4 ms·
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) c
by 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 agoHe 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 agoThanks for the response. Is there a reason why he doesn't take Glee/Fox to court?
- jlgreco 14y agoSeemingly 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 agoYes, why wouldn't it? Derivative works still have to license the original work to be legally distributed.
- elemeno 14y agoBecause 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 agoDerivative 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