You've misspelled 'record labels'

I have an argument with the whole concept of 'intellectual property'. There have been recent large scale efforts by large rights-holders to get the time-limited monopoly privileges granted by governments through copyright and patent law to be seen as 'property'. The analogy between these monopoly rights granted by governments for specific social goods (in the US) and actual property is fatally flawed.

I'd also like to know the legal ramifications of this. It's pretty obvious that this was blatant theft on Fox's part. The "Johnny C" line is pretty damning.

Yeah. Here's how music copyright works (as far as I can tell from my research).

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)

Last edited by Zarban (2013-01-26 08:47:17)

What if Johnathan Coulton wrote new lyrics to go with the new tune, chord structure and rhythm? Then it's definitely his song. 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?

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.

Last edited by Phi (2013-01-25 21:13:11)

I've heard the phantom quack is actually the removal of the quack with a clone-stampable portion of audio, and the edit into and out of that patch is a little wonky. So it's not a quack, but there's a distinctive blip right where the quack should be.

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.

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...

Yeah, Coulton more or less concedes that he has no rights here unless he can prove they used his actual recording. His cover is an arrangement of the original, no matter how different it sounds.

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.

Last edited by Zarban (2013-01-26 08:44:48)

I think some company should take it and sell it on iTunes

Ok, thanks to Trey and Pavlich pointing me (back) to this episode and thread, an interesting question popped in to my mind. Maybe you might want to consider it with me

My wife, recently, was quoted in a published magazine, from a post she wrote on a forum. Now, I understand that forum posts are not under copyright and should not be treated the same as a work of art. I guess my question is, with all the posting on the Internet, is copyright law able to keep up with and protect artists now?

I hope that makes sense.

And the unpopular (at least around here, I assume) answer is "That's no bad thing". 

This by now has a few out-of-date references, and is mostly about music, but I would have thought directly speaks to issues like fan films.   

http://www.negativland.com/news/wp-cont … _essay.pdf