4 ms·

"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