“This specifically violates Section 43 of the Lanham Act, as it ‘is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person’.”
The Lanham Act refers to “the confusion or dilution of a trademark (such as a band or artist name) through its unauthorized use”, Ascap, one of the major publishing groups, explains.
The confusion stoked by politicians’ use of music for political purposes carries over into the question of whether artists can actually do anything about it. Often in the case of campaign rallies held in the type of venues where Trump appears, there will be an overarching license through the major publishing companies that allow for the use of songs, said Gandhar Savur, senior vice-president for legal affairs at Rough Trade Publishing.
“If the venue that is holding a political rally has a ‘performance rights organization’ blanket license in place, such as, for example, through Ascap or BMI, then a politician can get away with having a particular song playing in the background.”
However, if the song becomes a regular soundtrack for a particular politician, that might give the artist, label or publisher, more leverage to stop them.
“This is largely unsettled law, and has definitely come to the forefront with the current administration, but the common way to attack repeated use of a song by a politician is to make a right of publicity claim,” Savur said.
Generally speaking, rights of publicity, under state law, protect individuals from having their likenesses, including their voices, used in connection with a commercial purpose, “which can include exploitative and promotional uses”.
“Artists would argue that the politician is creating a ‘false endorsement’, ie giving the public the false impression that the artist endorses that politician or his or her campaign, by the repeated use of their song and voice,” Savur said.
Likes: 
Faceplams: 
Originally Posted by sweeterthan
