RobDaBank said:
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?
Probably not, but understand your not on a TV show the purpose of which is to make money. Glee basially exists to sell advertising space during the run of the show, not to mention DVDs of the show, and of course sell their covers of songs, and any other merchandising they can find to work off of it. By using someone's song without their permission they are effectively stealing what someone else uses to make a living, and then making money off of their creation.
If you were to just sing a song for some friends or something like that, it's no big deal. On the other hand if you were to sing someone else's song and sell tickets without their permission, that would be an issue in all likelyhood.
As a strict matter of legality, giving away someone's IP can be a big deal, when it's an intellectual property nobody is going to pay for something they can get for free. For the most part with songs or whatever nobody cares, but strictly speaking if you cover them you can get in trouble.
In practice I'll also say that despite the law most performers and song writers don't much care if small bands make a few bucks using their stuff even under the table. If some high school garage band takes $100 to play a school party and does "Stairway To Heaven" it's not like Zepplin is liable to come after them with a legal team for it if they find out. On the other hand bands and songwriters DO care when your releasing their stuff on a national level. If Glee covers a song without permission and say sells 100k copies for 50 cents apiece as downloads (and that's a low estimate) your still dealing with $50,000 which is a good chunk of change being made off of someone else's creation. With something like Glee they could potentially make millions though when you consider the contribution their songs make to all of their merchandising accross the board.
In short Jonathan Coulton is right, they should have gotten his permission, and probably paid him royalties (choosing to waive them is his option).
Not to mention a side issue here, which is that the song writer/creator is oftentimes differant from the performer that makes something famous or popular. In most cases performers do not write their own music (though Jonathan does apparently write a lot of his own), the guy who wrote the song oftentimes takes a good chunk of the profits made from it and has a say in the business. In this paticular case Jonathan Coulton apparently cut a deal with Sir Mix-A-Lot's organization to do an alternate cover of this song, the deal probably means that he does not have exclusive rights to it, and the creator of the original gets a share of whatever profits are made, as well as a say in what's done with it. To use this song would probably require "Glee" to not only get permission from Jonathan Coulton but also the creator of the original version. By not policing his version Jonathan might even be held liable for someone else stealing it depending on the contract.
There is also another side to this as well. Glee is not exactly a non-political show. It's one of the most liberal, pro-gay, generally politically correct things ever created. We have a country that is polarized 50-50 politically, wavering on a few percentage points. At the time of his inaugeration Obama had only 51% support for example. With the way the media works, a lot of people see the numbers but don't really "get it" when everything is made to seem left wing, and like there is at least a clear majority in that direction. None of the big issues from gay rights to gun control, to anything else people argue about are exactly clear cut. Glee gets bashed so heavily in part because of it's slant and a lot of it's messages which half the population vehemently disagree with. Someone with the rights to a song might not want their work associated with a show like this, even if they agree with the messages it's still a business, and simply by having their work on Glee they could actually reduce their fan base. From a business perspective the best place to be is as neutral seeming as possible if you can help it. The creators and rights holders DO have a say on where their music appears and how it's used (which comes up from time to time when music is used by politicians in paticular, with both parties getting griped at). Jonathan Coulton or Sir Mix-a-lot might not want to have their work associated with something like "Glee" even if they otherwise agree with it (or maybe not). Whether that's an issue or not, the point is your supposed to ask first for a lot of reasons, including this.
Even outside of the politics there is also the whole issue that the results of Glee-covers are mixed to say the least. Some songs have even been deemed "ruined forever" by their involvement. It's also possible that you might not want a specific person or group to sing your song in front of a large enough audience due to the backlash. Like it or not sometimes you see a version of something so horrible that they can no longer appreciate the original, thinking of the disaster every time they hear it and not wanting to even put it in their mind. To be blunt if I had a popular song that Glee wanted to do, I'd insist on hearing their version of it first before giving them permission to put it on TV, no matter how much money the network offered me... and JC never even got the option to demand that.
