5 ms·

Can someone give me some more context on what this is about and the backstory here? A link to something that explains whats going would be great!

by kt9 14y ago

sontek 14y ago
JoCo created a cover of Sir Mix A Lot's song "Baby got back" in 2005 and paid the proper license to distribute his version. Glee (A TV show in the US on Fox) copied his version but did not pay him any royalties. So he has re-released his 2005 version with the title "Baby got back in the style of glee" so that people searching for the stolen copy from fox will find his as well.
- DigitalJack 14y ago
  He apparently isn't owed royalties, he just wants acknowledgment. http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2013/01/18/baby-got-back-and-glee/ http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2013/01/18/baby-got-back-and-...
- MichaelApproved 14y ago
  Thanks for the response. Is there a reason why he doesn't take Glee/Fox to court?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Seemingly what Glee/Fox did is technically legal, while clearly unethical.
- subsystem 14y ago
  "and paid the proper license to distribute his version" So his version doesn't count as a derivative work?
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Yes, why wouldn't it? Derivative works still have to license the original work to be legally distributed.
    - elemeno 14y ago
      Because it turns out that that isn't how music licensing works. If you look at the comments on previous threads on this issue it's been pointed out that JC doesn't have much in the way of rights over his version due to the way licensing agreements for cover versions work. Whether or not it's right (morally) for Glee to not give him credit is a different matter, but all evidence is that Glee is in the right legally.
    - subsystem 14y ago
      Derivative works need permission from the original publisher, while cover songs only needs a mechanical license. Or I'm I mistaken in assuming he only had a mechanical license? http://www.harryfox.com/public/Licensing-GeneralFAQ.jsp#131 http://www.harryfox.com/public/Licensing-GeneralFAQ.jsp#131
DigitalJack 14y ago
http://musicmachinery.com/2013/01/25/joco-vs-glee/ http://musicmachinery.com/2013/01/25/joco-vs-glee/
ChuckMcM 14y ago
Simple recap: Sir Mix-a-lot does a song, 'Baby's Got Back' which Jonathan Coulter does a cover of. Mixalot's more techno/rap and Coulter is more of a musical arrangement. Then Glee (TV Show) does a cover using Coulter's arrangement (music and additional lyrics) and doesn't so much as acknowledge his existence, much less pay the required licensing fees.
- kt9 14y ago
  Ah! Many thanks for bringing me upto speed. Not cool of Glee to avoid giving credit where credit is due!
- lylejohnson 14y ago
  *Coulton
- tunesmith 14y ago
  This has been covered elsewhere - there are no required licensing fees unless Glee actually used Coulter's sound recording. Fox is guilty of a dick move here, but as long as they recreated the instrumental track themselves, they are legally in the clear. However, I think it's likely that Fox actually used Coulton's karaoke backing tracks, which would mean Fox infringed Coulton's copyrights. I'm hoping for someone to do a digital analysis showing whether this is true.
  - jeffool 14y ago
    It has been done! In particular a look at the "quack" that Coulton used in his version (instead of cussing like Mix-a-lot did): http://geeklikemetoo.blogspot.com/2013/01/about-that-quack.html http://geeklikemetoo.blogspot.com/2013/01/about-that-quack.h... He also points to a great example indicating that the beginning was likely edited too: http://imgur.com/a/F0HTP#1 http://imgur.com/a/F0HTP#1 Also, if you're someone that trusts their own ears and has headphones, you can hear Glee's in your left earbud, and Coulton's in your right, in this pairing: https://soundcloud.com/suudo/joco-vs-glee-baby-got-back https://soundcloud.com/suudo/joco-vs-glee-baby-got-back
    - 14y ago
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jevinskie 14y ago
Glee is an American musical TV show that covers a high school glee club (singing club) complete with all the teen drama of high school. They sing covers of existing songs during their musical acts. They sang Jonathan's cover of Sir Mix a Lot's "Baby Got Back" recently. Except the cover was sampled either 100% for the medley or recreated to a point of being imperceptibly similar. Jonathan was not given any attribution for this. Now Fox is selling recordings of this cover of Jonathan's cover. Does Jonathan have a claim to his cover of an already copyrighted work?
- aidos 14y ago
  They've definitely overstepped the line on it. Next time they're thinking about taking down material on copyright grounds they might want to reflect on this case.
  - eslaught 14y ago
    It is perhaps worth noting that the reason why this can happen is that the group of people running Glee and the people handling copyright takedowns are two completely different sets of people. Unless this event catalyzes communication between those two groups, you can expect to continue to see inconsistencies in policy enforcement like this.
    - begurken 14y ago
      There's an implicit assumption here that consistent behaviour within a corporation matters. I think this is wrong. Corporations' interests are served perfectly well by them behaving inconsistently whenever it suits their interests. There may well be executives in Fox who know about the inconsistencies here who simply don't care, because it doesn't affect the bottom line.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    This isn't the first time Glee's done it either. https://twitter.com/richardcheese/status/292725851068440577 https://twitter.com/richardcheese/status/292725851068440577
aidos 14y ago
Took me a moment to figure it out too. You can compare his version with the Glee ones to see how their cover is identical. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yww4BLjReEk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yww4BLjReEk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWaN_Tc5wo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWaN_Tc5wo

Can someone give me some more context on what this is about and the backstory here? A link to something that explains whats going would be great!

by kt9 14y ago

Can someone give me some more context on what this is about and the backstory here? A link to something that explains whats going would be great!

sontek 14y ago

JoCo created a cover of Sir Mix A Lot's song "Baby got back" in 2005 and paid the proper license to distribute his version. Glee (A TV show in the US on Fox) copied his version but did not pay him any royalties. So he has re-released his 2005 version with the title "Baby got back in the style of glee" so that people searching for the stolen copy from fox will find his as well.

DigitalJack 14y ago
He apparently isn't owed royalties, he just wants acknowledgment. http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2013/01/18/baby-got-back-and-glee/ http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2013/01/18/baby-got-back-and-...
MichaelApproved 14y ago
Thanks for the response. Is there a reason why he doesn't take Glee/Fox to court?
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Seemingly what Glee/Fox did is technically legal, while clearly unethical.
subsystem 14y ago
"and paid the proper license to distribute his version" So his version doesn't count as a derivative work?
- icebraining 14y ago
  Yes, why wouldn't it? Derivative works still have to license the original work to be legally distributed.
  - elemeno 14y ago
    Because it turns out that that isn't how music licensing works. If you look at the comments on previous threads on this issue it's been pointed out that JC doesn't have much in the way of rights over his version due to the way licensing agreements for cover versions work. Whether or not it's right (morally) for Glee to not give him credit is a different matter, but all evidence is that Glee is in the right legally.
  - subsystem 14y ago
    Derivative works need permission from the original publisher, while cover songs only needs a mechanical license. Or I'm I mistaken in assuming he only had a mechanical license? http://www.harryfox.com/public/Licensing-GeneralFAQ.jsp#131 http://www.harryfox.com/public/Licensing-GeneralFAQ.jsp#131

DigitalJack 14y ago

http://musicmachinery.com/2013/01/25/joco-vs-glee/ http://musicmachinery.com/2013/01/25/joco-vs-glee/

ChuckMcM 14y ago

Simple recap: Sir Mix-a-lot does a song, 'Baby's Got Back' which Jonathan Coulter does a cover of. Mixalot's more techno/rap and Coulter is more of a musical arrangement. Then Glee (TV Show) does a cover using Coulter's arrangement (music and additional lyrics) and doesn't so much as acknowledge his existence, much less pay the required licensing fees.

kt9 14y ago
Ah! Many thanks for bringing me upto speed. Not cool of Glee to avoid giving credit where credit is due!
lylejohnson 14y ago
*Coulton
tunesmith 14y ago
This has been covered elsewhere - there are no required licensing fees unless Glee actually used Coulter's sound recording. Fox is guilty of a dick move here, but as long as they recreated the instrumental track themselves, they are legally in the clear. However, I think it's likely that Fox actually used Coulton's karaoke backing tracks, which would mean Fox infringed Coulton's copyrights. I'm hoping for someone to do a digital analysis showing whether this is true.
- jeffool 14y ago
  It has been done! In particular a look at the "quack" that Coulton used in his version (instead of cussing like Mix-a-lot did): http://geeklikemetoo.blogspot.com/2013/01/about-that-quack.html http://geeklikemetoo.blogspot.com/2013/01/about-that-quack.h... He also points to a great example indicating that the beginning was likely edited too: http://imgur.com/a/F0HTP#1 http://imgur.com/a/F0HTP#1 Also, if you're someone that trusts their own ears and has headphones, you can hear Glee's in your left earbud, and Coulton's in your right, in this pairing: https://soundcloud.com/suudo/joco-vs-glee-baby-got-back https://soundcloud.com/suudo/joco-vs-glee-baby-got-back
  - 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jevinskie 14y ago

Glee is an American musical TV show that covers a high school glee club (singing club) complete with all the teen drama of high school. They sing covers of existing songs during their musical acts. They sang Jonathan's cover of Sir Mix a Lot's "Baby Got Back" recently. Except the cover was sampled either 100% for the medley or recreated to a point of being imperceptibly similar. Jonathan was not given any attribution for this. Now Fox is selling recordings of this cover of Jonathan's cover. Does Jonathan have a claim to his cover of an already copyrighted work?

aidos 14y ago
They've definitely overstepped the line on it. Next time they're thinking about taking down material on copyright grounds they might want to reflect on this case.
- eslaught 14y ago
  It is perhaps worth noting that the reason why this can happen is that the group of people running Glee and the people handling copyright takedowns are two completely different sets of people. Unless this event catalyzes communication between those two groups, you can expect to continue to see inconsistencies in policy enforcement like this.
  - begurken 14y ago
    There's an implicit assumption here that consistent behaviour within a corporation matters. I think this is wrong. Corporations' interests are served perfectly well by them behaving inconsistently whenever it suits their interests. There may well be executives in Fox who know about the inconsistencies here who simply don't care, because it doesn't affect the bottom line.
- illuminate 14y ago
  This isn't the first time Glee's done it either. https://twitter.com/richardcheese/status/292725851068440577 https://twitter.com/richardcheese/status/292725851068440577

aidos 14y ago

Took me a moment to figure it out too. You can compare his version with the Glee ones to see how their cover is identical. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yww4BLjReEk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yww4BLjReEk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWaN_Tc5wo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWaN_Tc5wo