4 ms·

Because it's possible to create a cover of a song that doesn't sound a lot like the original song. In that case, if you record it, you have the copyright of the

Because it's possible to create a cover of a song that doesn't sound a lot like the original song. In that case, if you record it, you have the copyright of the recording, but not of the song itself. You still have to pay royalties to the songwriter of the original song if you record a cover. Coulton's "cover" just stretched that past the breaking point (or just before the breaking point, from Fox's point of view). In fact, there's an argument that Coulton did something wrong here, and should have gotten a "print license" since it changed the fundamental nature of the melody, and that the recording was technically breaking copyright. But either way, Coulton didn't have copyright of the music, only of the recording. And since Fox didn't use Coulton's recording on Glee (although there was apparently some disagreement about that), their argument was they didn't owe him anything.

joshuaissac 3y ago
It makes sense that Coulton would not have copyright on the lyrics (because they are not his) but why would he not have copyright on everything but the lyrics? I just listened to his version and the Glee version (which sound the same), and they sound completely different to Sir Mix-A-Lot's original version. Is there a special rule for musical works that sets a very high threshold of originality for derivative works?
- tunesmith 3y ago
  In music, there's a difference between holding the copyright for the music, and the copyright for the recording. And it's absolutely possible to write a cover, but where the music sounds different than the original version. People that do this don't have the copyright for the music, since the cover would not have existed were it not for the work by the original artist. That said, Coulton's version is very different, and probably could have led to some interesting legal arguments had it been challenged in court. But it's probably very relevant that Coulton first represented it as a cover, and that the entire reason his version (pre-Glee) became famous is because he marketed it as a cover.

joshuaissac 3y ago

It makes sense that Coulton would not have copyright on the lyrics (because they are not his) but why would he not have copyright on everything but the lyrics? I just listened to his version and the Glee version (which sound the same), and they sound completely different to Sir Mix-A-Lot's original version. Is there a special rule for musical works that sets a very high threshold of originality for derivative works?

tunesmith 3y ago
In music, there's a difference between holding the copyright for the music, and the copyright for the recording. And it's absolutely possible to write a cover, but where the music sounds different than the original version. People that do this don't have the copyright for the music, since the cover would not have existed were it not for the work by the original artist. That said, Coulton's version is very different, and probably could have led to some interesting legal arguments had it been challenged in court. But it's probably very relevant that Coulton first represented it as a cover, and that the entire reason his version (pre-Glee) became famous is because he marketed it as a cover.