

June 19, 2008 -

If the background music for a recent McCain campaign commercial (see video) seems familiar, there may be a good reason. 

The piece featured is, in fact, from EA's Medal of Honor: European Assault – undoubtedly the first time music from a videogame has been used in such a manner.

As it happens, though, this has caused the game's composer no little chagrin.  Christopher Lennertz, an ardent supporter of Barack Obama received many calls and letters regarding the campaign ad.

So how did Lennertz's music find its way into McCain's commercial? The composer told GamePolitics:


It turns out that there was a mix-up as to which company controlled the rights to the music. The McCain campaign did nothing illegal. I do think however, that they should have checked to see if the creators of content that they are using to promote their views are in fact in sync with them…

Lennertz also released a statement on the McCain ad:



As an American, I have the utmost respect and admiration for our troops and all of their sacrifices. In fact, much of the inspiration for my music in this piece came from having a grandfather who served this country honorably as an officer in World War II. I respect John McCain for his service to this country, both in the military and in Washington, but I do not and have never supported his candidacy nor his agenda for this country. I am dismayed that my music has been used to promote his platform and even more disappointed that a candidate who claims to be the best voice for American entrepreneurs and business owners in this troubled economy so flagrantly ignored the most basic values and tenents of copyright and intellectual property. What, I ask, does such an action or oversight say about Mr. McCain's regard for the intrinsic value of American products, services, or creations? Where does the line get drawn? Is it reasonable to use my music to sell tobacco, alcohol, or pornographic materials? Is it reasonable to use it to promote a religion in which I do not believe? Is it legal?...yes, perhaps, is it ethical?...I don’t believe so. Is it American?...definitely not by my standards.




GP: This special report provided to GamePolitics by: Alex Van Zelfden


Re: Medal of Honor Music Used in McCain Campaign Ad, But

I came in here to pretty much say what everyone else is saying.  Guy sold the rights to his music, and now is upset in how it's being used.  No laws were broken.

If you want control over your music, don't sell the rights to it.

Now STFU and GBTW.

Nothing to see here.


The composer makes no difference to the actual music... the music doesn't support Obama...

Wagner was essentially a nazi, but his music is still extremely popular.


Godwin Much?

E. Zachary Knight



Relevant, much?


Godwin's law is always relevant.


Thankfully it wasn't the Michael Giachianno music from the Medal of Honor series. Then again, I stopped played MoH after Frontline, Call of Duty was done so much better.



I agree that McCain and his campaign staff did nothing wrong: legal or moral. They got permission for use from the music's owner and used it for their commercial. This sort of thing happens all the time. If artists don't want their work used in ways they don't like, then maybe should choose not to sell it at all. He lost his right to object this deal when he sold the song to the Medal of Honor team.


This reminds me of the Hillary ad with the sleeping girl who turned out to be an Obama supporter.

Funny Stuff.

E. Zachary Knight



Same here, I was gonna mention that, but you beat me to it.


The two cases are actually quite similar because the girl couldn't do anything about it as well since it was stock photography owned by another company. I guess this would be considered stock music, in a sense.


"While I do not control the ownership of this piece,"

OK, then shut up.  You sold your work, you gave up control of it, so guess what, you have no say in how it gets used. 

"ignored the most basic values and tenents of copyright and intellectual property..."

What?  So you say that a composer owns IP and Copyright of a piece even if he doesn't own controlling rights to it?



Why?  The producers of this commercial got permission, even if there was a mix-up (which doesn't make sense, because if the McCain campaign did nothing wrong, then what was the mix-up?).  You took money from the use of this music in the game, and now you are entitled to royalties from this use (unless you realy got boned in your contract).  Lodge your protest by returning those funds to McCain, and then you can talk.

This would be newsworthy if there was some missappropriation.  Otherwise, who cares what this guy thinks?

~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~

~~All Knowledge is Worth Having~~


You've pretty much got it right, as far as I can tell about the situation.  Still, it's also his prerogative to make a public stink about it, since you can tell he's been getting inquiries as to whether he supports the values in the ad.  If people were under the impression that I had knowingly done anything to help John McCain, I'd feel pretty embarrassed too.


I was going to write out some elaborate paragraph in which I said basically the same thing, maybe punch it up a bit with a few $12 words, but really...what's the point. The1jeffy said it exactly. The guy sold his work, he needs to get off his high horse. Three cheers to the1jeffy for saying this so I don't have to - now I can get back to reading /.


Yes, guy did sell the rights to his music by having them used in a game, so he has no copyright or legal leg to stand on if he wanted to take action. Even still, he created it, and feels some responsiblity for how it is used from here on out. He might have to suck it up and watch his music used against his wishes, but he can still tell people he thinks it sucks. I know I would.

Call 911, this artist needs a waaaaaahmbulance!

We all make choices.  This artist made the choice to sell rights to his creation in service of the almighty dollar.  Now he should accept what comes along with that: no control over what happens to it or what is done with it.  If he feels this passionately about it, maybe from now on he'll turn down the extra money and keep the rights to his music to himself.   But probably not. :)  He doesn't own the song, he should forget about it.  Period.


Agreed. If I created a peice of art or music and it was used to promote an agenda that I did not believe in, even if whoever was using it was well within thier legal rights, I would not be happy either.

I support this guy 100%, and anyone who has any respect for artists, composers, and anyone else who creates anything from thier own minds, skill, and inspiration, *cough* Video Game Publishers *cough*, should feel the same way. If you don't, you are just as bad as any thief or censor that exists today.


It was no longer his music once he sold the rights to it.  Lennertz is trying to deny the folks who bought the rights to distribute the music the ability to distribute the music and that is the real theft.  Lennertz is trying to get people to not use what they own because someone might disapprove of that use and that is the real censorship.

If Lennertz wanted to control the music he should have kept ownership of it.  He is a veteran of the music industry and should know better.  Trying to control something he doesn't own?  That is downright disgraceful.


 This is not an issue of control, this is not a legal issue, and he is not denying anyone any rights; This is an issue of respect and ethics. Was McCain within his full rights to buy the rights to the music and use it? yes. Was the company that owns the rights to the music within their full right sell him the music? yes again. However, Because the music was used for something that the creator is strongly against, something that the creator would never want to be involved with, it shows an enormous amount of disrespect for the work he's done. 

Let's take an extreme example... what if you created, an no longer had the rights, to a piece of artwork and found out that the your creation was legally used for anti-semitic propaganda (even worse if it's against you're own race or religion) or pretty much anything you are completely and utterly against and would never wanted to be associated with. Would you be happy that your name is now attached to such a things, especially knowing that their are thousands of people who will recognize your work; hell what if they took it a step further and even threw you're threw your name in there somewhere to give you credit... man, if people saw that, they would probably bombard you with lots of hate mail... it may not be that bad for Lennertz, but his feelings about all this is strong enough that he feels that he must say something

I'm actually a little reminded of an article that said that Sen. Kirk Dillard requested the Obama camp to pull an ad that he appeared in; the ad did not say Dillard was an obama supporter (it was an ad saying that he and obama worked together on a few issues), but Dillard was afraid that some might jump to that conclusion (they story was true, but he was still a McCain man)... their were no legal threats, but the Obama camp respected his wishes and pulled the ad when he asked

Frankly, it really does pain me to read these kind of comments since this is a blog where comments are usually very strong to stand in support of creators out of respect for what they've done (exception though for when they go too far, like over abusive copyright protection methods... though we make up for it by still making the stand against those who pirate games)... just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.


But in this case, the creator of the work is just plain wrong. It doesn't matter if he is for or against McCain. The moral objection would only hold true if the piece was somehow specifically created to support Obama or attack McCain. Just because I prefer McDonald's over Burger King, does that mean Burger King has a moral obligation to check if I, as the creator of a piece of music, doesn't like them enough for them to use the song I sold to a 3rd party in one of their commercials?Of course not. This is a non-story. Grow up guys. Move along.


If you felt strongly enough about it, then i actually would agree with Burger King asking the creator out of respect; hell, if it were me, in a mundane situation like that, i might just let them use it despite how i feel because i'm happy that they actually took the time to ask me before going over my head and just getting the legal rights... though the reason why no one would use McDonald's and Burger King as an example is because something like that is so damn mundane (i rank it right there down there with pepsi vs coke)... the presidential election however is  real issue as the election will determine so much about the united states and will have effects around the world; really try making your point while using something terrible like drugs, crime, racism and so forth (just to understand where this guy is coming from); as opposed to your preferred fast food place (honeslty, unless you really, really, really hate burgerking THAT much, you are not trying at all to see where this guy is coming from)... i'd ask again, would you be perfectly fine with your artwork being used for something that you would fight tooth and nail against? would you be fine with the implication that you support their views? would you be fine knowing that a cause that you are strongly against benefited and moved forward because of your work?

It's all about putting the creator's feelings into consideration. And in this case, the McCain camp did not consider that he might have strong feelings about the war, the economy or anything else like that. Should we forgive the Mccain camp for not taking his feelings into consideration? Maybe, that's up for each person to decide; some understand them overlooking the feelings of the artist by simply not thinking about them, and other's think the next would-be leader should have more respect and consideration for artists. But should we dismiss the feelings and fault this musician for being disappointed that his creation is being used for something that he is strongly against and does not want to play any role in supporting? a most certain hell no.


Should McCain seek approval from everyone who works on the Ford assembly line when he rides into town in a Ford just so he doesn't offend someone who works there?  Should Obama seek approval from every Boeing employee when he flies across the states?  What you are suggesting is just this side of ludicrous.  He got the permission from the rights holder.  Which is not only the legal thing to do, but the ethical thing as well.

Had Lennertz stopped at disappointed part of his statement there wouldn't be a problem.  He is free to feel disappointed.  I'd feel disappointed too.  To call it unethical and unamerican is so far over the top to be laughable.  What he is trying to do is to control something after he has sold it.  Like record companies trying to control the sale of used CDs, a theory that has come into the game world as well.  He no longer owns the rights to it because he sold it.  It is no longer his by any stretch of the imagination.  If one was tempted to call something unethical and unamerican, his attempts to knowingly control something he doesn't own would be it.


 Tell me, how is he trying to "control" his music? he is not making any kind of lawsuits; he is not demanding/requesting that the ad be pulled; all he is doing here is expressing how he feels. Hell, this is an article on his blog, a non-news website that is designed so that the author can talk about whatever the hell he feels like; relly you make it sound like he is sending this message to every major news outlet to spark up a major controversy and pressure McCain into pulling the ad without him asking.

To ask an artist if you can use their work, even when the artist is not in control of his work, instead of just doing things the legal way is best way to show respect for the artist. For instance, when you get married, the your girlfriend has full control of her life and is they only one who needs to say yes; it doesn't matter how daddy feels about the wedding... however, getting her father's blessing first is the proper way to show the old man respect. 

That's all this story is about, an artist who feels disappointed that his work was used for something he doesn't support and would have very much appreciated being asked about this first; that McCain and the company would have shown him some respect and got his blessing first before using his creation. And frankly, i do feel it to be unethical not to show an artist respect.


Didn't you see the part where he wanted McCain to ask his permission to use the song he no longer owns?  That McCain is unethical and unamerican because he didn't seek Lennertz permission to use a song that Lennertz doesn't own?

Had Lennertz had is his way, McCain would have been denied permission from using the song that Lennertz doesn't own because Lennertz doesn't want him to use it.  I'm repeating myself here because it's an important point.  Lennertz doesn't own the song.  He has absolutely no say over how it is used because he sold it.  He can't file a lawsuit because it would be baseless and he knows it.  So he resorts to mudflinging.

Should game companies get to deny the sale of used games because the game companies don't like them sold that way?  Is it unethical to buy used games from companies that don't want you to buy them used?  Are people who buy and sell used games showing disrespect to the artists who make the games?  Toss in CDs and DVDs as well.

What is really silly about this is that nobody hears music at a convention / commerical / what-have-you and sees that as an endorsement.  Nobody.  So his complaint is foolishness combined with arrogance and deception (the part where he said there was a mix-up with who owned the song).  Had Lennertz left it as an interesting story of how the music industry works or even as a vehical by which to change it then we would have no problem.  He didn't do that.  He wanted to call McCain unamerican and unethical while doing the most unamerican and unethical thing imaginable - the control of property he knew he didn't own.


 Ethics, refers to morality, proper code of conduct and so forth; actually very broad since ethics can be subjected to interpretation. Lennertz damn well understands that he has no right to the music and that even if he did tell the McCain camp that they did not have his blessing to use the music and they just said "fuck you" and just used it the legal way, that there isn't a god damn thing he can do about it. He understands that because he knows he does not own the rights. He wanted McCain to ask him for permission because he thinks that would have been the MORAL thing to do. This statement on his blog is 100% his OPINION! He is stating what he would LIKE to happen; that he would LIKE people to ask him and respect his wishes. There is no attempt to "Control"... he is not saying McCain MUST ask him permission; he is not making any threats; he is not making any demands; he is just stating what he would LIKE to happen and how he THINKS other people should treat eachother... really, it's ridiculous to call this an attempt to control his music he doesn't own since he is taking utterly no action at all to try and STOP McCain; he is stating his opinion and nothing more. 

His code of ethics is that a person should ask an artist if they may use their work, just a simple courtesy to get the artist's blessing. It shows appreciation for the artwork and it shows respect for the artist. A lot of artist carry on an unwritten code like this;artist put a lot of work into their art and want people to appreciate and respect that. You're well within your right to use the art without their blessing, as it would still be legal to do so, but for a lot of artists, that just plain disrespectful. Is what McCain did legal? yes. But is it Moral and the right thing to do? was it right not to give proper respect to the artist? cause if it's not Morally correct, then it is fair to say it was unethical. 

And this is just about endorsement, it's also about the personal feelings of artist. Frankly he just plain doesn't like the fact that his music is being used to help someone he is against. Really, if i had my work(which i no longer owned) used in some kind of anti-semitic ad or something like that, even if no one realized it was my work, i would still be pissed off that my work was being used in a way i would never wanted... can i do anything about it? legally, no. But that isn't gonna stop me from being pissed off.


He can't take any action to stop him because he doesn't own the property in question.  He knows this so the only thing he can do is whine about it.  The moment he says that McCain should have sought permission from him to use that music, which is his entire point, he is trying to control something he no longer owns.   He is trying to control music he doesn't own and has been very clear about that from the start.  Which is why he tried to claim there was some misunderstanding about who controlled the music.  His word by the way.  Control.  He used that word in two different messages. It's all about control.  And he ain't got it.

You never did answer my question.  Is buying used games, music or movies unetihcal, immoral and unamerican if the makers of the game don't want it?


There is NO attempt to control. You can't call it an attempt to control the music if he is doing NOTHING to actually to change how the music is controlled. no lawsuits, no official complaints with the game company, no requests to have the ad pulled, no attempt to find a way to pressure McCain into taking down the ad, no demands of payments from McCain, nothing. It's like saying you're trying to control a car when you aren't even sitting in the car; like saying what you would like the car to do even though you're sitting on the sidelines where the actual driver can't hear you; he's not even backseat driving. All he is doing is complaining, nothing more.

Is he saying he would like more control or that he is frustrated with his lack of control? ya maybe, but at the same time he understands he doesn't have control. Is he making an actual attempt to take the reigns and regain control of his music? no, because if he was then he would actually be doing something about it instead of just talking. Is he saying that getting his blessing to use the music first would have been more respectful and morally the thing to do before using it for something he may have serious feelings about? ya, and that is the ONLY thing he is saying.

As for your question, the difference here is you are replacing morals with business. Why do game companies and so forth reject the idea of used game sales, not out of moral standards saying that they are ethically against resale, they do it because its all about money; afterall, the ones who do the most complaining are publishers, people who have little role in the actual creation of the product. I never really hear these complaints coming from the programmers of graphic artist; in a business sense, i think their pay is pre-determined so the re-sale of games would not impact them individually. personal feelings vs business greed... i don't know about you, but i've never heard someone make a moral arguement when the complaigned about game resale (piracy yes, but not game resale)

But IF one of the people who were actually involved in the creation of the game actually did have have an ethical issue with resale, saying he felt disrespected or some such, then i certainly would be fine with him complaining about it. If he wants to vent his frustration and feels hurt then let him... you're the one saying that this musician can't feel disrespected and disappointed with how his music has been used...

Like i said before, whether or not you forgive/understand what McCain did is one thing, is another thing to say that the musician can't complain or feel disappointed.

And how about my question, would you be fine if something you created was used for something you strongly morally objected to, such as something promoting hate against a race, religion or so forth? would you also be fine if you actually got e-mails from people about your "role" in the promotion? How would you feel?



He's slandering Mccain as unamerican and unethical, i'd say that's worse than trying to file a lawsuit. It's basically saying, vote for Obama, don't vote for Mccain, because Mccain is unamerican for using my music which i don't have control of. He's trying to influence people's votes, not on issues of national importance, but a tiny issue as this. If potential Mccain voters vote for Obama instead on this issue, i'd say something was wrong. I don't see why anyone would need to forgive Mccain for something like this.

As for your question, if someone made an anti semetic ad, with music from an extremely recognisable artist, for example Christina Aguilera, and Christina sold her song so that anyone who licensed  it can use it, then this is where we differ. Since you're associating the song and the artist with the political message, then you may think that Christina endorses antisemitism, and as a result write a letter. I'm not saying you care, but other people would make something out of nothing. If it was me, i would not associate the message with the artist, and therefore i wouldn't be the one to send hate mail or denounce the artist just because i heard her song in the racist ad. Do you see the difference?


Lets use a somewhat real example. Im a software Engineer, and If I wrote a program for a company that I work for, which means they own the rights to that software and I have no rights, moral, legal or otherwise to that software. Lets say that program was then sold to the McCain Campaign and used to help them secure the presidency. I would be a little dismayed. Even if NOBODY recognized who the author of the software is, which, I might add, is not a luxury that our composer friend has,  just knowing that something I wrote helped somebody I opposed win the whitehouse would bother me.  I can see where this guy is coming from, and I certainly agree that he has no rights to the music, but it is certainly his perogative to get out there and

A: Set the information straight, seeing as Im sure some people now think he is in the tank for McCain,.


B: Voice his true opinion about how his peice is being used.

I can say with certainty, that if I were in his position, I would do just what he did.


Hes not trying to control anything. If you actually read the peice, he is just saying that he is dissappointed with the use of his music for something he doesn't believe in. He knows he has no rights, but he feels he should make a statement clarifying that he is not behind the ad that his music is in. He never once says that he should own it or that it is his to decide what to do with.


No, he's trying to have his cake and eat it too.

Bottom line: he sold his rights to the song, he has NO say in how its used.  Period.  If that fragile little conscience of his is so important, if he values his creation and voice so much, why did he prostitute it off for a shiny new nickle?   I respect the artist who makes sacrifices for his/her art.   And I respect the artist who makes a living and supports a family by creating works for their employers or third parties.  I have no respect for people who get paid for a work, and then whine how the buyers choose to recoup their investment.

In short, Lennertz is a dick.

Oh, and not at all surprising from a Obama supporter.


Thought I disagree with the manner in which you give your opinion, as a composer and artist myself, I very much agree that Lennertz is out of line. You are right in saying that he sold his music and chose money over control. Furthermore, the piece was not just sold but commissioned by a game studio that never allows contractor's to retain rights to their music. Though commonly viewed as bad business fom an entertainment standpoint, it is rampant among game publishers and composers have made no attempts to unionize against it.

Perhaps Lennertz would have success in protecting his rights by appealing to McCain for help, rather than using his position to attack potential leadership.


 Brokenscope, there's a moral obligation but not a legal obligation.  However moral obligations usually mean squat when it comes to politics or money.


I disagree.  The only obligation, moral or otherwise, is to the person/entity that controls the rights to the piece.


After all moralists don't have morals.*hides*

I is fuzzy brained mew

(in need of a bad overhaul)

I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
(in need of a bad overhaul)


He didn't retain the rights to the song. There is no moral obligation to make sure he approves of the usage



There are different kinds of rights and royalties and it is very complex. There are things such as the writers share and publishers share, and so forth. All composers retain writer's share, one type of rights.

Depending on how the exact contract is for this particular piece of music it could need approval and contract permission from various people. Some contracts could even say permission is required for use from the original owner. It varies wildly.

The sad or weird thing is that the original composer is getting paid royalty money for this ad.



I'll be totally honest with you, if the company he produced the music for claimed they owned it, and the McCain Campaign requested it from them to begin with, I don't think he or his campaing intentionally attempt to "disgrace or inflict any hardship or ill-will on the artists who create in this country."  I think they asked, and the apparent owners said yes, and this is legally all fine and dandy.

When this piece of work was signed over to the company that used it, it left your hands so they could use it as they please, and they decided doing something with it that was entirely legal, this is not some kind of personal attack merely because you don't agree with what it was used for.  As an artist, you should have understood that corporate ownership of a work could lead to something like this.  I am dismayed you lacked the forethought to see this coming.

I suggest you reread what you said earlier: "The McCain campaign did nothing illegal."  So there was no ignoring copyright law or your rights to your intellectual property.  You don't like it?  Tough.


You obviously didn't pay attention to everything he says, wherein it is stated that there was a "mix-up as to which company controlled the rights to the music".  He also says that they should have consulted him since they would probably want to make sure that the creator of the music that they were using was actually a supporter of their campaign, which would have been a smart move on their part, considering not doing so elicited this response.  He's saying that he knows they did not do it intentionally, but they should have been more thorough about researching the material they wanted to use for their commercial.

Musician whining about nothing

I think that the previous poster did "pay attention to everything he says", Lennertz made a commercial piece for a commercial game. Lennertz lost his vote on how to use the music when he signed the usage rights of his music away to the Electronic Arts. So, why is checking with the original composer's feelings important at all? Why is the onus on McCain to 'do their research' on the composer's political viewpoints when it doesn't matter? Do you worry about Mozart's political views when you hear one of his compositions?

Re: Musician whining about nothing

He did lose the rights to say what his music was to be used for since he sold it to the game company. But as an artisit myself and supports no politician I would actually be kinda honored that it was chosen by anyside of the debate to be used in a commercial so not only would gamers hear it but that an entire audiance that would not usually hear would be able too.


@ Haggard

I always wondered why they said that at the end of the messages... It's not as though they're being coerced into saying their message.


It's a requirement of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 to give disclaimers regarding political campaign ads and messages.


Because you notice that there are ads without those messages.

It basically meants that the canidate had something to do with the ad.


Can't wait to hear how JT will go on about how vidoe games are corrupting politics as well as our youth!


"I'm John McCain and I approve this message"

Considering it was him speaking, I should hope so too ^^



You're a dunce.  EVERY politician that makes a TV ad says that phrase at the end.

Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :


Did you get a new video game for Christmas?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
ZippyDSMlee - 6:13pm

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician