>>>Please go read the statements by Survivor's Frankie Sullivan about the recent situation. His statements are in contradiction to your 2 sentences here. He can't have it both ways, and neither can you.
>
>No contradiction to the fact that these are property rights. He does not need to offer an explanation. If he chooses to, it's still somebody exercising their property rights. Your impression of his explanation is irrelevant to his exercise of his property rights. You could go and write a song called the Rear End of the Tiger and offer it to Huckabee and the same principle would apply whether Sullivan likes it or not. In the end, the property owner can make whatever legal determination they like. Unless you're saying that musicians should not be allowed to exercise property rights unless Kevin Goff approves of their explanation?

I'm afraid you've missed my point.

Sullivan has threatened legal action (or at least is talking about it), re: Huckabee

You seem to think any collection of royalties from an allegedly legit YouTube video with Kim Davis is "OK".

But the problem is one of derivation. Sullivan can't get worked up about Huckabee using the first 40-some seconds of the song....and yet have no problem with the Kim Davis video (which features Huckabee and the song). It's absurd.


(And by the way, re: Standard youtube policy, the details are actually more than what you described. I actually spoke with someone who works with Google, but I'll get into that later).