

Did Glee Rip Off a Jonathan Coulton Cover? - lowglow
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/01/glee-coulton-baby-got-back/

======
gkoberger
This is at least the third time Glee has ripped off a cover and failed to give
credit/royalties:

[http://www.pleasewelcomeyourjudges.com/2011/11/greg-
laswell-...](http://www.pleasewelcomeyourjudges.com/2011/11/greg-laswell-not-
glee-ful-about.html)

This is by far the most blatant: they even leave in the Coulton-version-only
line "Johnny C"

~~~
cheald
Especially considering that "Johnny C" is "Jonathan Coulton"...

~~~
popopje
kind of similar to the song "rapper's delight" which lifted bars from another
artist, to the extent of spelling out his name in the first line..
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rappers_Delight#Grandmaster_Caz...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rappers_Delight#Grandmaster_Caz_writing_controversy)

------
metajack
The original song really didn't have a melody, and Coulton's version clearly
does. If his melody is original, it seems like this has to be a violation of
copyright. Certainly the melody of the Glee version is identical to Coulton's.

Hopefully something good comes out of it for Coulton in the end.

------
lowglow
Original:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MCWaN_Tc5wo)

Glee:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Y...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Yww4BLjReEk)

~~~
Deathmax
This makes for an easier comparison.

<https://soundcloud.com/suudo/joco-vs-glee-baby-got-back>

~~~
bmuon
Oh wow that's amazing! Obvious in a both auditory and graphical way.

------
ChikkaChiChi
No no no. Artistic copyright only matters to CONGLOMERATE media companies; not
silly artists the laws should really be protecting!

~~~
pyre
The best part was when I came across some random guy on Twitter that was
trying to say that it was ok because JC is a 'nobody.' I couldn't tell if he
was some sort of shill or just a random idiot (probably the latter).

------
firebones
What this will hinge on (and why it is relevant to HN) is whether Coulton's
release of songs under the Creative Commons BY-NC license (attribution, non-
commercial) AND his additional statement that the the CC/non-commercial clause
did not apply to covers (with encouragement to mix) still protects his
copyright over the arrangement and derivative lyrical changes.

I am of the opinion that he does retain these rights since the intent is
clearly to not put the whole work under the CC since he can't extend his
compulsory license to Sir Mix-a-Lot's lyrics to others. If he had released his
arrangement separately under a CC-BY-NC, or even CC-BY, he still would have
retained the copyright to that...but I don't think he ever did. It is his
unfortunate wording outside the license...informal and non-legal, that creates
the confusion.

You see this with open source projects (usually sole developers) who release
under a restrictive license but then assure you that gray area uses are
permitted. These always give me pause. But when there's money on the line and
license clearances are part of your business, there is absolutely no reason
not to get absolute clarity and clearance before using the work. It is a lot
easier to do beforehand than after, which I think Fox will find out.

I predict an amicable ending and a new JC song about the ordeal that will be
right up there with "Code Monkey" and "Re: your brains" in the hacker/free
culture pantheon.

------
anigbrowl
Per Coulton himself, he hasn't found any definite proof of it being used in a
Glee episode so far, so it's ossible that it;s some overenthusiastic
fanboy/girl.

[http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2013/01/18/baby-got-back-
and-...](http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2013/01/18/baby-got-back-and-glee/)

~~~
kalleboo
It's being sold by Fox on iTunes <http://imgb.mp/iX6.jpg>

~~~
anigbrowl
Sweden rather than US tells me it's an administration error. Not all episodes
of this show have aired yet, so it may be that someone added it before the
rights licensing process was complete, or it's also possible that it was
planned for one episode but they decided not to use it in the end (which
happens a lot in film and TV production).

------
yolesaber
I understand that this concerns copyright issues which may be germane to the
issue in the tech world, but is mass media drama such as this truly qualified
as "news for hackers"?

I would be interested in the demographics of those who up vote articles of
this ilk. Not to pass any judgement on them, but out of curiosity as to who
finds this news to be important.

~~~
gilgoomesh
Jonathon Coulton himself is relevant to many hackers due to to the
intersection of his work with many tech/geek related interests including his
authorship of numerous themes to computer games, songs about being an
unappreciated programmer, songs about the Mandelbrot Set, songs about passive
aggressive T1000 helper robots, songs about doomed ST:TOS red shirts, etc.

As for Glee itself -- I have nothing positive to say.

~~~
georgemcbay
I'll come out and say it...

I used to watch Glee with my girlfriend for the first two seasons and found it
quite entertaining. At least it tried to do something different than be yet
another three camera laugh track sitcom.

I got tired of the stupid plotting and characters though, between the musical-
chairs dating and the cheerleading coach alternating between evil bitch and
nice person every other week, both I and my girlfriend just lost interest in
the characters and stopped watching.

~~~
MBCook
I enjoyed it for the first few seasons, I generally like musicals. I got tired
of it too for basically the same reasons.

I didn't know they had done this kind of thing before (or at least been
accused, see the top comment). When I saw this story earlier today I played
that video... I was amazed. It was a nearly perfect copy. That takes a lot of
chutzpa.

Someone put a comparison of the two songs up on SoundCloud (link is elsewhere
in the thread) and it's nearly perfect. Same tune, same BPM, just a perfect
copy.

------
SoftwareMaven
I'm sure that nobody at Fox will be facing jail time for copyright violation
if they did rip it off. "I care about content, but only as long as its mine."

------
bitwize
Yes. They even used the lyric "Johnny C's in trouble", referring to Coulton
himself and substituting the original "Mix-A-Lot's in trouble".

------
mr_eel
That's how covers work. They can be a nice thing — essentially quoting an
artist you like — or they can be bullshit, like this.

It's not illegal, but it's not ethical.

~~~
andrewchoi
IANAL, but I thought those rights only extended to parodies? Covers aren't
protected because the copyright extends to the words and music.

~~~
tantalor
The JC version has a distinct melody/arrangement, so qualifies as an original
work. The lyrics are not.

~~~
andrewchoi
Exactly, the music is different enough that the entire production counts as an
original work, whereas the Glee version has neither, and thus would be
considered a cover.

------
benatkin
I like how Coulton is just sitting back and letting his fans handle this, by
communicating their view to the media and giving them credit.

------
benologist
The 2nd most annoying part of the story is Wired requiring stupidly large
images so we view extra ads, which in this story is a _screenshot_ of the
YouTube player.

Someone literally decided that would be better than embedding the video the
entire article is about.

------
rickyconnolly
I'd like HN's resident piracy advocates to weigh in on this.

------
Uchikoma
35 years in prison.

~~~
unreal37
Brilliant. We should start a White House petition to force US Federal
Prosecutor Carmen Ortiz to aggressively pursue Fox until they admit to fixing
the 2000 election...

------
spoiledtechie
Anyone thought of the benefits to Glee doing their cover? Sales coming the way
of the artist. Lots of sales.

It might be a rip off, but the artist will get paid by it being a song to
download in the coming weeks.

~~~
potatolicious
This might be true if Glee gave credit to JoCo - linkbacks, promotion, etc. As
it is he might see extra sales _because he called them out_.

Not to mention the long tail effect of "mentions" is really, really limited,
and drops off fast to boot. Any extra sales he sees will all be today and
tomorrow.

Only disingenuous used-car-salesman types would pretend that a footnote small-
print mention is worth anything more than a sandwich.

