mistakenly thought was one of their own?

Posted by Anonymous | February 4, 2008 4:12 PM

Haha! I saw the ad! I was indeed no cars go.

Posted by Anonymous | February 4, 2008 4:22 PM

"Arcade Fire is truly the victim of having several million people exposed to their song."
What's the point though, if those millions of people don't know the song already? If you don't know Arcade Fire, you don't know what song it is, and the majority of people probably aren't savvy enough to figure out who it was.

Also, as artists get less and less money from record sales, licensing becomes one of the few sources of revenue.

"But yeah, they probably have zero chance to fight this, because fox most likely pays for songs like radio does(per play). Those huge corporations aren't dumb enough to get sued over shit like that."
That's not how it works. Well, that IS how it works for radio (stations pay performing rights organizations), but you can't do that with video syncing, that's a whole new ballgame. You have to get the rights, and if Arcade Fire didn't give the okay, they have every right to sue.

Posted by mangrilla | February 4, 2008 4:23 PM

Hopefully they'll sue so we never have to hear their music on tv agian

Posted by Anonymous | February 4, 2008 4:26 PM

That picture was in the dictionary when I just looked up......
"MASSIVE DOUCHE!"

Posted by SRC | February 4, 2008 4:29 PM

Oh yay, the Republicans have come out for their afternoon visit to BV.

Posted by Anonymous | February 4, 2008 4:32 PM

They should have just used that band Arcade Fire is a tribute to...John Cafferty and the Beaverbrown Band.

Posted by Anonymous | February 4, 2008 5:05 PM

Sorry to break it to Arcade Fire (and anyone else who wants to see them jam a fat one into the man) but they're going to find that they have no grounds.

What Fox did, is quite simply a pretty nice loophole in the musical licensing world. It's called "ephemeral license" and it's where you can play any song you want as long as it's not the entire song and as long as it's manually inserted, as in not affixed to the video. ie: I push play on the music, while someone else hits play on the video this creating a unique experience.

At that point, you pay a standard royalty rate which every artist that publishes their music has already agreed to. Since Fox likely has a bulk music contract with both of the royalty agencies, Arcade Fire will get paid for their song. Probably not a lot of money, but they'll get paid.

Unless they decide to sue, in which case they'll spend more money suing than they'll ultimately recover since they've got basically no grounds at all.

This is the -exact- same thing as when Aphex Twin's music popped up on an SNL episode a while back and the best he could have done was get clips yanked from YouTube (which violated ephemeral license, having the music affixed to the video) but NBC was well within their rights to play the music in the first place.

Posted by Dave | February 4, 2008 7:29 PM

the best part of that village voice was talking about lcd soundsystem:

"Oh, we thought you were if Ryan Adams got fat, stumbled on stage, and covered Q And Not U for 45 minutes."

Nice to see Q and not U get some love.

Posted by Anonymous | February 4, 2008 8:57 PM

I remember those last 15 seconds I was left with my mouth wide open and drooling of the shock *exaggerating*

Actually, on friday I was watching some reports from the NY Fashion Week, they were showing the Nautica show and they had No Cars Go as the music for the show, I mean it was the original music played as oh-so-perfect male models walked down the runway. Do they get money for that? More importantly, did Nautica asked for their permission?

Posted by dee | February 4, 2008 10:25 PM

Dave, a couple of other commenters under BV's follow-up post beg to differ with you.

Posted by Anonymous | February 4, 2008 10:40 PM

uh oh, do they know that the rangers play not one but TWO of their songs at MSG?

Posted by Anonymous | February 5, 2008 12:43 AM

sell outs

Posted by i know | February 5, 2008 1:36 AM

what about the fact that Arcade Fire might not want to be associated with that jingoistic, militaristic show that NFL puts on, I mean Declaration of iNdependence, the troops saluting, the fly over, it was so over the top, don't put military / politics where it does not belong.

Posted by Anonymous | February 5, 2008 8:59 AM

"Arcade Fire is truly the victim of having several million people exposed to their song"

Please...Arcade Fire need to get of their high horse. You don't think they liked the fact that 'several million' people, who probably NEVER heard of them hearing their song, and in turn asking on NFL boards: "Yo, dat song was kewl, who is it"...and going out and buying their stuff...Yeah, exposure sucks!

Posted by Anonymous | February 5, 2008 9:38 AM

i was kinda shocked to hear that song. major wtf.

Posted by kippy | February 5, 2008 9:57 AM

the point of it all is that it should be a decision that the arcade fire gets to make, not one that they just have to accept. i'd be pissed if the nfl took one of my songs and used it to make their brand look that much more exciting/authentic/whatever.

Posted by Anonymous | February 5, 2008 9:59 AM

"i agree that football is for fat losers."

You're not as smart as you'd like other people to think.

Posted by skinny football fan | February 5, 2008 10:41 AM

why didn't they just use an EITS song ?

Posted by Jeff | February 5, 2008 3:41 PM

this isn't even a lawsuit. i got the info from my friend who's a music supervisor at fox sports... to quote them... "no lawsuits, it’s all good, it was ephemeral use, but people are confusing it with a “promo” which is wasn’t."

and arcade fire aren't a very awesome band. sorry merge, i love you.

Posted by brian | February 5, 2008 5:12 PM

Leave a Comment