>>>These musicians cannot possibly claim copyright infringement or lost revenue as the reason, and to do so is disingenuous. I found several user posts of "eye of the tiger" on YouTube that give no indication of permission from the artist or the record company. Some have been on YouTube for years.
>
>They're entitled to say how their property is used. As for "Eye of the Tiger" on Youtube: press "show more" and almost every time IME it's covered under a Standard Youtube License. This means Youtube has agreed with the copyright holder to add advertising and share the revenue with the copyright holder. Consider that the top two unofficial "Eye of the Tiger" uploads each have more than 20 million hits to see that a popular album is a Youtube gold mine every time somebody uploads one of its songs... great business for Youtube and copyright holders compared to policing and trying to extract money from a single mother in Utah who used the song in her video of her cat cavorting around. Better to collect advertising revenue from the 2000 hits on her clip. FWIW, there's a video of the Kim Davis rally on Youtube with "Eye of the Tiger" correctly identified and covered by the Standard Youtube license, meaning Survivor or its licensee earns $ every time somebody clicks it on Youtube. >19,000 hits so far. Ka-ching.
>
>>>This is all about perception of false endorsement and selectively going after people. And if these artists wanted to be morally consistent, they'd return royalties they've received from sales to individuals who promote ideas the artists despise.
>
>It's about property rights. If it were YOUR property, you might not try to complicate things like this. Just because it's a song rather than your car or bank balance being utilized without permission doesn't convert it into a different moral argument.

...but I think it's the band that said they were against them using the song based on a moral judgement call - as in they don't like what the lady stands for. I *think* that Kevin's point is (he can correct me if I'm wrong) is that if that's the moral argument that the band wants to make, then they shouldn't single out just her, it should be everyone who's morals they don't agree with. From a legal standpoint would the fact that they singled out just her be cause to toss out the case? I think that is still un-tested, because thus far none of these has made it to a courtroom (as far as I know).