Likewise with The Verve's "Bittersweet Symphony". Despite getting permission to sample Andrew Oldham's orchestral cover of the Rolling Stones' "The Last Time", they got sued by Allen Klein (the rights holder and one of the most awful people in the music business) for every penny it makes. Legally, "Bittersweet Symphony" IS "The Last Time" and is credited to Jagger/Richards.

Listen to the Stones' original recording of "The Last Time" and then Oldham's version. You can just barely hear the original melody in it. That's how different an arrangement can be. Then listen to "Bittersweet Symphony". It's essentially identical apart from the lyrics.

Thanks for this explanation!    I only ever had a vague understanding of the connection between the two songs. Or, rather, the three songs.

The same thing was applied to John Barry regarding the "James Bond Theme". Monty Norman (who basically got fired from Dr. No) gets credit, but it's Barry's arrangement that we all know and love. (This video nicely demonstrates how the melody is Norman's but everything else is Barry's. You can compare Norman's slap-happy jazz arrangement here, called "The James Bond Theme").

Likewise with The Verve's "Bittersweet Symphony". Despite getting permission to sample Andrew Oldham's orchestral cover of the Rolling Stones' "The Last Time", they got sued by Allen Klein (the rights holder and one of the most awful people in the music business) for every penny it makes. Legally, "Bittersweet Symphony" IS "The Last Time" and is credited to Jagger/Richards.

Listen to the Stones' original recording of "The Last Time" and then Oldham's version. You can just barely hear the original melody in it. That's how different an arrangement can be. Then listen to "Bittersweet Symphony". It's essentially identical apart from the lyrics.

Well, according to an update on Coulton's blog (it's the same post as before, but with an addendum), I was wrong in my assessment of Fox's motives.   It wasn't a mere mistake after all - they did it, they know they did it, and they offer no apology for doing it.

http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2013/01/ … -and-glee/

Apparently his best case now is to prove they used his original tracks, but at least he's got no shortage of internet techies helping him sort that out...

Wow...just...wow.
I honestly am frustrated by the rules regarding television and music, as they do not have to credit the musician in their credits, which I think is wrong as well. I mean, Fox clearly was in the wrong hear, but, generally speaking, I hear songs on TV shows all the time that are uncredited that I recognize-and are not public domain, but actual clips of songs.

By the way, the "Happy Birthday" lyrics being copyrighted is also why most restaurants have their own birthday song a la "Emperor's New Groove"

http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2013/01/ … -and-glee/

Apparently his best case now is to prove they used his original tracks, but at least he's got no shortage of internet techies helping him sort that out...

What if I do a 'cover' of two songs by sticking the lyrics of one onto the tune of another. Who's song is it then?

The  lyrics are still owned by the original owner.   The music is still owned by the original owner.   The performance of the two together is owned by you.   

And the law covers everyone - neither of the original owners can just take your cover and do what they like with it.     They may force you to stop distributing it if you haven't gotten the proper licensing.   But they can't sell or distribute your version without your permission either.

If Teague creates a new arrangement of your song (changing rhythm, tempo, melody, backing, lyrics, etc.), YOU OWN IT, not Teague (unless Teague gets you to agree to a special deal).

Generally yes, but in the Coulton case, he licensed the lyrics and wrote his own music - his version is in no way an "arrangement" of the original, they're completely different.    It's somewhat similar to licensing a poem and turning it into a song.      The poet owns the words, but the music is all Coulton's.    So a third party buying the mechanical license to the original work doesn't automatically get the rights to Coulton's music.

Following my usual policy of not attributing to malice what may merely be stupidity - I don't have much trouble imagining that the makers of Glee submitted their list of songs to be cleared that week, and the legal department cleared "Baby Got Back" without knowing it wasn't just the original that needed clearance.    It's not likely to be a scenario that happens often - licensing music and writing new lyrics happens all the time (Weird Al etc), but licensing lyrics and putting them to completely different music is pretty unusual.

EDIT:  However, as to the issue of whether Glee used Coulton's actual performance... well, if they did that, then that's some high-end jackassery there.

EDIT 2: I just remembered a rather obvious example of a song being re-lyric'ed and becoming a shared property:   "Happy Birthday"     The tune was originally "Good Morning to All", then later someone else rewrote the lyrics to create the birthday song.    The tune is now public domain but the lyrics, being more recent, are still under copyright.     Which is why movie and TV characters rarely sing it.  And if they do, you'll see Happy Birthday listed in the music credits.

There's also a question as to whether they used Coulton's recording (with vocals removed). There is some evidence to suggest that they did, and I understand that could actually get Fox in hot water.

Yes, this too! There's some debate as to whether or not the distinctive "quack" sound from Coulton's version is heard in the Glee version. I think I can hear it, but that might just be my brain instinctively putting it there.

There's also a question as to whether they used Coulton's recording (with vocals removed). There is some evidence to suggest that they did, and I understand that could actually get Fox in hot water.

Edit @Teague: Paul would still have to pay the license and send money to Zarban. But apparently could just give you the middle finger.

Zarban writes "Lovesick Puppy Hump."

Teague covers "Lovesick Puppy Hump," but changes the music substantially, keeping only the lyrics and the title. We call this "Lovesick Puppy Hump 2." Teague pays the mechanical license, and a small portion of his profits to Zarban, but keeps the rest.

Paul covers "Lovesick Puppy Hump 2," does not have to pay the mechanical license, does not have to pay Zarban, and does not have to pay Teague?

That doesn't sound right...

You write a song: your estate owns the copyright to the words and music for 70 years after your death.

You record that song: your estate owns the copyright to that recording for 70 years after your death.

If Teague wants to cover your song, he gets a mechanical license (about $15; he doesn't need your permission; it's compulsory). He owns the copyright to that recording. He gets the profits from sales but must pay you, the songwriter, a standard royalty (about 10¢ per copy distributed).

If, when he's recording his cover, Teague creates a new arrangement of your song (changing rhythm, tempo, melody, backing, lyrics, etc.), YOU OWN IT, not Teague (unless Teague gets you to agree to a special deal).

If Paulou licenses the song from you (for $15) to do a cover, he can do it with Teague's arrangement with no extra compensation or acknowledgement to Teague. Palou owns the copyright on his recording; you still get your songwriting dime.

The only exception is parody. If Paulou's version is mocking you or your song or people who like your song or music in general or society in general, he doesn't need a license or permission and doesn't pay royalties. Weird Al Yankovic DOES pay some royalties to avoid any hard feelings or lawsuits.

Not acknowledging Jonny C was very uncool of Glee, but who ever said Glee was cool?

(Edited for clarity)

  Apparently it's not the first time they've done it either

They have done it a few times. Their first 'hit' borrowed heavily from Petra Haden's A cappella cover of Don't Stop Believin'. They added instruments which made it different enough to slip though. The Coulton thing is the most blatant rip-off, though. Keeping his name in their cover? Fucking morons.

EDIT: The 'Jonny C' line was omitted from the broadcast version of the show although that may have been the intention all along. The Youtube songs are usually extended versions.