"Eye Of The Tiger" Co-Writer Disagrees With Gingrich Lawsuit

While former Survivor guitarist Frank Sullivan doesn't want Newt Gingrich to use the band's hit "Eye of the Tiger," as a campaign theme and is suing Gingrich for using the song at campaign rallies without permission, co-writer and Survivor bandmate Jim Peterik appeared on Fox News Chicago to say he disagrees with the lawsuit.

“This is not for any one political candidate," said Peterik. "This is for the world!”

Sullivan spoke with WGN radio yesterday and said he isn't trying to make a political statement. "It's a musician thing," Sullivan said, as he discussed copyright laws. "There's a process you go through."

It sounds like Sullivan never talked to Peterik about the lawsuit beforehand. "I found out about it when everybody else did, and I was very surprised," Peterik told Fox. "I haven't talked to Frank in a long time."

Peterik said he and his publisher think Gingrich's use is not a violation of copyright laws. He also said he has received $1 million for a commercial that featured "Eye of the Tiger."

"My stance is that, you know, we wrote this song as a motivational anthem, right?" said Peterik. "And music is supposed to do a job and if it can motivate people to get out and vote and shake them out of their doldrums and, you know, get out to the polls, then it's doing its job."

WGN asked Sullivan whether he wanted money or a cease-and-desist order, but Sullivan declined to specify, saying he doesn't want to make a political statement. Sullivan says Newt has been using "Eye of the Tiger" on and off for a long time.

Both Sullivan and Peterik tell the story of how the song came to be, which is pretty interesting, too. Sylvester Stallone asked Survivor to write a song to replace Queen's "Another One Bites the Dust" on the Rocky III soundtrack, and as Sullivan said, who could've guess that "30 years later, it's going to get more play than in '82."

Co-Writer Disagrees with ‘Eye of Tiger’ Lawsuit Against Newt Gingrich: MyFoxCHICAGO.com

Contact the author of this article or email tips@chicagoist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Samantha Abernethy in Arts & Entertainment on February 1, 2012 4:40 PM 0 Comments

Comments [rss]

Jim Idol

Hulk Hogan should drop an atomic leg drop on Newt, and everyone at FOX news..

Mimihaha

It's hardly Sullivan's fault Peterik doesn't understand his own rights to his own works.

BlueFairlane

Who's to say Peterik doesn't understand his own rights to his own works? We live in an era which increasingly rejects the idea of copyright, and which encourages artists to make their works available to all. Hence, we have notions of "creative commons" and the like that pop up in internet conversations whenever we talk about things like music file sharing or graffiti artists altering AP photographs of presidential candidates. Peterik seems simply to be embracing that notion of free and open use of creative work. In other contexts, the internet crowd would applaud him.

ANGRYGOD11

We live in an era which increasingly rejects the idea of copyright, and
which encourages artists to make their works available to all.

Today's current laws do NOT reject copyright protection, but in fact reflect the complete opposite. And there is NO creative use in using someone's song to excite people in a political rally.

BlueFairlane

Well, you might notice that the context of that particular sentence isn't a reference to law so much as it is in reference to the typical slant of internet folk when the roles are reversed.

As for creative use in using a song to excite people, there are many circumstances in which songs are used without it being "creative." As I said above, every pep rally would count. Sports events at all levels frequently play music they don't pay for to get people excited. Dance clubs don't pay royalties. Fireworks shows, street festivals, etc etc. What's the creative use there?

pete_mac

And if I used your voice or likeness to sell something without permission, you would be ok with it? And if you answer "depends on what you are selling" you proved my point. Creative Commons is a choice an artist makes beforehand. They didn't. Pay up Newt.

BlueFairlane

And if I used your voice or likeness to sell something without permission, you would be ok with it?

But this is not Peterik's situation, which Mimihaha specifically addresses. Peterik expressly states that he believes this song--which is 50% his--"belongs to the world." This suggests that he would, in fact, be okay with it. And in many comparable situations which have popped up relating to copyright, the internet crowd has said essentially the same thing. (Again, consider the AP vs. Shepherd Farey over the Obama "Hope" poster.)

Finally, it seems to me there's something like a fair use argument here. Newt isn't using this song in an ad. He's using it at a pep rally. Schools use copyrighted material at pep rallies all the time without getting sued. I believe such lawsuits would have no basis.

ANGRYGOD11

YOU believe such lawsuits would have no merit? Then why are weren't they dismissed? Maybe because judges find political ads are commercial speech and not free speech with fair use rules in play.

BlueFairlane

Actually, in the cases referenced in the original post (Reagan vs. Springsteen, Bachman vs. Petty, Palin vs. Heart, McCain vs. Brown), judges found nothing of the sort. These cases were all either dropped when the politician stopped using the music or they were settled out of court without a ruling.