That is depressing...though a rather strange choice for a Dr. Pepper ad. I wish I was at the meeting where that idea was pitched 

This is not all that unusual, no, can't say it bothers me either way. Rick Wakeman's 'Arthur' was apparently also used as the theme tune to 'Election Night' coverage in the UK. Allegedly, it was also used as the theme for a Cuban soap opera (when Wakeman played there the crowd erupted into applause when the opening riff kicked in, and this was apparently the reason) and I've seen it used on a trailer for a poor Kung Fu movie too.

Heck, I even heard Jethro Tull's 'We Used To Know' used in UK soap 'Hollyoaks' earlier in the year!!!

These responses that are along the lines of, “get over it, the band is just putting prog rock out there to turn on a new generation of fans” are missing the point. That’s not why the band’s is doing it. They're doing it for money and in turn allowing a corporation to use their music to sell a product. Turning on new fans or any similar rationalization is a side benefit of it; but that’s not the reason their doing it.

ELP didn’t use the music for Dr. Pepper ads when BSS came out. Nor did they for a long time after that. And there was a reason for that. They didn’t want their music associated with Dr. Pepper or any other food product advertisement. And I think that’s because they believed that the music’s cultural importance as prog rock art wasn’t commensurate with junk food advertising. And I believe they were right in not allowing it to be used in that way. However, times changed and they changed their minds and decided that now it was okay to do it. I don’t like that decision. I value that music and believe they sold the music and its cultural legacy short.

I know I don’t own the music. I’m aware of that. ELP can do what they want with it. It’s their right. I just don’t like serious music used in this way--whether it’s Beethoven’s Ninth or Close to the Edge or A Plague of Lighthouse Keepers or Reich’s Trains or Karn Evel 9. I believe it undermines the credibility of the art and artists involved.

Your all assuming ELP has any rights of refusal over such things.  I am sure like many other 70's musicians they do not own rights to the song nor does the band get any royalties except as songwriters.  There was a Subaru commercial using Dust in the Wind last year and the band Kansas had no say in its use.  It was all Sony and they received all the royalties and fees for its use except of a small royalty to Kerry Livgren as the songwriter.

Before you accuse research. 

rileydog22 wrote: Ivan, they've actually had rights to their songs the whole time: They founded Manticore Records before the release of Tarkus, and released all of their material since then on the label.  They run the record label, so they had rights to the songs since they were written.  Everything from Love Beach to soda commercials to those godawful remixes has been entirely their fault, not contractual obligations or money-hungry record executives.

1. Trilogy: LP Island ILPS9186 (1972)
   Cotillion / Atlantic Records 1972; re-released 1996 on Rhino {USA / Canada}
2. Brain Salad Surgery: LP Manticore / Atlantic Records 1973; ; re-released 1996 on Rhino {USA / Canada}, as yo see it was released worldwide by Atlantic and their representatives in USA Rhino, today Manticore records oown the copyright becauuse the 25 years period has ended).
3. Love Beach:

   1996	CD	Rhino	72231
   	CD	Atlantic	AMYCD217
   1978	LP	Atlantic	19211
   1999	CD	Import	60643
   1996	CD	Castle	ESM363
   1993	CD	Victory Music	480028
   2006	CD	JVC Japan	63226
   1999	CD	Import	60643
   2001	CD	Castle	226

In 1978, the band had wanted to take a few years off to pursue solo projects, but Atlantic Records wouldn't let ELP out of its contract. The label demanded a new studio album, as required in its agreement.  ELP was forced to head to Compass Point Studios in The Bahamas to record what would become Love Beach. Love Beach was a disjointed, uninspired collection of songs released in mid 1979, It also marked the end of ELP for 12 years.  http://www.emersonlakepalmer.com/bio.html - http://www.emersonlakepalmer.com/bio.html

bluetailfly wrote:   But I don't know if that necessarily means Atlantic or whatever company could use their songs in advertising without their consent. This is the missing piece of information.

This depends in the local law, for example, MikeenRegalia pointed me (And I couldn't believe it until he got me a copy) that in Germany the copyright holder can't sell or transmit the rights to third parts without the express authorization of the owner. 

2 Rights subsisting in copyright works (1) The owner of the copyright in a work of any description has the exclusive right to do the acts specified in Chapter II as the acts restricted by the copyright in a work of that description. Chapter II Rights of Copyright Owner   16 The acts restricted by copyright in a work (1) The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the following provisions of this Chapter, the exclusive right to do the following acts in the United Kingdom— (a) to copy the work (see section 17); (b) to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18); (c) to perform, show or play the work in public (see section 19); (d) to broadcast the work or include it in a cable programme service (see section 20); (e) to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation (see section 21)

I guess yes they can, but they have to  pay the royalties to the author but as I said the copyright owner has some limits:

 

2 Rights subsisting in copyright works (2) In relation to certain descriptions of copyright work the following rights conferred by Chapter IV (moral rights) subsist in favour of the author, director or commissioner of the work, whether or not he is the owner of the copyright—   80 Right to object to derogatory treatment of work (1) The author of a copyright literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, and the director of a copyright film, has the right in the circumstances mentioned in this section not to have his work subjected to derogatory treatment. (2) For the purposes of this section— (a) “treatment” of a work means any addition to, deletion from or alteration to or adaptation of the work, other than— (i) a translation of a literary or dramatic work, or (ii) an arrangement or transcription of a musical work involving no more than a change of key or register; and (b) the treatment of a work is derogatory if it amounts to distortion or mutilation of the work or is otherwise prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author or director;

So, if the author considers a commercial is derogatory for their music like for example using the music to make publicity to a brodel or lets say even liquor and/or cigarrettes because it could damage their image, they have the right to challenge the use

 

schizoid_man77 wrote: Theres no way I can compete with that statement Ivan!!!   I applaude you