Glee Rips Off Jonathan Coulton

[Dangit2019]

There's doing a cover, and then there's this.

JC used a Creative Commons license, which means that it is illegal to use his material without

A. Permission
and
B. Proper crediting to the original author.

Of, course, Fox did neither.

 

[CriticalMiss]

Fox will get away with it because they will throw a few million dollars at a legal team rather than admit they are thieves. Fortunately I never have and never will watch Glee, but I will now go and watch every Coulton video on youtube and maybe buy some of his trinkets.

 

[Rawne1980]

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.

 

[Ken Sapp]

I am also raging mad over the fact teens think Established Artist stole from Glee.
Example "Why is Barbra Streisand singing a song from Glee"?
You stupid sad child, that video was recorded before you where born, before the briths of the cast of that show.
That there was the original song that Glee Stole.

What's worrying is that I think kids are getting dumber. When I was a kid and I watched shows like that, I figured that they couldn't possibly create new songs each week, songs that other artists are singing on the radio, songs that just sound different from their style; there were just so many things that made me figure it out by logic. Also, my parents didn't allow me to be that dumb.
I'm beginning to sound like an old man but you get the point. We weren't that dumb.
Also...

Can we just write a petition to wipe out Glee and bring back a show that was good like Arrested Development of Fire Fly.

Oh, glob. I'd PAY them to get rid of Glee and bring back Firefly!
Seriously, how does that make any sense! Glee keeps going but Firefly didn't even last two seasons?! Where's the logic in that?

The logic is in the fact that Glee apparently has a consistently large enough number of viewers tuning in every week to keep the advertising dollars rolling in. Firefly was cripple by Fox airing it out of order and screwing with the schedule, but even then it had a fairly large following when it was canceled. But then again, Fox has a poor track record when it comes to science fiction shows. Arrested Development never interested me, but I assume it had reached a point where it was becoming a tired premise since I know it had a good sized following as well.

 

[A Raging Emo]

I think that was because Firefly didn't have nearly as many viewers and Glee is (rightly or wrongly) more accessible. It's mindless, simplistic fun. Firefly, on the other hand, is a Sci-Fi 'space cowboy' show with darker themes, a well written plot, and interesting and well-developed characters.

Also, if memory serves, when it debuted it was often changed to different times and days, and was competing with popular, well-established shows.

They also never aired the pilot, you know, the episode that introduces all the main characters and other trivial things. Fox is stupid with all their good shows.

That was a really good episode, as well. The Pilot.

 

[CriticalMiss]

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.

He didn't just cover the song, he just used the lyrics and put them to a different tune which he wrote himself. So he did more than just rehash the original.

 

[Sight Unseen]

The American entertainment industry doesn't care about the rights of intellectual property owners & creators, especially if they're not copyrighted or patented.

Just so you know, what you just said makes NO sense.

Copyright is granted AUTOMATICALLY as soon as you create any creative work. So JC's arrangement is copyrighted by default the moment he publishes it (since he is the first to do it this way.) As long as he has permission to use Mix-a-lot's lyrics, which I assume he does, he has copyright protection rights for his performance of the song. What Glee did IS copyright infringement, plain and simple, since they are profitting off of someone else's intellectual property which they did not ask for permission to use. Joco could and SHOULD sue them for copyright infringement and I think he has a damn good case.

Also, you can't patent a creative work. Patents are only granted for physical objects (inventions), and processes to make other objects(like a factory manufacturing machine).

The American entertainment industry doesn't care about the rights of intellectual property owners & creators, especially if they're not copyrighted or patented.

except of course you want to stream an episode of one of their series when suddenly copyright turns into the holiest thing EVAR and justifies suing a hapless person's pants off.

in any case, iirc you can't enforce a copyright on just an arrangement (aka just the progression of chords or instruments used). It's painfully obvious that Glee ripped joco off with a perverted glee (pun not intended) but I'm not sure how much there is that legally can be done. Of course, human decency would dictate to give the original artist (even if he covered the song himself) proper credit and compensation but that would imply that anyone in Hollywood had any human decency :C

also, apparently I'm the only one who enjoyed glee at least a little bit before disliking it for being boring, badly-written tripe. Still, the hate is surprising.

Actually, I think you CAN enforce a copyright claim on an arrangement. Let me make an example from a different artistic industry: theatre. I once saw a theatre group do a performance of Shakespeare's MacBeth. This performance was a bit different though, because they re-imagined the plots and themes of MacBeth and set it against the backdrop of the modern Rwandan genocide, and everything was re-interpreted to fit in with this new modern setting.

The lines were the same, taken from Shakespeare (public domain) but their interpretation was brand new. If some other theater company stole their interpretation (which I think is analogous to an arrangement in this case) does this company not have intellectual property rights for their creative re-interpretation of an old classic? I think they would. Why should music be any different?

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 I can say to you is this: actually LISTEN to both songs and then come back and say that again... JoCo's version is a completely different arrangement, pace, and sound and was meant as a parody. I dont personally LIKE his arrangement of the song, but only someone who hasn't even heard both songs can come here and say "Joco just did a lazy cover and now he's pissed someone stole it from him?!"

 

[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.

 

[Sight Unseen]

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.

Parody falls under a different category in copyright law. It falls under Fair Use, and you can parody someone's work without explicit permission. You can't steal someones performance and claim it as your own though... That's illegal.

 

[Dethenger]

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.

Just because it's not the original, doesn't mean it's not original. If I am doing a cover of Boyz in the Hood, there is a very necessary distinction to be made: Am I covering the original [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOm54zzjZN0], or am I covering the cover? [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEdaXiTYHrY]

Jonathan Coulton didn't put any effort into it? What? He didn't write the lyrics to Baby Got Back, but his doesn't sound anything like the original. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY84MRnxVzo&feature=player_detailpage#t=30s] He himself had to make the arrangement and melody until that became this. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWaN_Tc5wo]
They literally lifted his entire song [https://soundcloud.com/suudo/joco-vs-glee-baby-got-back] without even asking for permission.

 

[Rawne1980]

All I can say to you is this: actually LISTEN to both songs and then come back and say that again... JoCo's version is a completely different arrangement, pace, and sound and was meant as a parody. I dont personally LIKE his arrangement of the song, but only someone who hasn't even heard both songs can come here and say "Joco just did a lazy cover and now he's pissed someone stole it from him?!"

Okay, i'll elaborate.


Done completely different to the original but it's still a cover.

Changing how something sounds does not change the fact it's still someone else's song and has 0 originality.

And my original post wasn't ranting about him being pissed someone stole his song, it was ranting about people here complaining about a TV show covering said song which is itself a cover.

I've seen some truly pathetic arguments over the years but some of the comments on this thread are Youtube worthy.

"Rawr, a TV show I don't have to watch ... KILL IT WITH FIRE".

There is just something hilariously daft about watching people rage over a "stolen" cover of a song which is a cover of a song.

 

[Kartoffelmos]

Okay, i'll elaborate.


Done completely different to the original but it's still a cover.

Changing how something sounds does not change the fact it's still someone else's song and has 0 originality.

And my original post wasn't ranting about him being pissed someone stole his song, it was ranting about people here complaining about a TV show covering said song which is itself a cover.

I've seen some truly pathetic arguments over the years but some of the comments on this thread are Youtube worthy.

"Rawr, a TV show I don't have to watch ... KILL IT WITH FIRE".

There is just something hilariously daft about watching people rage over a "stolen" cover of a song which is a cover of a song.

I think you're underestimating the amount of work that goes into completely rewriting and recording a song the way JoCo did it.

Nevertheless, it doesn't matter how unoriginal you think it is - Glee still took JoCo's work without asking. It's not unreasonable to suggest that they should have gotten permission before doing it. I don't care about Glee, I don't watch it, but I do care about giving musicians credit for their work.

 

[Rawne1980]

I think you're underestimating the amount of work that goes into completely rewriting and recording a song the way JoCo did it.

Nevertheless, it doesn't matter how unoriginal you think it is - Glee still took JoCo's work without asking. It's not unreasonable to suggest that they should have gotten permission before doing it. I don't care about Glee, I don't watch it, but I do care about giving musicians credit for their work.

Of course they should have got permission. I'm not defending the show.

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

My other point was aimed at some of the people attacking the show like it walked into their house, pissed on their shoes and called their sister a slut.

But no matter how many people tell me otherwise, my ears are not going to mistake Coulton's Baby Got Back for a decent cover. I just don't like covers.

 

[Aureliano]

Mmm. This may or may not happen, but just the thought of Jonathan Coulton completely legitimately suing Glee and thereby Fox for being unoriginal hacks fills me with holiday cheer.

 

[Iron Criterion]

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.

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?

 

[Steve the Pocket]

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."

 

[TakeyB0y2]

But they didn't have time to ask his permission: If they win regionals then it's straight on to sectionals and then a week later is semis, then semi-regionals, then regional-semis, then national lower-zone semis.

... And then they'll lose, as always. The Glee club is like Ash Ketchum.

OT: You know, considering how Glee covers generally range from below mediocre to terrible, I'm surprised artists even let them use their songs. Buuuut, I guess any publicity is good publicity, and then there's the royalty cheques they will no doubt be getting.

But still, taking something without permission and using it for commercial gain just never flies. If this turns out to be true, I hope they get compensation.