By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A portion of Jonny Greenwood’s Oscar-nominated score for *Phantom Thread* was featured in the Melania Trump documentary. However, Greenwood issued a statement asserting that Universal Pictures’ use of his copyrighted music breached his composer agreement by failing to consult him. Consequently, both Greenwood and director Paul Thomas Anderson have requested the removal of the score from the documentary. The film also includes pre-existing tracks such as Michael Jackson’s “Billie Jean” and The Rolling Stones’ “Gimme Shelter.”
Read the original article here
It seems the world of film and music licensing has gotten a bit tangled up, with a prominent composer now demanding that his work be pulled from a documentary about Melania Trump. The core of the issue revolves around the unauthorized use of a piece of music originally composed by Jonny Greenwood for the critically acclaimed film *Phantom Thread*. This situation has understandably sparked a strong reaction from Greenwood and director Paul Thomas Anderson, who have publicly called for the removal of the score from the documentary.
The statement released on behalf of Greenwood and Anderson clarifies the situation, noting that while Greenwood himself doesn’t hold the copyright to the *Phantom Thread* score, there was a failure on the part of Universal, the entity that presumably controls the music’s licensing, to consult him on this third-party use. This oversight is considered a breach of his composer agreement, leading to the request for its immediate removal from the Melania documentary.
This entire affair highlights a broader, and perhaps more concerning, tendency for some producers to seemingly help themselves to the creative output of others without proper authorization. It’s particularly galling when one considers that the documentary creators apparently boasted about having an “entirely new and unique score,” only to be accused of essentially pilfering existing work. This raises questions about the integrity of their production process and their respect for intellectual property.
The lack of understanding regarding music licensing, especially when it comes to the work of established artists, is baffling to say the least. For anyone aiming to grow their fanbase and maintain credibility, associating with controversial or politically charged projects without due diligence on the creative elements is a risky proposition. Artists who choose to align themselves with figures or movements that alienate significant portions of the public often find themselves in an isolated creative space, a “cage” as some might put it.
It makes one wonder if Amazon, as the distributor or platform for this documentary, failed to conduct a thorough clearance process for the music used. The thought that a significant budget might not be enough to cover proper licensing, or even commission an original score, is quite astonishing. The ease with which some individuals and entities disregard consent and ownership, mirroring a wider pattern of disrespect for boundaries, is a recurring theme in discussions surrounding such incidents.
The situation also sheds light on a perceived lack of genuine creativity and originality within certain political circles. When individuals or groups lack the talent, skill, or experience to produce their own original content, they often resort to appropriating or outright stealing from those who do. This approach, fueled by “dirty old money” rather than artistic merit, is a stark contrast to the values of established and respected artists.
The fact that this unauthorized usage has come to light suggests a potential lawsuit looming for the documentary’s producers. Given the clear breach of agreement and the public outcry from the composer, it’s highly probable they will face legal consequences and likely lose the case. It appears that for some, especially those with limited artistic capacity, the only way to engage with celebrated art is to commandeer it, using it as free publicity to further their own agenda, often through provocative and confrontational tactics.
There’s a certain irony in the fact that this “cheap documentary” might gain more visibility precisely because of the controversy surrounding its content and its unauthorized use of music. It’s a stark reminder of how people, even if they dislike something, often gravitate towards the familiar. The situation also mirrors the behavior of those who take credit for group projects without contributing, a trait that unfortunately seems to manifest in public figures who feel entitled to exploit others’ creative efforts.
Furthermore, Melania Trump herself has a documented history of plagiarism, notably in her speeches, which adds another layer of irony to this current copyright dispute. The situation is made even more peculiar by the subtle shifts in reporting regarding Greenwood’s stance. Initially, some reports suggested he didn’t own the copyright, while others stated he did. The clarification that it’s a breach of his composer agreement, despite not holding the direct copyright, is crucial.
Ultimately, Greenwood’s request to have his music removed is likely rooted in his refusal to endorse or associate with a project tied to a figure he and many other artists find objectionable. Forcing the removal of his music is a clear political stance, a refusal to lend his artistic credibility to a cause he likely despises, even if it means potentially alienating a segment of his audience. Some artists are comfortable with their existing fanbase and recognize that taking such principled stands, while risky, can lead to a more authentic connection with their true supporters.
The producers’ attempt to license the music, even if it went awry, suggests they weren’t simply trying to steal it outright, but rather made a significant error in their licensing process. However, this doesn’t excuse the outcome, and the fact that they don’t respect creative autonomy mirrors their broader disregard for bodily autonomy. It’s a clear indication of a deeper lack of respect for the creative process and the rights of creators. The argument that “conservatives ‘art lovers’ can’t make shit themselves” and thus resort to appropriation and theft seems to resonate with many who observe this pattern. This incident, regardless of how it unfolded in terms of licensing, is a testament to the pervasive issues of consent and ownership in the creative and political spheres.