If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Glee rips off Jonathan Coulton's cover of "Baby Got Back", becomes the catalyst of a war between music nerds and Glee nerds   (salon.com) divider line 106
    More: Asinine, Jonathan Coulton, Baby Got Back, Glee, Sir Mix-a-Lot  
•       •       •

3297 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 18 Jan 2013 at 4:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



106 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-18 02:44:54 PM
Quick! ASCAP! Go sue some teenager for downloading the Glee soundtrack!
 
2013-01-18 02:46:26 PM
Seriously, glee, WTF.

That's not even a question of whether they copied his or not.

The only question I have is whether Coulton consulted Sir Mix-A-Lot before doing his...
 
2013-01-18 02:53:33 PM
Hahaha...be less blatant next time, Ryan Murphy.
 
2013-01-18 02:56:34 PM
Pretty shameful. I hope this helps Coulton's cover become more widespread, and Fox sucks it up and pays him royalties.
 
2013-01-18 02:58:28 PM

Supes: Pretty shameful. I hope this helps Coulton's cover become more widespread, and Fox sucks it up and pays him royalties.


Oh, and also pays Sir Mix-a-Lot royalties. Come'on now.
 
2013-01-18 03:02:06 PM
I'd be more impressed if they did a cover of "Seattle ain't bullshiattin"
 
2013-01-18 04:05:23 PM
John Coulton get up get coffee
John Coulton go to job
John Coulton see a show on TV
Find Internet forming mob
Glee sing a cover of Sir Mix-A-Lot
With line 'bout Jonnie C
Glee say original and eloquent
What do John Coulton think?

John Coulton think maybe @gleeonfox oughta write goddamn cover song themselves.
John Coulton not tweet it out loud,
John Coulton not crazy, just proud.

(I apologize in advance to Mr. Coulton for putting words in his mouth like that. Gotta sit down and pretend to work for a while, so have at it, Farkers!)
 
2013-01-18 04:08:54 PM
Another reason to hate Glee?  Well, I didn't really need any, but I'm happy to add one more to the pile.
 
2013-01-18 04:16:09 PM

unlikely: Seriously, glee, WTF.

That's not even a question of whether they copied his or not.

The only question I have is whether Coulton consulted Sir Mix-A-Lot before doing his...


They previously did this with the Greg Laswell version of "Girls Just Want to Have Fun" and credited him for the arrangement.
 
2013-01-18 04:22:06 PM
All JOCO wants from the producers is their brains.
 
2013-01-18 04:23:24 PM
Maybe he'll find someone else to help him

/maybe Black Mesa
 
2013-01-18 04:23:45 PM
images.wikia.com
 
2013-01-18 04:23:47 PM
stop being so homophobic, jonathan coulton
 
2013-01-18 04:25:29 PM

farkeruk: Maybe he'll find someone else to help him

/maybe Black Mesa


static.prtst.net

/Ha Ha
//Fat Chance
 
2013-01-18 04:28:24 PM
If you can sync the two YouTube videos, they sound pretty awesome playing simultaneously.

Of course, it works because they also have exactly the same tempo. So, yeah, obvious.
 
2013-01-18 04:28:57 PM
Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Fox
where we're working round the clock
to steal your arrangements...
did I say "steal" them? I meant "respect them."
 
2013-01-18 04:31:57 PM

Twilight Farkle: John Coulton get up get coffee
John Coulton go to job
John Coulton see a show on TV
Find Internet forming mob
Glee sing a cover of Sir Mix-A-Lot
With line 'bout Jonnie C
Glee say original and eloquent
What do John Coulton think?

John Coulton think maybe @gleeonfox oughta write goddamn cover song themselves.
John Coulton not tweet it out loud,
John Coulton not crazy, just proud.

(I apologize in advance to Mr. Coulton for putting words in his mouth like that. Gotta sit down and pretend to work for a while, so have at it, Farkers!)


That was beautiful. You win the thread. I bow in your general direction.
 
2013-01-18 04:35:39 PM
Two nerds enter! One nerd leaves!
 
2013-01-18 04:36:04 PM

WhoIsWillo: unlikely: Seriously, glee, WTF.

That's not even a question of whether they copied his or not.

The only question I have is whether Coulton consulted Sir Mix-A-Lot before doing his...

They previously did this with the Greg Laswell version of "Girls Just Want to Have Fun" and credited him for the arrangement.


They also did it with their arrangement of Yeah by Usher. Glee pretty much ripped off their arrangement from a collegiate a cappella group.
 
2013-01-18 04:40:52 PM
Do people actually watch that show? Isn't it pretty much G4 for music?
 
2013-01-18 04:43:01 PM
I wonder if Coulton has any agreements with ASCAP that Glee thinks this'd be covered under, and conversely, if Coulton has registered his copyright. This is one of those times where the willful level of statutory damages would be appropriate.
 
2013-01-18 04:44:48 PM
Glee fans don't like music anyway.
 
2013-01-18 04:44:55 PM

Theaetetus: I wonder if Coulton has any agreements with ASCAP that Glee thinks this'd be covered under, and conversely, if Coulton has registered his copyright. This is one of those times where the willful level of statutory damages would be appropriate.


He published it. There is solid proof of the date of publishing. That's all copyright law needs.
 
2013-01-18 04:45:33 PM
wow they ripped off a song from someone who didn't create the actual song, and is not even a household name.

/call me if they rip off the covers of biatches ain't shiat or boyz in the hood
 
2013-01-18 04:50:06 PM

Kyosuke: Theaetetus: I wonder if Coulton has any agreements with ASCAP that Glee thinks this'd be covered under, and conversely, if Coulton has registered his copyright. This is one of those times where the willful level of statutory damages would be appropriate.

He published it. There is solid proof of the date of publishing. That's all copyright law needs.


... for a suit where he would then have to prove actual damages. However, if he registers his copyright, then he's able to get statutory damages (as well as attorneys fees). See 17 USC 412.

/don't mansplain about IP law to an IP lawyer
 
2013-01-18 04:51:05 PM
Glee even stole his name: At 2:16 you can hear the lyric "Johnny C's in trouble".

/srsly wtf
 
2013-01-18 04:53:48 PM
Since they actually stole his modified lyrics ("Johnny C's in trouble"), wouldn't that make it even more than just stealing an arrangement?

/ not a lawyer
// don't even have a GED in law
 
2013-01-18 04:54:10 PM

Theaetetus: mansplain


ಠ_ಠ
 
2013-01-18 04:54:16 PM
They didn't even change the lyrics he changed... how stupid can you be?
 
2013-01-18 04:54:42 PM

Theaetetus: Kyosuke: Theaetetus: I wonder if Coulton has any agreements with ASCAP that Glee thinks this'd be covered under, and conversely, if Coulton has registered his copyright. This is one of those times where the willful level of statutory damages would be appropriate.

He published it. There is solid proof of the date of publishing. That's all copyright law needs.

... for a suit where he would then have to prove actual damages. However, if he registers his copyright, then he's able to get statutory damages (as well as attorneys fees). See 17 USC 412.

/don't mansplain about IP law to an IP lawyer


Testify brother  Theaetetus, TESTIFY!1

1 In the theatrical, caricatured Southern Protestant attesting to the veracity of a statement" sense, not in the "provide sworn testimony" sense.
 
2013-01-18 04:55:21 PM
I'm not a JC fan (it's not my kind of music) but yeah, this is pretty blatant.
 
2013-01-18 04:55:32 PM

deadsanta: Glee even stole his name: At 2:16 you can hear the lyric "Johnny C's in trouble".

/srsly wtf


and at 2:40 you can hear the duck quack. It sounds like they used the karaoke track from his website.
 
2013-01-18 04:56:43 PM

kyoryu: Since they actually stole his modified lyrics ("Johnny C's in trouble"), wouldn't that make it even more than just stealing an arrangement?

/ not a lawyer
// don't even have a GED in law


Nah, it's still a single "work" that was infringed, so the copied lyrics and arrangement will be really great evidence, but not separate acts of infringement.
 
2013-01-18 05:04:51 PM

thecpt: and is not even a household name.


He is in any household I prefer to be in.
 
2013-01-18 05:05:16 PM
The only good thing about Glee is this shiat right here.

mybodymyimage.com
 
2013-01-18 05:07:53 PM
So someone's complaining that someone ripped off his cover of a song that was retarded to begin with?
 
2013-01-18 05:10:11 PM

Theaetetus: kyoryu: Since they actually stole his modified lyrics ("Johnny C's in trouble"), wouldn't that make it even more than just stealing an arrangement?

/ not a lawyer
// don't even have a GED in law

Nah, it's still a single "work" that was infringed, so the copied lyrics and arrangement will be really great evidence, but not separate acts of infringement.


If he paid the statutory license for the use of the lyrics and wrote a completely unique melody for it, is the melody his IP?

Just curious.
 
2013-01-18 05:13:16 PM

unlikely: Theaetetus: kyoryu: Since they actually stole his modified lyrics ("Johnny C's in trouble"), wouldn't that make it even more than just stealing an arrangement?

/ not a lawyer
// don't even have a GED in law

Nah, it's still a single "work" that was infringed, so the copied lyrics and arrangement will be really great evidence, but not separate acts of infringement.

If he paid the statutory license for the use of the lyrics and wrote a completely unique melody for it, is the melody his IP?

Just curious.


Yah. He's a composer. Technically, he could go after them for copying the melody, and Lord Mix-a-Lot (he's really too old to be a mere knight) could go after them for the lyrics separately (except that they pay license fees to the publishers that undoubtedly cover him).
 
2013-01-18 05:16:16 PM
http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2013/01/18/baby-got-back-and-glee/

"If it is, I have some questions about how IP works in terms of this song. It's a cover of a Sir Mix-a-Lot song obviously, but I wrote a new melody for it, which this recording uses. Back when I released it, I bought the statutory license to distribute my version of this song through Harry Fox. Creative Commons doesn't come into play because it's a cover song, and anyway my CC license specifies Non-Commercial."
 
2013-01-18 05:17:27 PM

Theaetetus: except that they pay license fees to the publishers


...which may well be the other part of the story we don't know. Did they pay ASCAP and the publishers and there was no need to actually bother even telling Coulton, since he'll get his check from the industry eventually?
 
2013-01-18 05:19:58 PM
Glee did the same thing to Barenaked Ladies, but I can't find out if they gave credit or not.

Barenaked Ladies - Hanukkah, Oh Hanukkah

Glee version
 
2013-01-18 05:24:52 PM

Son of Thunder:
That was beautiful. You win the thread. I bow in your general direction.


I'm still having writer's block on the chorus. Try to throw in some Mix-A-Lot lines? Maybe in Latin? Or just kick off with something like this?

What rhymes with infringement?
Not sure if John Coulton's gonna sue...
 
2013-01-18 05:26:22 PM
This guy posted both songs played simultaneously, Glee on the left channel, Coulton on the right. Link

Glee's entering a world of pasty-white-hot nerd rage.
 
2013-01-18 05:30:12 PM
I don't hear the duck. Am I going deaf or did they edit it out?
 
2013-01-18 05:31:43 PM

IrateShadow: I don't hear the duck. Am I going deaf or did they edit it out?


It's there. You really hear in good headphones happens around 2:40 like in JoCo's version
 
2013-01-18 05:32:05 PM

IrateShadow: I don't hear the duck. Am I going deaf or did they edit it out?


A word to the thick soul sisters, I wanna get with ya
I won't cuss or hit ya
But I gotta be straight when I say I wanna *fark*  <------- replaced with duck quack
 
2013-01-18 05:32:13 PM

Twilight Farkle: Son of Thunder:
That was beautiful. You win the thread. I bow in your general direction.

I'm still having writer's block on the chorus. Try to throw in some Mix-A-Lot lines? Maybe in Latin? Or just kick off with something like this?

What rhymes with infringement?
Not sure if John Coulton's gonna sue...


Regardless, Code Monkey like you....lots.
 
2013-01-18 05:33:05 PM

unlikely: Theaetetus: except that they pay license fees to the publishers

...which may well be the other part of the story we don't know. Did they pay ASCAP and the publishers and there was no need to actually bother even telling Coulton, since he'll get his check from the industry eventually?


Hence the other part of my initial question... is this covered under any agreements he has with ASCAP? A quick search in their repertory on ASCAP.com doesn't show Coulton as a member (nor do any of his other songs show up in a search), so the answer may be no.
 
2013-01-18 05:34:50 PM
twitter has been yelling about this all day.
 
2013-01-18 05:35:43 PM
The glee crowd are more "Dorks" than "Nerds."

Nerds do have some social value, even if socially awkward in person.
 
2013-01-18 05:41:24 PM

Theaetetus: unlikely: Theaetetus: except that they pay license fees to the publishers

...which may well be the other part of the story we don't know. Did they pay ASCAP and the publishers and there was no need to actually bother even telling Coulton, since he'll get his check from the industry eventually?

Hence the other part of my initial question... is this covered under any agreements he has with ASCAP? A quick search in their repertory on ASCAP.com doesn't show Coulton as a member (nor do any of his other songs show up in a search), so the answer may be no.


All of Coulton's unlicensed (nonPortal)/non-covers(BgB, Queen covers) works are released in Creative Commons, but not allowing commercial use, FWIW.
 
2013-01-18 05:42:52 PM

unlikely: Theaetetus: except that they pay license fees to the publishers

...which may well be the other part of the story we don't know. Did they pay ASCAP and the publishers and there was no need to actually bother even telling Coulton, since he'll get his check from the industry eventually?


It doesn't quite work that way. If they were just doing a cover that they were recording, they'd only need to contact ASCAP to get a licence and Coulton wouldn't know about it until he got royalty checks. If you're putting it in some other kind of audio visual work (like a movie, TV show, or webisode), they probably need a Synchronization Licence which is negotiated with the artist (or licencing agent). Those aren't as easy as just filling out ASCAP forms and it's really not likely that Coulton wouldn't know it was happening. If they used his actual tracks, they'd also have to negotiate a Master Use Licence for his recording.
 
2013-01-18 05:45:00 PM

RevMercutio: Theaetetus: unlikely: Theaetetus: except that they pay license fees to the publishers

...which may well be the other part of the story we don't know. Did they pay ASCAP and the publishers and there was no need to actually bother even telling Coulton, since he'll get his check from the industry eventually?

Hence the other part of my initial question... is this covered under any agreements he has with ASCAP? A quick search in their repertory on ASCAP.com doesn't show Coulton as a member (nor do any of his other songs show up in a search), so the answer may be no.

All of Coulton's unlicensed (nonPortal)/non-covers(BgB, Queen covers) works are released in Creative Commons, but not allowing commercial use, FWIW.


He could have a CC license for non-commercial use, and a paid (even ASCAP) license for commercial use. But it appears he's not an ASCAP member.
 
2013-01-18 05:46:38 PM
So hes complaining that somebody used music without his permission of him using somebody elses music?
 
2013-01-18 05:49:39 PM

Warlordtrooper: So hes complaining that somebody used music without his permission of him using somebody elses music?


See how stupid you look if you don't read the thread before posting?
 
2013-01-18 05:50:03 PM
Clarifiation: I misspoke (mistyped) ASCAP collects royalties for the artist. You don't get the Mechanical Licence from them (the one you need just to do the cover tune). But they liklely have the information about the publisher available. Once you know that, then you contact Harry Fox or use a similar service the get teh Mechanical Licence to allow you to record your cover tune.

Your Sync Licence is a whole other can of worms, and you'd need to be in touch with the artist's representatives, if you want your cover tune of someone else's music on TV.
 
2013-01-18 05:51:34 PM

Warlordtrooper: So hes complaining that somebody used music without his permission of him using somebody elses music?


No, he's complaining that they used *his arrangement* of someone else's music, as well as using his *original lyrics*, without so much as a by-your-leave. And they may have very well just simply recorded new vocals over his instrumental performance without so much as a by-your-leave.
 
2013-01-18 05:57:07 PM

Iggie: Glee did the same thing to Barenaked Ladies, but I can't find out if they gave credit or not.

Barenaked Ladies - Hanukkah, Oh Hanukkah

Glee version


Unlike Coulton, they are under a major label, and likely got money for the use of their work.
 
2013-01-18 06:01:24 PM

ClavellBCMI: Warlordtrooper: So hes complaining that somebody used music without his permission of him using somebody elses music?

No, he's complaining that they used *his arrangement* of someone else's music, as well as using his *original lyrics*, without so much as a by-your-leave. And they may have very well just simply recorded new vocals over his instrumental performance without so much as a by-your-leave.


This. Since he has the instrumental version on his website, as well as the master tracks on his JoCo looks back download they were out there.
 
2013-01-18 06:02:50 PM

hulk hogan meat shoes: The only good thing about Glee is this shiat right here.

[mybodymyimage.com image 628x434]


No - this is....

userserve-ak.last.fm
 
2013-01-18 06:08:13 PM
All they want to do is use his song. They're not unreasonable.
 
2013-01-18 06:13:39 PM
I don't think I can imagine something funnier than a guy crying about the artistic integrity of his "Baby got back" cover.
 
2013-01-18 06:15:08 PM

mooseyfate: All they want to do is use his song. They're not unreasonable.


We're just gonna plagiarizer. If you open up the door we'll all come inside and use your song.
 
2013-01-18 06:26:32 PM

Leishu: Iggie: Glee did the same thing to Barenaked Ladies, but I can't find out if they gave credit or not.

Barenaked Ladies - Hanukkah, Oh Hanukkah

Glee version

Unlike Coulton, they are under a major label, and likely got money for the use of their work.


"Hanukkah, Oh Hanukkah" was released on the album "Barenaked for the Holidays". That album was the first release on their own, independent, label "Desperation Records". Warner Records distributed it, but I don't know enough about music rights to know if Warner would have any say over Glee using it.
 
2013-01-18 06:28:55 PM

Malcolm_Sex: I don't think I can imagine something funnier than a guy crying about the artistic integrity of his "Baby got back" cover.


But it is an awesome cover.
 
2013-01-18 06:32:27 PM

Malcolm_Sex: I don't think I can imagine something funnier than a guy crying about the artistic integrity of his "Baby got back" cover.


Who's crying about artistic integrity? If this qualifies as an illegitimate use of his melody and duck sound, then Jonnie gots ta get hisself paid.
 
2013-01-18 06:32:27 PM

unlikely: Seriously, glee, WTF.

That's not even a question of whether they copied his or not.

The only question I have is whether Coulton consulted Sir Mix-A-Lot before doing his...



He doesn't have to, and actually, they don't have to consult him before doing a cover of Baby's Got Back exactly like his.

Style of performance is not copyrightable. You can rip off someone's performance, and many people have done so throughout the history of rock music. The author of the song gets songwriting credit, and if you use samples you have to pay the owner of the sound recording. But arrangement and performance style, and production techniques are up for grabs.

This would be a great litmus test for whether they maybe should be, since they've ripped off the complete arrangment, performance style, and production of his version.
 
2013-01-18 06:37:43 PM

Christian Bale: Style of performance is not copyrightable. You can rip off someone's performance, and many people have done so throughout the history of rock music. The author of the song gets songwriting credit, and if you use samples you have to pay the owner of the sound recording. But arrangement and performance style, and production techniques are up for grabs.


Except that this was an arrangement, rather than a performance style - he actually wrote new music that used Sir's lyrics. As such, the music is most definitely copyrightable.
 
2013-01-18 06:40:33 PM
So what. He doesn't own the copyright. He owns his performance of it and if someone does something similar... well performances can be similar and he can't do a damn thing about it. And rightfully so.
 
2013-01-18 06:47:49 PM

Christian Bale: But arrangement and performance style, and production techniques are up for grabs.


Not true - arrangements are potentially protected by copyright. See the Copyright Office's publication on copyright of derivative works. The perfect example is using words from the Bible as lyrics to a song with new music. If the music is original and copyrightable in itself - if it would be copyrightable as an instrumental - then the derivative work is also copyrightable.
In this case, Coulton wrote an original melody and music, that would be copyrightable if it was an instrumental. Therefore, he also has rights to the derivative work. He has no rights over the lyrics.
 
2013-01-18 06:48:50 PM

Christian Bale: Style of performance is not copyrightable.


Christian Bale: and if you use samples you have to pay the owner of the sound recording


unlikely: See how stupid you look if you don't read the thread before posting?

 
2013-01-18 06:48:53 PM

robsul82: Hahaha...be less blatant next time, Ryan Murphy.


Seriously. You can play them together and they're pretty much exactly in sync. Hopefully Coulton gets some more publicity out of it. I recently heard him on an NPR weekend show, glad to see he's getting more mainstream attention.

/Not that NPR is mainstream.
 
2013-01-18 06:49:27 PM

mrlewish: So what. He doesn't own the copyright. He owns his performance of it and if someone does something similar... well performances can be similar and he can't do a damn thing about it. And rightfully so.


The music was original, and so he holds the copyright for that music. A "similar performance" that copied his original music would infringe.
 
2013-01-18 06:53:25 PM

Malcolm_Sex: I don't think I can imagine something funnier than a guy crying about the artistic integrity of his "Baby got back" cover.


How about someone being mad that a major prime time show ripped off the music he wrote?
 
2013-01-18 07:21:45 PM
I find it more newsworthy that Glee is still on the air.
 
2013-01-18 07:28:06 PM

Krab: mooseyfate: All they want to do is use his song. They're not unreasonable.

We're just gonna plagiarizer. If you open up the door we'll all come inside and use your song.


*internet fist-bump*
 
2013-01-18 07:39:08 PM

Theaetetus: mrlewish: So what. He doesn't own the copyright. He owns his performance of it and if someone does something similar... well performances can be similar and he can't do a damn thing about it. And rightfully so.

The music was original, and so he holds the copyright for that music. A "similar performance" that copied his original music would infringe.


Don't forget he also has original elements he added to the lyrics. How much does he have to add before the lyrics count as a derivative work?
 
2013-01-18 07:43:51 PM

pslong009: WhoIsWillo: unlikely: Seriously, glee, WTF.

That's not even a question of whether they copied his or not.

The only question I have is whether Coulton consulted Sir Mix-A-Lot before doing his...

They previously did this with the Greg Laswell version of "Girls Just Want to Have Fun" and credited him for the arrangement.

They also did it with their arrangement of Yeah by Usher. Glee pretty much ripped off their arrangement from a collegiate a cappella group.


This is worse than both those examples. Those other times, the cover versions that Glee ripped off were still using the same tunes as the originals. This one, they covered an original musical composition without doing the requisite work to get the rights to use it from the copyright holder of that musical composition. They needed to get rights from both Mix-A-Lot and Coulton.
 
2013-01-18 08:00:12 PM

Iggie: Leishu: Iggie: Glee did the same thing to Barenaked Ladies, but I can't find out if they gave credit or not.

Barenaked Ladies - Hanukkah, Oh Hanukkah

Glee version

Unlike Coulton, they are under a major label, and likely got money for the use of their work.

"Hanukkah, Oh Hanukkah" was released on the album "Barenaked for the Holidays". That album was the first release on their own, independent, label "Desperation Records". Warner Records distributed it, but I don't know enough about music rights to know if Warner would have any say over Glee using it.


It's not a case of when/how it was released but of who they are currently represented by.
 
2013-01-18 08:02:57 PM

Teiritzamna: Malcolm_Sex: I don't think I can imagine something funnier than a guy crying about the artistic integrity of his "Baby got back" cover.

How about someone being mad that a major prime time show ripped off the music he wrote?


This. Artists use CC so that other artists can share and elaborate upon their works without a cost barrier. Fox Television is about as far opposite as you can get from an artist that would be stymied by a cost barrier. This is "we did it because fark YOU, that's why" territory. Given the proliferation of liars and cheaters in the news this week, Fox trying to bully an independent solo artist is not going to work...
 
2013-01-18 08:20:08 PM
The lyrics belong to Mix-a-lot, but Coulton wrote the new melody. It's theft.
 
2013-01-18 08:36:03 PM
I'd imagine that in the liner notes for Thing a Week it credits Sir Mix-a-Lot for the music and lyrics. Therefore, it's his song, not Coulton's. Sorry, music nerds, but your rage fails in court.
 
2013-01-18 08:48:40 PM

vonschiller: I'd imagine that in the liner notes for Thing a Week it credits Sir Mix-a-Lot for the music and lyrics. Therefore, it's his song, not Coulton's. Sorry, music nerds, but your rage fails in court.


The lyrics, yeah, but the music? Not likely.
 
2013-01-18 09:06:35 PM

hulk hogan meat shoes: The only good thing about Glee is this shiat right here.

[mybodymyimage.com image 628x434]


Really? Her?
If you're into eye candy:

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

/show is now terrible
 
2013-01-18 09:24:00 PM

vonschiller: I'd imagine that in the liner notes for Thing a Week it credits Sir Mix-a-Lot for the music and lyrics. Therefore, it's his song, not Coulton's. Sorry, music nerds, but your rage fails in court.


And you are wrong. It's a new arrangement, and while *MOST* of the lyrics are from Sir-Mix-A-Lot, some of them are Coulton's. He rewrote a few lines. The arrangement is all his. The issue is that Glee ripped off his arrangement and used *HIS* lyrics, rather than create their own arrangement. That's the issue and why people are bringing it up.
 
2013-01-18 09:32:18 PM
 
2013-01-18 10:19:22 PM
I once heard a cover of that song, done by an a capella group in the style of a medieval church choir. You haven't lived until you've heard a soaring falsetto singing about "My Anaconda".
 
2013-01-18 10:26:07 PM
Both are inferior to the version from Richard Cheese
 
2013-01-18 10:28:51 PM
I would care about this, but the whole "nerdy guy(s) doing an acoustic cover of a rap song" schtick hasn't been amusing since like 2003. Assuming it ever was.
 
2013-01-18 10:37:14 PM

RevMercutio: Theaetetus: unlikely: Theaetetus: except that they pay license fees to the publishers

...which may well be the other part of the story we don't know. Did they pay ASCAP and the publishers and there was no need to actually bother even telling Coulton, since he'll get his check from the industry eventually?

Hence the other part of my initial question... is this covered under any agreements he has with ASCAP? A quick search in their repertory on ASCAP.com doesn't show Coulton as a member (nor do any of his other songs show up in a search), so the answer may be no.

All of Coulton's unlicensed (nonPortal)/non-covers(BgB, Queen covers) works are released in Creative Commons, but not allowing commercial use, FWIW.


I think that means there's some serious lawsuit'n about to happen. CC-NC is pretty definitive. "No, you can't use this for commercial purposes". A TV show is commercial purposes (and not just because the entire point of a TV show is to serve as filler for commercials).

I'd be interested to know if a blanket CC-NC like this brings things into the "statutory damages" arena. Where'd you go, mister IP lawyer farker guy?
 
2013-01-18 10:43:37 PM
ASCAP killed the Glee club at Greendale a few years ago. Like seriously killed them.
Almost ruined the Christmas pageant but it was saved by Jeff Wingers study group. Then they went and Britta'd it all up.

Also I just want a Weird Al episode of Glee, then they have my permission to die.
 
2013-01-18 10:53:34 PM

soporific: vonschiller: I'd imagine that in the liner notes for Thing a Week it credits Sir Mix-a-Lot for the music and lyrics. Therefore, it's his song, not Coulton's. Sorry, music nerds, but your rage fails in court.

And you are wrong. It's a new arrangement, and while *MOST* of the lyrics are from Sir-Mix-A-Lot, some of them are Coulton's. He rewrote a few lines. The arrangement is all his. The issue is that Glee ripped off his arrangement and used *HIS* lyrics, rather than create their own arrangement. That's the issue and why people are bringing it up.


No, it's not. The issue is that it seems like Glee flat-out stole his instrumentation. He released the source tracks, but the catch is that Baby Got Back does not have the CC license all of his original songs do.

Personally? They sound identical to me. Left channel is Glee; right is Coulton.
 
2013-01-18 11:29:03 PM
Here's another question for you actual IP fellows:

Don't you need permission from the songwriter to rewrite lyrics? I was under the impression that permission to use a song absolutely does not allow lyrics to be rewritten without separate and specific permission. Inquiring minds want to know, etc.
 
2013-01-19 12:15:31 AM
Ryan Murphy used Baby Got Back in an episode of Popular, back in the day (when April Tuna tried out for the Glamazons and then everyone thought she died in a car crash). That scene is what really made me love the song, so I'm kind of sad, but not surprised, that he and Glee pulled a douche move like this.
 
2013-01-19 01:17:39 AM

Krab: deadsanta: Glee even stole his name: At 2:16 you can hear the lyric "Johnny C's in trouble".

/srsly wtf

and at 2:40 you can hear the duck quack. It sounds like they used the karaoke track from his website.


I had never before heard of this cover until this headline, but I listened to it, and liked it. But at some point in the song I thought I heard a duck quack. It made me look around.

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-19 01:28:37 AM

Lsherm: Meh.   He ripped off Dynamite Hack.


I love that cover. i'd never seen the music video. Was not disappointed
 
2013-01-19 02:08:48 AM
The JoCo Primer - Getting Music
There are lots of ways to get music from me, whether you're a cyborg from the future with an iPod in your skull, or a little old granny in Idaho with nothing but an antique "CD Player." Lots of it is freely available depending on how technical you are - you can get all of it for free if you really try. But please remember I do make a living this way, so if you like what you hear I'd certainly appreciate you throwing a little payment or donation my way. If you can't afford it, for goodness sake please send copies of everything to all of your friends.


sounds to me like he'd prefer if you pay but doesn't care unless he thinks he can grab some free publicity and a settlement. he strikes me less as an artist and more as a whore who will do you for free if you're broke but cry "rape" if he thinks he can get something out of it.
 
2013-01-19 02:16:49 AM

Bubblegum Tate: Lsherm: Meh.   He ripped off Dynamite Hack.

I love that cover. i'd never seen the music video. Was not disappointed


Yeah, and that was late 90's ripoff of early 90's "gangsta."
 
2013-01-19 02:19:21 AM

stonelotus: The JoCo Primer - Getting Music
There are lots of ways to get music from me, whether you're a cyborg from the future with an iPod in your skull, or a little old granny in Idaho with nothing but an antique "CD Player." Lots of it is freely available depending on how technical you are - you can get all of it for free if you really try. But please remember I do make a living this way, so if you like what you hear I'd certainly appreciate you throwing a little payment or donation my way. If you can't afford it, for goodness sake please send copies of everything to all of your friends.

sounds to me like he'd prefer if you pay but doesn't care unless he thinks he can grab some free publicity and a settlement. he strikes me less as an artist and more as a whore who will do you for free if you're broke but cry "rape" if he thinks he can get something out of it.


More like he'll do you for free, but he would want a cut if your gonna film it and sell the tape.
 
2013-01-19 04:28:11 AM

Supes: Malcolm_Sex: I don't think I can imagine something funnier than a guy crying about the artistic integrity of his "Baby got back" cover.

But it is an awesome cover.


Never heard of this guy or his cover before. Huh.

It sounds like he ripped off the melody of "Leaving On A Jet Plane," which John Denver wrote and the Carpenters recorded.
 
2013-01-19 05:13:18 AM

Bubblegum Tate: Lsherm: Meh.   He ripped off Dynamite Hack.

I love that cover. i'd never seen the music video. Was not disappointed


What I really appreciate 10 years after the fact is the blurring of the iZod logo - that seems brilliant now.

And, of course, the waving at the cop car.
 
2013-01-19 07:00:53 AM
Uh-oh, bad publicity
 
2013-01-19 08:45:38 AM

ODDwhun: stonelotus: The JoCo Primer - Getting Music
There are lots of ways to get music from me, whether you're a cyborg from the future with an iPod in your skull, or a little old granny in Idaho with nothing but an antique "CD Player." Lots of it is freely available depending on how technical you are - you can get all of it for free if you really try. But please remember I do make a living this way, so if you like what you hear I'd certainly appreciate you throwing a little payment or donation my way. If you can't afford it, for goodness sake please send copies of everything to all of your friends.

sounds to me like he'd prefer if you pay but doesn't care unless he thinks he can grab some free publicity and a settlement. he strikes me less as an artist and more as a whore who will do you for free if you're broke but cry "rape" if he thinks he can get something out of it.

More like he'll do you for free, but he would want a cut if your gonna film it and sell the tape.


Also known as CC-NC, which all of his non-cover songs are licensed as.

Also the page with the music on it has "Everything else copyright © Jonathan Coulton" at the bottom. He has a copyright claim to the music, regardless of what licensing rules do or do not apply to it based on it being derivative work/etc.
 
2013-01-19 12:49:16 PM

stonelotus: The JoCo Primer - Getting Music
There are lots of ways to get music from me, whether you're a cyborg from the future with an iPod in your skull, or a little old granny in Idaho with nothing but an antique "CD Player." Lots of it is freely available depending on how technical you are - you can get all of it for free if you really try. But please remember I do make a living this way, so if you like what you hear I'd certainly appreciate you throwing a little payment or donation my way. If you can't afford it, for goodness sake please send copies of everything to all of your friends.

sounds to me like he'd prefer if you pay but doesn't care unless he thinks he can grab some free publicity and a settlement. he strikes me less as an artist and more as a whore who will do you for free if you're broke but cry "rape" if he thinks he can get something out of it.


Yeah, fark him for wanting to get paid for his work. Who cares if his kid gets fed, am I right?
 
2013-01-19 06:43:04 PM

rynthetyn: Theaetetus: mrlewish: So what. He doesn't own the copyright. He owns his performance of it and if someone does something similar... well performances can be similar and he can't do a damn thing about it. And rightfully so.

The music was original, and so he holds the copyright for that music. A "similar performance" that copied his original music would infringe.

Don't forget he also has original elements he added to the lyrics. How much does he have to add before the lyrics count as a derivative work?


More than that... All he changed was "Mix-a-lot's in trouble" to "Johnnie C's in trouble" and the duck instead of "fark". Trivial changes. He has no claim to the lyrics.

Compare that to Weird Al's parodies - Al has copyright over his silly lyrics, but has no rights* to the music he copies.

*he has a license, of course, plus fair use rights - I mean he holds no copyright ownership.
 
2013-01-19 06:52:08 PM

hulk hogan meat shoes: The only good thing about Glee is this shiat right here.

[mybodymyimage.com image 628x434]


If there is one person in the world I could brutally murder and torture, it is this person.
 
Displayed 106 of 106 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report