9 ms·

Jonathan Coulton vs. Glee

111 points by chrismealy 14y ago

soupysoupysoup 14y ago
Huh. I hear "Leaving on a Jet Plane" while listening to this.. http://grooveshark.com/s/Leaving+On+A+Jet+Plane/3nvT5s?src=5 http://grooveshark.com/s/Leaving+On+A+Jet+Plane/3nvT5s?src=5
kondro 14y ago
It's pretty brave for Glee to piss off the Internet.
learc83 14y ago
Anyone who's experienced with this area of the law care to comment? Does he hold the copyright to the original melody he composed for this song? Does that fact that he released a karaoke version without the vocals affect anything? Is his melody considered an "arrangement" of the original considering the original had no melody? If I write an original instrumental song, do I lose the copyright to the instrumental by releasing a version that includes someone else's lyrics?
- tunesmith 14y ago
  The comments over there explain this pretty thoroughly. Short answer is No, he holds no copyright to the original melody. Interesting final question though - no, you don't lose the copyright to the instrumental, but I'm not sure of the proper way to describe the new arrangement of the song.
  - learc83 14y ago
    > but I'm not sure of the proper way to describe the new arrangement of the song. To me it doesn't seem like a new arrangement of the song because it sounds absolutely nothing like the original, he basically copied the lyrics only, even the cadence was different. If I write a melody to someone's spoken word poem, is that a new arrangement?
    - tunesmith 14y ago
      I guess it depends on if they were able to previously publish that spoken word poem as a song, and if you are in turn licensing it through the Harry Fox Agency. If it's instead just lyrics that you write a melody to and it is unpublished so far, then you could be co-writers before the song is published.
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    Are you sure? I'm an IP lawyer, and even i'm not sure of the answer. 1. There is a very weird set of rights around music/sound/synchronization built into copyright law 2. I would never trust random commenters on the internet, even those experience in music, to know the answer. Why? Because of how this stuff actually works in practice. People assume that "Fox surely did this right before they did this", except, you know, they often don't. When they want to use a track, they just use it, and then throw it on the uncleared list and get around to figuring it out later. This is because they've made a licensing/etc scheme that is so convoluted, that often nobody knows who to contact to get all the rights necessary (ASCAP/NMPA et al are sometimes helpful, sometimes not) In some types of cases, there are compulsory licenses, in some, there aren't.
    - tunesmith 14y ago
      Yeah, obviously I'm not "in the know" regarding what steps Fox might have skipped. I just know that: a) If a song is published (and BGB was) then anyone has the right to cover it (a compulsory license always exists) b) If someone covers it, the covering artist gets no copyright of the musical material - all that is retained by the song copyright owner(s). (This makes intuitive sense, as it otherwise would restrict the ability of other artists to create more covers of the song. You'd have to make sure that your arrangement choices didn't conflict with ANY other arrangements out there.) c) The covering artist does have copyright over the sound recording of the arrangement. Now, if techie people wanted to get involved in a way they could actually affect things, rather than just theorizing about what someone's actions/motivations might have been, there's opportunity here: Coulton released a karaoke track of his version of BGB. It's released by-nc-sa. It's considered likely that Fox used this karaoke track as the backing track for their version. If so, they have infringed on all three portions of the license (no attribution, they're selling it, they didn't release it share-alike). So - I don't know how to do this, but it seems like someone could do a statistical analysis of the karaoke track, and Fox's version, and prove within some statistical likeliness that Fox used the karaoke track and did not simply re-record their own instruments. (Note that it WOULD be legal for Fox to re-record Coulton's arrangement note-for-note since it would no longer be using Coulton's sound recording.)
  - chc 14y ago
    I can't find where that is explained thoroughly. This was claimed but not explained very well in the comments on the article. If I write some music and then later put out a cover version of another song set to that tune, how do I lose my copyright on the music I wrote?
    - tunesmith 14y ago
      Well, all kinds of weird cases can happen and I guess that's why lawsuits can happen, to tease out those kinds of distinctions. My guess is that you'd retain the copyright for your music but other people could still cover that song in the same way you did without paying you or getting permission. I think the more disturbing question is, what if someone takes Coulton's original tracks to the song (they're available), re-records them (I could easily do it with my keyboard and some software samples), and does everything exactly the same except for singing "blah blah blah"? Sounds like that person could claim the entire resultant copyright and not owe Coulton, BGB, or Fox/Glee a damn thing.
tunesmith 14y ago
It certainly is an interesting case study on the finer points of licensing. I agree that unless they used parts of Coulton's actual audio (as opposed to recreating it), Fox is totally in the clear here, by the letter of the law. But still, what a dick move. Not the first time it's happened, either. Friend of mine had one of her a cappella arrangement "ripped off" without credit too. Just goes to show... if you're a creative musician, invest that creativity in originals. Last question - how was Coulton going to get any exposure hit from this at all if there wasn't a stink raised? You'd think the morons over at Fox would do a little spreadsheet analysis and realize that might actually be more profitable to just put his name in the credits as "Guest Arranger" or something.
- bhickey 14y ago
  Coulton stated that he licensed Baby Got Back and wrote an original melody. I suspect that they are very much not in the clear.
  - tunesmith 14y ago
    Mechanical license means that your derivative work's copyright is still owned by the original publisher, including any "original melody".
    - tantalor 14y ago
      That's absurd. There's no way the melody would fall under the mechanical license for the lyrics. Why would it? The lyrics and musical arrangement are clearly distinct entities.
      - tunesmith 14y ago
        From what I understand it's part of the conditions of getting the mechanical license through HFA. It might be conceptually absurd, but that doesn't mean that's not how it works.
        14y ago
charlieok 14y ago
My favorite of the comparisons is this one: https://soundcloud.com/alacrion/joco-v-glee https://soundcloud.com/alacrion/joco-v-glee Jonathan Coulton in the left ear, Glee in the right ear.
- chimeracoder 14y ago
  That's actually quite a nice harmony. Of course, the reason for the harmony is because the vocals align so (almost) perfectly, creating an effect familiar to most musicians, who rely on it for ensuring that their instruments are in tune. That's how perfectly the two align. Damn.
  - emddudley 14y ago
    > ... creating an effect familiar to most musicians, who rely on it for ensuring that their instruments are in tune. I believe you are referring to acoustical beats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_%28acoustics%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_%28acoustics%29
apetresc 14y ago
Wait, now I'm confused. I thought data wanted to be free and copyright laws were archaic and meant to be broken? Someone set me straight, quick!
- rosser 14y ago
  The outcry here is less about whether copyrights are being respected, than about whether copyrights are being respected by people who insist that you must respect copyrights.
  - pi18n 14y ago
    Also there are plenty of us that are pro-reform and anti-outrageous lawsuits who are also against the infringement as well. When I see a large player in the industry fuck up and "steal" someone's copyrighted work, it's yet another example of how they don't give a shit about artists, despite what they claim. These incidents are perhaps a good way to show the public what large media corporations are really concerned with; making money for the execs at the expense of anyone else. If the public is aware, maybe we'll have better success at reforming copyright and other IP laws. (Although I cannot deny there is the schadenfreude aspect of it also.) But please note the scare quotes, because it's not a theft, due to the exact reasons I would argue regarding any other two entities with copyright disputes.
  - gwern 14y ago
    I believe the phrase is: "live by the sword, die by the sword".
- jonny_eh 14y ago
  Depends on who you ask, Hacker News isn't a hivemind. If you were to ask Fox though, I'm sure they'd insisted that copyright laws are important and should never be violated.
  - skrebbel 14y ago
    > Hacker News isn't a hivemind. Are you sure?
smosher 14y ago
Rightsholder, n: a person who owns the rights to other people's work. A similar case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbaland_plagiarism_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbaland_plagiarism_controver...
jawns 14y ago
If it's true that the copyright to the derivative work becomes the property of the original copyright holder, then it would seem as if a simple hack could be used by cover-song creators to avoid being Coultoned: Nominally release a version of the song with the original arrangement and original, throwaway lyrics prior to releasing the version with the original arrangement and derived lyrics. That way, the cover song is a derivative of two original works, and in order for an entity like "Glee" to cover your cover, they'd need permission from both of the copyright holders -- you (for the melody) and whoever owns the copyright to the lyrics. Lawyerly types, am I on to something here?
- bostonpete 14y ago
  JC bought a compulsory license to distribute his version of the song. That license effectively gives the copyright of his version to the copyright holder for the original version.
  - jawns 14y ago
    But what I'm proposing is to gain the rights to create a derivative work based on TWO original works. So, the copyright of the derived work would be assigned JOINTLY to the copyright holder of the original arrangement (the artist himself) and the copyright holder of the original lyrics.
    - bostonpete 14y ago
      That's not an option in the license he bought. I guess you could imagine all sorts of creative arrangements, but the license under which this work was available required him to forfeit the copyright of the derived work. Adding a second original work to the mix wouldn't solve that problem.
tuananh 14y ago
"They also got in touch with my peeps to basically say that they’re within their legal rights to do this, and that I should be happy for the exposure (even though they do not credit me, and have not even publicly acknowledged that it’s my version – so you know, it’s kind of SECRET exposure)." Source: Coulton's blog http://www.jonathancoulton.com http://www.jonathancoulton.com
the_mitsuhiko 14y ago
Next step: invert signal and add them up.
qwer 14y ago
I love how few people mention Sir-mix-a-lot -- You know, the guy that actually wrote the song and popularized it. The Acoustic-version-of-hip-hop song genre is not terribly original, and even predates youtube considerably. I have a hard time feeling sympathy for either one of these cover artists.
- travisp 14y ago
  It's worth pointing out that Coulton claims that he bought a license to distribute his version. Source: http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2013/01/18/baby-got-back-and-glee/ http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2013/01/18/baby-got-back-and-...
- omaranto 14y ago
  Well, you know who does mention Sir-mix-a-lot? Jonathan Coulton: he does explicitly state his song is a cover. He wrote a new melody, which the Glee people used but did not acknowledge. I'm not sure what Glee's position is, maybe they claim they are covering Sir-mix-a-lot and happened to make the same arrangement and write the same melody that Coulton did.
  - jaredsohn 14y ago
    Doubtful, since they also happened to change the lyrics to say "Johnny C's in trouble"
Yver 14y ago
As someone who's unfamiliar with none of the original song or either of the covers, it took me until 2:25 to figure out when it alternated between the songs.
b1daly 14y ago
One strange aspect of the use of the compulsory licence. If the cover creates a new melody, and all the (composition) copyrights stay with the original author, in that case the original author would seem to gain an expanded set of rights including the copyright on the new melody. Another strange twist in the area of compulsory licence is that it only applies to fairly close versions. If you want to make a truly derivative work, in my understanding, the compulsory licence doesn't apply: You have to negotiate a special licence from the copyright holder. For example if you want to change the words.

111 points by chrismealy 14y ago

Huh. I hear "Leaving on a Jet Plane" while listening to this.. http://grooveshark.com/s/Leaving+On+A+Jet+Plane/3nvT5s?src=5 http://grooveshark.com/s/Leaving+On+A+Jet+Plane/3nvT5s?src=5

kondro 14y ago

It's pretty brave for Glee to piss off the Internet.

learc83 14y ago

Anyone who's experienced with this area of the law care to comment? Does he hold the copyright to the original melody he composed for this song? Does that fact that he released a karaoke version without the vocals affect anything? Is his melody considered an "arrangement" of the original considering the original had no melody? If I write an original instrumental song, do I lose the copyright to the instrumental by releasing a version that includes someone else's lyrics?

tunesmith 14y ago
The comments over there explain this pretty thoroughly. Short answer is No, he holds no copyright to the original melody. Interesting final question though - no, you don't lose the copyright to the instrumental, but I'm not sure of the proper way to describe the new arrangement of the song.
- learc83 14y ago
  > but I'm not sure of the proper way to describe the new arrangement of the song. To me it doesn't seem like a new arrangement of the song because it sounds absolutely nothing like the original, he basically copied the lyrics only, even the cadence was different. If I write a melody to someone's spoken word poem, is that a new arrangement?
  - tunesmith 14y ago
    I guess it depends on if they were able to previously publish that spoken word poem as a song, and if you are in turn licensing it through the Harry Fox Agency. If it's instead just lyrics that you write a melody to and it is unpublished so far, then you could be co-writers before the song is published.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  Are you sure? I'm an IP lawyer, and even i'm not sure of the answer. 1. There is a very weird set of rights around music/sound/synchronization built into copyright law 2. I would never trust random commenters on the internet, even those experience in music, to know the answer. Why? Because of how this stuff actually works in practice. People assume that "Fox surely did this right before they did this", except, you know, they often don't. When they want to use a track, they just use it, and then throw it on the uncleared list and get around to figuring it out later. This is because they've made a licensing/etc scheme that is so convoluted, that often nobody knows who to contact to get all the rights necessary (ASCAP/NMPA et al are sometimes helpful, sometimes not) In some types of cases, there are compulsory licenses, in some, there aren't.
  - tunesmith 14y ago
    Yeah, obviously I'm not "in the know" regarding what steps Fox might have skipped. I just know that: a) If a song is published (and BGB was) then anyone has the right to cover it (a compulsory license always exists) b) If someone covers it, the covering artist gets no copyright of the musical material - all that is retained by the song copyright owner(s). (This makes intuitive sense, as it otherwise would restrict the ability of other artists to create more covers of the song. You'd have to make sure that your arrangement choices didn't conflict with ANY other arrangements out there.) c) The covering artist does have copyright over the sound recording of the arrangement. Now, if techie people wanted to get involved in a way they could actually affect things, rather than just theorizing about what someone's actions/motivations might have been, there's opportunity here: Coulton released a karaoke track of his version of BGB. It's released by-nc-sa. It's considered likely that Fox used this karaoke track as the backing track for their version. If so, they have infringed on all three portions of the license (no attribution, they're selling it, they didn't release it share-alike). So - I don't know how to do this, but it seems like someone could do a statistical analysis of the karaoke track, and Fox's version, and prove within some statistical likeliness that Fox used the karaoke track and did not simply re-record their own instruments. (Note that it WOULD be legal for Fox to re-record Coulton's arrangement note-for-note since it would no longer be using Coulton's sound recording.)
- chc 14y ago
  I can't find where that is explained thoroughly. This was claimed but not explained very well in the comments on the article. If I write some music and then later put out a cover version of another song set to that tune, how do I lose my copyright on the music I wrote?
  - tunesmith 14y ago
    Well, all kinds of weird cases can happen and I guess that's why lawsuits can happen, to tease out those kinds of distinctions. My guess is that you'd retain the copyright for your music but other people could still cover that song in the same way you did without paying you or getting permission. I think the more disturbing question is, what if someone takes Coulton's original tracks to the song (they're available), re-records them (I could easily do it with my keyboard and some software samples), and does everything exactly the same except for singing "blah blah blah"? Sounds like that person could claim the entire resultant copyright and not owe Coulton, BGB, or Fox/Glee a damn thing.

tunesmith 14y ago

It certainly is an interesting case study on the finer points of licensing. I agree that unless they used parts of Coulton's actual audio (as opposed to recreating it), Fox is totally in the clear here, by the letter of the law. But still, what a dick move. Not the first time it's happened, either. Friend of mine had one of her a cappella arrangement "ripped off" without credit too. Just goes to show... if you're a creative musician, invest that creativity in originals. Last question - how was Coulton going to get any exposure hit from this at all if there wasn't a stink raised? You'd think the morons over at Fox would do a little spreadsheet analysis and realize that might actually be more profitable to just put his name in the credits as "Guest Arranger" or something.

bhickey 14y ago
Coulton stated that he licensed Baby Got Back and wrote an original melody. I suspect that they are very much not in the clear.
- tunesmith 14y ago
  Mechanical license means that your derivative work's copyright is still owned by the original publisher, including any "original melody".
  - tantalor 14y ago
    That's absurd. There's no way the melody would fall under the mechanical license for the lyrics. Why would it? The lyrics and musical arrangement are clearly distinct entities.
    - tunesmith 14y ago
      From what I understand it's part of the conditions of getting the mechanical license through HFA. It might be conceptually absurd, but that doesn't mean that's not how it works.
      - 14y ago

charlieok 14y ago

My favorite of the comparisons is this one: https://soundcloud.com/alacrion/joco-v-glee https://soundcloud.com/alacrion/joco-v-glee Jonathan Coulton in the left ear, Glee in the right ear.

chimeracoder 14y ago
That's actually quite a nice harmony. Of course, the reason for the harmony is because the vocals align so (almost) perfectly, creating an effect familiar to most musicians, who rely on it for ensuring that their instruments are in tune. That's how perfectly the two align. Damn.
- emddudley 14y ago
  > ... creating an effect familiar to most musicians, who rely on it for ensuring that their instruments are in tune. I believe you are referring to acoustical beats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_%28acoustics%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_%28acoustics%29

apetresc 14y ago

Wait, now I'm confused. I thought data wanted to be free and copyright laws were archaic and meant to be broken? Someone set me straight, quick!

rosser 14y ago
The outcry here is less about whether copyrights are being respected, than about whether copyrights are being respected by people who insist that you must respect copyrights.
- pi18n 14y ago
  Also there are plenty of us that are pro-reform and anti-outrageous lawsuits who are also against the infringement as well. When I see a large player in the industry fuck up and "steal" someone's copyrighted work, it's yet another example of how they don't give a shit about artists, despite what they claim. These incidents are perhaps a good way to show the public what large media corporations are really concerned with; making money for the execs at the expense of anyone else. If the public is aware, maybe we'll have better success at reforming copyright and other IP laws. (Although I cannot deny there is the schadenfreude aspect of it also.) But please note the scare quotes, because it's not a theft, due to the exact reasons I would argue regarding any other two entities with copyright disputes.
- gwern 14y ago
  I believe the phrase is: "live by the sword, die by the sword".
jonny_eh 14y ago
Depends on who you ask, Hacker News isn't a hivemind. If you were to ask Fox though, I'm sure they'd insisted that copyright laws are important and should never be violated.
- skrebbel 14y ago
  > Hacker News isn't a hivemind. Are you sure?

smosher 14y ago

Rightsholder, n: a person who owns the rights to other people's work. A similar case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbaland_plagiarism_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbaland_plagiarism_controver...

jawns 14y ago

If it's true that the copyright to the derivative work becomes the property of the original copyright holder, then it would seem as if a simple hack could be used by cover-song creators to avoid being Coultoned: Nominally release a version of the song with the original arrangement and original, throwaway lyrics prior to releasing the version with the original arrangement and derived lyrics. That way, the cover song is a derivative of two original works, and in order for an entity like "Glee" to cover your cover, they'd need permission from both of the copyright holders -- you (for the melody) and whoever owns the copyright to the lyrics. Lawyerly types, am I on to something here?

bostonpete 14y ago
JC bought a compulsory license to distribute his version of the song. That license effectively gives the copyright of his version to the copyright holder for the original version.
- jawns 14y ago
  But what I'm proposing is to gain the rights to create a derivative work based on TWO original works. So, the copyright of the derived work would be assigned JOINTLY to the copyright holder of the original arrangement (the artist himself) and the copyright holder of the original lyrics.
  - bostonpete 14y ago
    That's not an option in the license he bought. I guess you could imagine all sorts of creative arrangements, but the license under which this work was available required him to forfeit the copyright of the derived work. Adding a second original work to the mix wouldn't solve that problem.

tuananh 14y ago

"They also got in touch with my peeps to basically say that they’re within their legal rights to do this, and that I should be happy for the exposure (even though they do not credit me, and have not even publicly acknowledged that it’s my version – so you know, it’s kind of SECRET exposure)." Source: Coulton's blog http://www.jonathancoulton.com http://www.jonathancoulton.com

the_mitsuhiko 14y ago

Next step: invert signal and add them up.

qwer 14y ago

I love how few people mention Sir-mix-a-lot -- You know, the guy that actually wrote the song and popularized it. The Acoustic-version-of-hip-hop song genre is not terribly original, and even predates youtube considerably. I have a hard time feeling sympathy for either one of these cover artists.

travisp 14y ago
It's worth pointing out that Coulton claims that he bought a license to distribute his version. Source: http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2013/01/18/baby-got-back-and-glee/ http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2013/01/18/baby-got-back-and-...
omaranto 14y ago
Well, you know who does mention Sir-mix-a-lot? Jonathan Coulton: he does explicitly state his song is a cover. He wrote a new melody, which the Glee people used but did not acknowledge. I'm not sure what Glee's position is, maybe they claim they are covering Sir-mix-a-lot and happened to make the same arrangement and write the same melody that Coulton did.
- jaredsohn 14y ago
  Doubtful, since they also happened to change the lyrics to say "Johnny C's in trouble"

Yver 14y ago

As someone who's unfamiliar with none of the original song or either of the covers, it took me until 2:25 to figure out when it alternated between the songs.

b1daly 14y ago

One strange aspect of the use of the compulsory licence. If the cover creates a new melody, and all the (composition) copyrights stay with the original author, in that case the original author would seem to gain an expanded set of rights including the copyright on the new melody. Another strange twist in the area of compulsory licence is that it only applies to fairly close versions. If you want to make a truly derivative work, in my understanding, the compulsory licence doesn't apply: You have to negotiate a special licence from the copyright holder. For example if you want to change the words.