JoCo created a cover of Sir Mix A Lot's song "Baby got back" in 2005 and paid the proper license to distribute his version.
Glee (A TV show in the US on Fox) copied his version but did not pay him any royalties.
So he has re-released his 2005 version with the title "Baby got back in the style of glee" so that people searching for the stolen copy from fox will find his as well.
Because it turns out that that isn't how music licensing works. If you look at the comments on previous threads on this issue it's been pointed out that JC doesn't have much in the way of rights over his version due to the way licensing agreements for cover versions work.
Whether or not it's right (morally) for Glee to not give him credit is a different matter, but all evidence is that Glee is in the right legally.
Derivative works need permission from the original publisher, while cover songs only needs a mechanical license. Or I'm I mistaken in assuming he only had a mechanical license?
Comments
JoCo created a cover of Sir Mix A Lot's song "Baby got back" in 2005 and paid the proper license to distribute his version.
Glee (A TV show in the US on Fox) copied his version but did not pay him any royalties.
So he has re-released his 2005 version with the title "Baby got back in the style of glee" so that people searching for the stolen copy from fox will find his as well.
He apparently isn't owed royalties, he just wants acknowledgment.
http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2013/01/18/baby-got-back-and-...
"and paid the proper license to distribute his version"
So his version doesn't count as a derivative work?
Yes, why wouldn't it? Derivative works still have to license the original work to be legally distributed.
Because it turns out that that isn't how music licensing works. If you look at the comments on previous threads on this issue it's been pointed out that JC doesn't have much in the way of rights over his version due to the way licensing agreements for cover versions work.
Whether or not it's right (morally) for Glee to not give him credit is a different matter, but all evidence is that Glee is in the right legally.
Derivative works need permission from the original publisher, while cover songs only needs a mechanical license. Or I'm I mistaken in assuming he only had a mechanical license?
http://www.harryfox.com/public/Licensing-GeneralFAQ.jsp#131
Thanks for the response. Is there a reason why he doesn't take Glee/Fox to court?
Seemingly what Glee/Fox did is technically legal, while clearly unethical.