Glee Rips Off Jonathan Coulton

[Rawne1980]

I'm not telling you Mike Flowers and Oasis made the same thing, no - The whole "One blithely parrots, the other changes" was in terms of Glee Vs. Coltron. But the thing is, in terms of Glee vs. Coultron, you're saying it's the same. Which implies, in turn, that the same amount of effort went into it. And I'm not about to say cover versions are 100% original, either - I guess it's an opinion based matter, so I can agree to disagree.

The issue I had was with the fact it at least sounded like you were saying that Coultron and Glee were doing the exact same thing to the songs, which they really didn't - Coultron at least made an attempt to change the thing, Glee just went ahead and stole it wholesale.

And really, I don't think the issue was ever "RAWR RAWR THEY COVERED DA SONG THAT'S CHEEEEETING" or some bollocks. It's less that they covered a song, which is perfectly cool from a legal perspective, and more that they covered the song without even bothering to ask the original artist if they could. Which is, technically, still legal (I think? Music copyright law gets a little tricky sometimes) but makes you out as more of a prick. If it wasn't for the fact that they snuck it in behind the original artist's back, this probably wouldn't even be here as news.

Ahhh then I must not have explained myself very well.

I didn't mean Coultron and Glee did the same thing. I know Coultron did the cover of Baby Got Back and Glee just went ahead and did Coultron's version without permission.

I just went into a rant about covers, probably unrelated to the topic but there you go. It seems to have irritated some music fans to hear my views on covers but hey ho, we can't all agree on everything.

I wasn't referring to Coultron as a rip off artist, my only gripe with covers like his (well, all covers really) is I just don't find them as pleasant or original as some people do. Glee just basically takes a song and redoes it but it's one of those shows i've never got around to watching so I can't rant at it for that.

 

[TAGM]

Ahhh then I must not have explained myself very well.

I didn't mean Coultron and Glee did the same thing. I know Coultron did the cover of Baby Got Back and Glee just went ahead and did Coultron's version without permission.

I just went into a rant about covers, probably unrelated to the topic but there you go. It seems to have irritated some music fans to hear my views on covers but hey ho, we can't all agree on everything.

I wasn't referring to Coultron as a rip off artist, my only gripe with covers like his (well, all covers really) is I just don't find them as pleasant or original as some people do. Glee just basically takes a song and redoes it but it's one of those shows i've never got around to watching so I can't rant at it for that.

Ah, well, now that you've cleared that up...

Personally, I end up judging the covers separately on a case-by-case basis myself. As for the Coultron one, I kinda like it personally, but hey - I'm not about to argue that you're wrong or anything, it's all opinions in the end, innit? :3

 

[Something Amyss]

Incidentally, you cannot copyright an arrangement, so there's no real legal problem here. No issue with "not getting his permission."

I think it's a matter of poor taste rather than a legal one. The fact that the show used the arrangement without even speaking to Coulton comes off as kind of a jerk move. Even Weird Al asks the artist permission before he parodies their music, even though under US law he doesn't have to. It's just common courtesy I would think.

Do you think all those Watchtower covers consult with the Hendrix estate? His arrangement of the Dylan song is the standard these days, and yet Dylan's the one who gets the royalties and credit.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

If you're going to be up yourself, you may want to question your own intellectual capacity first.

Coulton made his own arrangement for the song. As in he CREATED the tune and just used Mix-A-lot's lyrics.

Glee used both Coulton's arrangement and his recording.

Coulton did a cover/re-imaging with permission; Glee stole Coulton's recording without permission.

Is that so hard to understand, Mr. High and Mighty?

You may want to read more before you attempt to jump in and fall flat at being clever.

Already gone over the "but he did his own music" attempt at a come back.

If you polish a turd, guess what?

It's still a turd.

Bad analogy but point still stands. Mo matter how much you change something, it's still the same thing. Anybody can take someone else's song and change the music and pace, just check Youtube. Lost count of the amount of folk on there covering songs but changing bits in a vain attempt to "make it their own".

I'm not saying Coulton doesn't have any talent i'm saying that a cover does not showcase said talent.

You know, that saying is actually terrible. It also doesn't follow. Most everything manmade is really just man-altered. A sword is not just a hunk of iron. A computer is not just a bunch of plastic and metal. It is something altogether different and honestly should be considered "original" to a certain degree. You are taking a rather absolute stance here which really makes no sense.

Also, considering that coffee made from what essentially amounts to polished bat turds is a delicacy, that saying doesn't even make sense literally.

 

[Constapatience]

This may be a bit off topic but HOLY CRAP! look at all the dislikes on the youtube page with the ripped off glee song. over 8k and likes are only just above 250. I don't know if it is a good thing but maybe it shows that nobody likes the idea of Someone ripping off and independent artist although I'm pretty sure its just his fans doing the dislikes but it would be cool if it was the other idea about ripping off an artist for everyone even people that don't know about Johnathan to show their Dislike.

 

[Arizona Kyle]

I for one am a big Glee fan, (22yo straight male with a child). And honestly don't see the big problem with them covering songs. They definitely put a unique twist on each song which gives a clear distinction between their songs and the original. If I were to sing a song and people enjoyed it, would I be subject to a lawsuit because that song belonged to somebody else?

You can not preform the song without permission. Small family outings and small groups are ok, but if it is a medium to large crowd or if you make money off of it then no

 

[Sirtety]

Incidentally, you cannot copyright an arrangement, so there's no real legal problem here. No issue with "not getting his permission."

I think it's a matter of poor taste rather than a legal one. The fact that the show used the arrangement without even speaking to Coulton comes off as kind of a jerk move. Even Weird Al asks the artist permission before he parodies their music, even though under US law he doesn't have to. It's just common courtesy I would think.

Do you think all those Watchtower covers consult with the Hendrix estate? His arrangement of the Dylan song is the standard these days, and yet Dylan's the one who gets the royalties and credit.

I'm pretty sure you're right about the legality issue (not a lawyer, wouldn't know); and I'm sure that not every band in existence contacts the original artist before doing a cover (unless they are making money off of it). I just think that a well known show, on a well known network, with a sizable fan base should be careful with the music they are using.

Heck they even left his name in the song.

 

[Firia]

I feel bad for the Fox Twitter team. Imagine how much hate tweets they get when all that rage should be directed at the higher ups. I'm sure they just pass it on, but some of them are probably charged to some degree with responses.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

I'm merely pointing out that a cover is not a musical masterpiece no matter what bells and whistles have been slapped on it.

So... if I take a rap song and give it a tune, chords, complete backing, vocal harmony, and completely alter the tone and intention of it, that's just "bells and whistles"?

Are songs written to poems identical to the original poems? I mean, Jon pretty much just took the lyrics and completely re-wrote the song. No, not re-wrote, he actually went so far as to write a different song entirely and sing Baby Got Back's lyrics over it. I mean, a lot of covers do exactly what they say, but this isn't just a genre switch. Literally the only element that is the same between Sir Mix-a-Lot's and JoCo's versions of the song are the lyrics.

 

[Jayemsal]

Definitely merits a lawsuit or simply a long and sloppy apology from fox.

 

[PH3NOmenon]

A friend of mine is a Glee fan (don't judge me) and her reaction was "But they didn't do anything wrong, you can copy covers as much as you want!"

Which is true. But JoCo's baby got back isn't a cover. He paid for the rights to use Sir Mixalot's lyrics and made his own arrangement. The song is no longer "a version of baby got back", but an original creation. And you can't just heedlessly flat out copy those things. My guess? There's a composer for Glee that's gonna get fired for trying to pull this shit.

 

[Ickorus]

It's not just an arrangement; he added a tune to a song that originally didn't have one. It's no different from, say, putting a poem to music for the first time. Assuming he had the right to publish the song in the first place, his version is as protected by copyright as the original. Especially if it turns out Fox literally used the exact recording he made, which it sounds like they did (although how they managed to cleanly remove the vocals is a mystery to me).

That said, somehow I suspect Coulton didn't actually go through the proper legal channels to make his song in the first place. Nothing against Coulton personally, whom I know next to nothing about, but if he's anything like other Internet songwriting/recording hobbyists I've met, he probably assumed that Fair Use grants him the right to do whatever he wants with copyrighted material "because, uh, Internet and stuff."

JoCo has a Karaoke version for a lot of his songs, including 'Baby got back', you can find it here [http://www.jonathancoulton.com/store/karaoke/].

I'm not sure if what they did was illegal or not since covers don't fall under the same copyright rules as original works, the melody and pacing is totally different in his version so perhaps he has some grounds there but I'm not sure, hope he figures something out, wholesale stealing someone else's work should be unacceptable.

EDIT: Reading a bit more on copyright law if they used his recording without permission* then they're in trouble regardless.

* If you listen to any of the side by side comparisons the instrumentation is exactly the same so they probably did.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Lets see that's criminal miss use of Copy right, please pay 100 billoin to John or go to jail.

 

[cambamuniverse]

It's important to keep in mind here that FOX probably handles all of the copyright stuff. A lot of people in this thread are cursing the performers, but they're just given the notes and told what to sing.

On his site Joco says that the album is creative commons with attribution, and as long as no one makes money off of it, it's fine. So they just need to not make money off of it and credit him. So far, only that Swedish site is making money off of the song, apparently, so that's an issue, as well as the credit.

Come on FOX, get it together.

 

[Baneat]

I'd have waited for it to actually be in the episode before pointing this out so I could then sue rather than this which has opened them up to saying it's completely unsubstantiated and not in the show.

But I like money.

 

[Signa]

I find it hard to abuse Glee when it takes a song done by someone else who took the song from someone else.

It's not as if Coulton wrote the song or even put much effort into it ... it's a cover.

Had it been an original song it would have been different.

But I suppose the people here are right. Let's abuse a TV show for being unoriginal and stealing an unoriginal song off guy who covered the song of someone else because covering a song is original right? ..... RIGHT?

Nope, it's not.

But, according to a poll that popped up on this very forum last year, a hell of a lot of people here class themselves as having above average intelligence....

It truly shows, honest.

All we are asking is that the media companies hold themselves to the same standard that they ask us to hold ourselves to. Is that too much to ask? How many Youtube videos get pulled because the backing soundtrack is from a song someone else owns?

 

[Monsterfurby]

Oh dear. They have no idea what they are messing with.

RELEEEEEEEASE THE GEEK RAGE!!

I find it hard to abuse Glee when it takes a song done by someone else who took the song from someone else.

It's not as if Coulton wrote the song or even put much effort into it ... it's a cover.

Had it been an original song it would have been different.

But I suppose the people here are right. Let's abuse a TV show for being unoriginal and stealing an unoriginal song off guy who covered the song of someone else because covering a song is original right? ..... RIGHT?

Nope, it's not.

But, according to a poll that popped up on this very forum last year, a hell of a lot of people here class themselves as having above average intelligence....

It truly shows, honest.

You do realise that many countries copyright laws cover *arrangements* of songs as well as the songs themselves, right? I don't know what the US legal situation is, but in say Germany, if you as an artist perform a parody/homage/cover version of a better known song, your particular arrangement is legally protected through the musicians' rights organization GEMA. And GEMA WILL tear everyone who performs your version of that song a new one in your name (lest they pay GEMA, in which case both you and the original artist profit).

 

[MPerce]

Wow, Fox. You just try to fuck over an Internet demigod.

You better be ready for a massive influx of nerd rage.

 

[SeaCalMaster]

Incidentally, you cannot copyright an arrangement, so there's no real legal problem here. No issue with "not getting his permission."

The U.S. Copyright Office disagrees with you.

The copyright law of the United States provides for copyright protection in "musical works, including any accompanying words," that are fixed in some tangible medium of expression. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). Musical works include both original compositions and original arrangements or other new versions of earlier compositions to which new copyrightable authorship has been added.

(emphasis added)

 

[Soak]

Ahahaha, so cheap, so funny in it's irony, nice one!
Ok, seriously, while i'm pretty open minded in media of any kind (the shit i've seen, glad my eyes didn't incinerate yet), i've never seen Glee until now and probably won't ever. Just looked at it because i like Coulton and wanted to know his reaction and it appears he just proves again to be the cool guy he is.
Classy, really, very classy indeed XD