Glee Steals Indie Artist's Recordings

[Andara Bledin]

So, there's currently a flurry of Twitter and tech news activity over the fact that Glee recently did a cover of the Sir Mix-A-Lot song Baby Got Back.

The reason this has hit the wire so heavily is due to the fact that they used the arrangement written by Jonathan Coulton, aka JoCo, of Still Alive and "Thing a Week" fame.

Article at CNN

JoCo has gone on record to note that the license he purchased in 2005 for his cover does not give him any creative rights regardless of the fact that he wrote an entirely new and original musical arrangement. However, several individuals have noted that it appears that not only did the producers of Glee boost his arrangement wholesale, it appears that they actually used his recording, as well. If this proves to be the case, then Glee and Fox are going to be in pretty serious legal trouble, particularly considering the fact that quite a few other indie artists with less-vocal fan-bases have had he same complaint. JoCo has his lawyer working on it, and should it turn out to be the case, he will move forward with a lawsuit.

The best part about all of this is that JoCo wouldn't have minded any of it had they merely credited him with the arrangement. In fact, most laughably, Fox's response was that it was free publicity for him that they used his arrangement. His response is that since they at no point ever mention him at all, that it's free SECRET publicity.

In the meantime, because he can (and because it's awesomely funny), JoCo has released a cover in the style of Glee's cover in the style of his cover of Sir Mix-A-Lot's song Baby Got Back on the iTunes store. And all profit through the end of February (less fees and royalties) will be going to charity.

Article on JoCo's site

[edit to add]
Apparently, because a lot of people were mentioning they don't do iTunes in the comments, he's gone ahead and also offered the song on GooglePlay and Amazone MP3 (when they clear it). It's worth noting that his site is getting hammered, so it might time out.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

I couldn't believe this, even after reading his tweet about it. His cover of the song is so unique that even people that aren't real fans of his would recognize it. It sounds like they took a karaoke track, or a production track minus his lead vocals, and sang over it.

I love the exec's comment about "Free Publicity." If a karaoke host plays a song by a company he hasn't paid a royalty out to, he'll get taken to court. The same goes for DJs.

[Greenday]

I couldn't believe this, even after reading his tweet about it. His cover of the song is so unique that even people that aren't real fans of his would recognize it.

I had to look up his version. I've never heard it before in my life.

A major TV network ripping off some indie artist who isn't a big star doesn't exactly surprise me.

[Gravekeeper]

Wow, I knew Fox was stupid, but once you start dicking around anyone involved with Portal you're descetrating the Internet's religious figures. >.>

[s_stabeler]

groan... that exec... that kind of ignorance plays into the hands of pirates.

1) JoCo's publisher (or himself, if he self-published) has the rights to the recording. IIRC, that's regardless of license conditions.
2) if JoCo wrote a new arrangement, he might have rights to that.

in short, if Glee and Fox didn't bother getting permission, they are in legal trouble, though in practice, there'll likely be a settlement in this case. ( why? because Fox would be able to spin out any case past what an individual can afford; it's not fair, but ti happens)

[fireheart17]

My boyfriend managed to find a side-by-side recording of the Glee version vs the JoC version.

Both versions even MENTION Jonny C.

The name of the character who sings the song is Adam.

[Andara Bledin]

1) JoCo's publisher (or himself, if he self-published) has the rights to the recording. IIRC, that's regardless of license conditions.
2) if JoCo wrote a new arrangement, he might have rights to that.

The rights to the actual recording belong to JoCo and that is a given.
The arrangement, however, is pretty much up for grabs by anyone else who arranges a license to cover the original.

in short, if Glee and Fox didn't bother getting permission, they are in legal trouble, though in practice, there'll likely be a settlement in this case. ( why? because Fox would be able to spin out any case past what an individual can afford; it's not fair, but ti happens)

I don't doubt at all that Fox had planned to litigate to death anybody who had the temerity to try to gain recompense for their unauthorized and uncredited use of other people's recordings.

However, JoCo is something of an internet sensation with some fans who are big enough and a fan-base that reaches wide enough that he would quite likely be able to raise any funds necessary to fight this fight had he not already had a lawyer on tap for just this purpose.

^-.-^

[mikoyan29]

So basically Fox wants it both ways?

[Nekojin]

So basically Fox wants it both ways?

Big Media always wants it both ways. Is it a license, or a physical item? That depends on which benefits them more! It's a physical item when it comes time to replace - they want you to buy a fresh new one at full retail if something happens to your old one. But it's a license (in their eyes) when it comes to things like backup copies and transcoding (both fair use), and they'd rather you (ding ding ding) buy another copy that is approved for the different media format you want it for!

So, in that sense, this is just Business As Usual. Fox wants whatever benefits Fox the most, regardless of whether it's consistent.

[Ginger Tea]

Having encountered a few (some good) examples of people singing over instrumental tracks and them only having claim to the lyrics (if theirs to begin with and not a mash up) I thought it would be given that the new music would be the composers in the opposite.

If this piece is a new composition that sounds nothing like the original (will have to listen to all linked media) then why are they thinking they can just 'steal' or use without credit, when record lables and rights owners (normally record lables) normally go ape?

In the world of covers, when you have one aired and are now in the stages of having to pay royalties, the lyric writer is guarantied their money, but the one that wrote the music, what's that you say "The music used is nothing like the one you wrote" too bad so sad no money for you, that's going to this guy that wrote the new piece.

I was under the impression for a long time that you didn't need to ask the original band or writers if you could cover a song, you just needed to make sure that they got their royalties paid, not sure how that works when you give out songs for free mind.
But when SuBo wanted to perform Perfect Day on US TV Lou Reed got pissy and said she could not, he changed his mind later, but I thought that those running the shows like Xfactor Countries got Tallent etc, they knew who to pay when it came to public performances and that would be it.

I often prefer covers to sound far different to the originals or we just end up with big name band Karaokie, if it means only the lyricist is the only original writer paid then so be it.
If I had an instrumental of Honeyroots Love will tear us apart, I don't think I could hear even a faint echo of the original Joy Division music, why would/should the original band members get paid for music they didn't write let alone perform.

Edit:

Covers don't get their own copyright protection as far as the underlying musical composition, Parks said. But Coulton might have legal footing if the show used Coulton's audio track.

The. Fuck?

[mikoyan29]

I think the precedent is in sampling. I forget which artists were sued but I seem to remember this issue from the 80's. I think Wierd Al may have had some issues as well but there is something about taking an existing piece of work and making it your own. (i.e., satire)

[lordlundar]

I think the precedent is in sampling. I forget which artists were sued but I seem to remember this issue from the 80's. I think Wierd Al may have had some issues as well but there is something about taking an existing piece of work and making it your own. (i.e., satire)

There have been a couple of early attempts to go after Weird Al but those failed due to parody protection in the current laws. Al however puts efforts out to get permission as a gesture of good faith though he doesn't have to. Most artist grant approval but there's been a few that haven't.

The protection only applies to intentional satire though and there is what's called a passive copyright protection where a work simply needs to have a date attached to it being granted basic protections under the law so there is a chance Coulton could get something out of it.

[Nekojin]

SuBo. JoCo. WTF?

When did we stop referring to people by their names, and start using Japanese-style mash-ups?

[Duelist925]

SuBo. JoCo. WTF?

When did we stop referring to people by their names, and start using Japanese-style mash-ups?

easier to text or tweet "JoCo" than Johnathan Coulton. *shrug*

[lordlundar]

SuBo. JoCo. WTF?

When did we stop referring to people by their names, and start using Japanese-style mash-ups?

Started with Jennifer Lopez.