Simple recap: Sir Mix-a-lot does a song, 'Baby's Got Back' which Jonathan Coulter does a cover of. Mixalot's more techno/rap and Coulter is more of a musical arrangement. Then Glee (TV Show) does a cover using Coulter's arrangement (music and additional lyrics) and doesn't so much as acknowledge his existence, much less pay the required licensing fees.
So Coulton composes some music, to which he sings someone else's lyrics. I don't see why he's not due composer's royalties. I'm not in the industry, but I'd read some place long ago that the composer gets his cut, the lyricist gets hist cut, and the recording artist gets his cut. And as soon as someone records it and releases it, then anyone else can record it, too, under compulsory licensing where the composer and lyricist continue to get their cuts (based on the rates in the compulsory parts of copyright law.)
What I'm not seeing here is a good explanation of how this all actually breaks down now. It seems to me that I'm way off from the current Way Things Are Done. How does Coulton's "arrangement" not qualify as an original composition that's deserving of copyright protection and compulsory licensing payments? Assuming I'm right, attribution isn't part of the law, license payments are.
This has been covered elsewhere - there are no required licensing fees unless Glee actually used Coulter's sound recording. Fox is guilty of a dick move here, but as long as they recreated the instrumental track themselves, they are legally in the clear.
However, I think it's likely that Fox actually used Coulton's karaoke backing tracks, which would mean Fox infringed Coulton's copyrights. I'm hoping for someone to do a digital analysis showing whether this is true.
Wow, those links are spectacular. Thanks for highlighting them.
Here's why this is an issue. Coulton released his sound recording under the Creative Commons, by-nc-sa . If they used his sound recording, Fox/Glee is infringing all three parts of that license:
- They didn't attribute
- They released it commercially
- They didn't release it share-alike
A creative commons license is additive, so they could have worked around it by contacting Coulton and getting permission ($$).
Since they did none of that, Coulton has legal grounds here, specifically relating to the use of the sound recording. In my IANAL opinion. :-)
Comments
Simple recap: Sir Mix-a-lot does a song, 'Baby's Got Back' which Jonathan Coulter does a cover of. Mixalot's more techno/rap and Coulter is more of a musical arrangement. Then Glee (TV Show) does a cover using Coulter's arrangement (music and additional lyrics) and doesn't so much as acknowledge his existence, much less pay the required licensing fees.
So Coulton composes some music, to which he sings someone else's lyrics. I don't see why he's not due composer's royalties. I'm not in the industry, but I'd read some place long ago that the composer gets his cut, the lyricist gets hist cut, and the recording artist gets his cut. And as soon as someone records it and releases it, then anyone else can record it, too, under compulsory licensing where the composer and lyricist continue to get their cuts (based on the rates in the compulsory parts of copyright law.)
What I'm not seeing here is a good explanation of how this all actually breaks down now. It seems to me that I'm way off from the current Way Things Are Done. How does Coulton's "arrangement" not qualify as an original composition that's deserving of copyright protection and compulsory licensing payments? Assuming I'm right, attribution isn't part of the law, license payments are.
This has been covered elsewhere - there are no required licensing fees unless Glee actually used Coulter's sound recording. Fox is guilty of a dick move here, but as long as they recreated the instrumental track themselves, they are legally in the clear.
However, I think it's likely that Fox actually used Coulton's karaoke backing tracks, which would mean Fox infringed Coulton's copyrights. I'm hoping for someone to do a digital analysis showing whether this is true.
It has been done! In particular a look at the "quack" that Coulton used in his version (instead of cussing like Mix-a-lot did): http://geeklikemetoo.blogspot.com/2013/01/about-that-quack.h...
He also points to a great example indicating that the beginning was likely edited too: http://imgur.com/a/F0HTP#1
Also, if you're someone that trusts their own ears and has headphones, you can hear Glee's in your left earbud, and Coulton's in your right, in this pairing: https://soundcloud.com/suudo/joco-vs-glee-baby-got-back
Wow, those links are spectacular. Thanks for highlighting them.
Here's why this is an issue. Coulton released his sound recording under the Creative Commons, by-nc-sa . If they used his sound recording, Fox/Glee is infringing all three parts of that license:
- They didn't attribute - They released it commercially - They didn't release it share-alike
A creative commons license is additive, so they could have worked around it by contacting Coulton and getting permission ($$).
Since they did none of that, Coulton has legal grounds here, specifically relating to the use of the sound recording. In my IANAL opinion. :-)
Ah! Many thanks for bringing me upto speed. Not cool of Glee to avoid giving credit where credit is due!
*Coulton