3 ms·

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,

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
- tunesmith 14y ago
  Wow, those links are spectacular. Thanks for highlighting them. Here's why this is an issue. Coulton released his sound recording under the Creative Commons, by-nc-sa . If they used his sound recording, Fox/Glee is infringing all three parts of that license: - They didn't attribute - They released it commercially - They didn't release it share-alike A creative commons license is additive, so they could have worked around it by contacting Coulton and getting permission ($$). Since they did none of that, Coulton has legal grounds here, specifically relating to the use of the sound recording. In my IANAL opinion. :-)

3 ms·

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,

by tunesmith 14y ago

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
- tunesmith 14y ago
  Wow, those links are spectacular. Thanks for highlighting them. Here's why this is an issue. Coulton released his sound recording under the Creative Commons, by-nc-sa . If they used his sound recording, Fox/Glee is infringing all three parts of that license: - They didn't attribute - They released it commercially - They didn't release it share-alike A creative commons license is additive, so they could have worked around it by contacting Coulton and getting permission ($$). Since they did none of that, Coulton has legal grounds here, specifically relating to the use of the sound recording. In my IANAL opinion. :-)