3 ms·
IANAL, but I thought those rights only extended to parodies? Covers aren't protected because the copyright extends to the words and music.
by andrewchoi 14y ago
IANAL, but I thought those rights only extended to parodies? Covers aren't protected because the copyright extends to the words and music.
- tantalor 14y agoThe JC version has a distinct melody/arrangement, so qualifies as an original work. The lyrics are not.
- andrewchoi 14y agoExactly, the music is different enough that the entire production counts as an original work, whereas the Glee version has neither, and thus would be considered a cover.
- wmf 14y agoIIRC parodies are generally legal due to fair use and covers are also legal (as long as you pay the royalties) due to statutory licensing.
- dthunt 14y ago(edit: removed the happy birthday analogy, it doesn't really clarify anything) In John Coulton's case, I'm not sure what he was required to do in order to license the lyrics for his original cover; i.e. whether he paid the calculated rate or negotiated something else. But it looks like Glee owes to two parties at best (if they actually lifted his audio like Timbaland this could get ugly)
- InclinedPlane 14y agoThe joco version is properly an arrangement. Also, parodies are certainly protected, but in what way is glee's version a parody of joco's arrangement?
- andrewchoi 14y agoI'm not saying that it is, mr_eel claimed that Glee's version wasn't illegal.