Jonathan Coulton Song Used By Glee Without Permission

FunPika writes "Jonathan Coulton, who is known for songs such as "Code Monkey", is claiming that his cover of "Baby Got Back" was used without permission on Glee, a television show aired by Fox Broadcasting Company. When the Glee version appeared on YouTube last week, Coulton suspected that it sounded similar to his cover, and several of his fans confirmed this by analyzing the two tracks. Despite Coulton contacting Fox, they continued with airing the episode and have placed the song on sale in iTunes."

Comments

Copyright protection

[whoever57]

What, did anyone think that copyright was intended to protect anyone except the rich and powerful?

Re:Copyright protection

[dgatwood]

This is the point at which he should submit a DMCA takedown request to Apple.

Re:Copyright protection

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw that, this is where you go Bittersweet Symphony on their ass..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Sweet_Symphony

Rolling stones bent over The Verve and took all the money generated from their #1 hit because it contained "too much of a sample" that they had licensed.

I say let this track run iTunes, and then sue them for all the money it generated.

Re:Copyright protection

[Anonymous Coward]

Coulton got the ok to do a version of baby got back. He did a new and unique arrangement and performance. Glee did an identical rip-off of his song without permission, then aired it and put it on itunes for purchase.

Original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY84MRnxVzo

Coulton's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCWaN_Tc5wo

Glee rip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yww4BLjReEk

You'll notice the second two are identical and very different from the first.

Re:Copyright protection

[C0R1D4N]

There is separate licensing for covers and derivative works. Coulton only got a license to cover, although his certainly an original take on it, he has no special ownership over his version, anyone else getting a license to cover can perform a version identical to coultons.

Re:Copyright protection

[bondsbw]

He contacted Fox. Everything is on them now. (And actually, it doesn't really matter whether he contacted them or not. But he probably has a more solid case since they knew of the infringement claim and continued to infringe.)

Re:Copyright protection

[adamdoyle]

In copyright law (and in most, if not all, areas of IP) there is a defense called "equitable estoppel." The copyright owner's lack of action against an alleged infringement that he or she knows about can sometimes be interpreted as permission to continue use. There's also a defense called "laches" (pronounced: "latches") which can be employed in response to unreasonable delays in prosecution.

Re:Copyright protection

[adamdoyle]

wouldn't it look pretty bad in court if you just let damages accrue, and only filed a case after the defendant had made a bunch of money?

Generally, no. In the specific case of trademark law, you can lose your trademark if you don't defend it, but with copyright and patents, there is no such 'problem'. Submarine patents are a real thing, look at the case of GIF.

If you know about copyright infringement and don't act on it, then infringers might be able to employ the defenses of "laches" (unreasonable delay) or "equitable estoppel" (misleading the infringers to believe you're not going to pursue them). I'm not familiar with the GIF case, but my guess is that they were able to show that they were still actively enforcing the patent (even if "actively" is an exaggeration).

Re:Copyright protection

[_KiTA_]

There is separate licensing for covers and derivative works. Coulton only got a license to cover, although his certainly an original take on it, he has no special ownership over his version, anyone else getting a license to cover can perform a version identical to coultons.

Except the Berne Convention gives him copyright over the derivative work. They cannot just steal it and say "welp, it's a cover, so you have no rights." Especially since it's an original arrangement (he didn't just sing along to the original instruments).

And it's not that they just got a licence and decided to do an acoustic, folk-like version like Coulton did. They literally used inverse phase wave mapping to remove the vocals on his song, then sang the same lyrics, including the "Johnny C's in Trouble" line (whereas the original was "Mix-a-Lot's in Trouble"), and this is key: On top of his original instrumental track.

They blatantly stole a song online, are attempting to profit from it, and oh yeah, the producer for Glee basically taunted Coulton on Twitter, suggesting he should be happy he got ripped off.

Oh, and did I mention that this isn't the first time they've done it? By far?

Re:Copyright protection

[Paul Slocum]

They literally used inverse phase wave mapping to remove the vocals on his song, then sang the same lyrics, including the "Johnny C's in Trouble" line

Although the Glee version is a very close reproduction, I don't think it's done by channel phase inverting trick because that technique results in a mono backing track, and their backing track is clearly stereo. Plus if you listen closely on headphones you can hear they're using different drum samples and the instruments sound a bit different.

However, it's worth noting that the only thing used in Jonathan Coulton's cover from the original is the lyrics. The cover has completely new chord progression and vocal melody that doesn't exist in the original rap at all. Essentially in this case the "cover" is a completely different song with the lyrics from "Baby got back", so I think it's still a clear copyright violation regardless of how they reproduced Coulton's music.

Re:Copyright protection

[_KiTA_]

They literally used inverse phase wave mapping to remove the vocals on his song, then sang the same lyrics, including the "Johnny C's in Trouble" line

Although the Glee version is a very close reproduction, I don't think it's done by channel phase inverting trick because that technique results in a mono backing track, and their backing track is clearly stereo. Plus if you listen closely on headphones you can hear they're using different drum samples and the instruments sound a bit different.

However, it's worth noting that the only thing used in Jonathan Coulton's cover from the original is the lyrics. The cover has completely new chord progression and vocal melody that doesn't exist in the original rap at all. Essentially in this case the "cover" is a completely different song with the lyrics from "Baby got back", so I think it's still a clear copyright violation regardless of how they reproduced Coulton's music.

Here's a version where someone synched up the two versions via the first few instrumental hits at the start of the song:
https://soundcloud.com/alacrion/joco-v-glee

Literally they are note for note the same as far as instrumental bits go. Ok, there are SMALL differences are when they used the audio version of a poorly done photoshop job to remove certain elements, like the duck quacking (which can still be heard, faintly), but, that's just me.

And yeah, it's a clear copyright violation. And the guys from Glee should know better. However, I *believe* their stance is that JoCo is just some silly little Internet artist and they can get away with this because what can he do, eh?

I personally think they vastly underestimated how big his followings are on the Interwebs, and how loud us computer nerds can be when we feel one of our own (remember, Coulton was a Slashdotting computer programmer before making it big as a musician) is being thrown under the bus.

speed of takedowns

[v1]

interesting to see how a joe average gets smacked down like a gnat with a buick on youtube, but then we see the exact opposite here? Or didn't they file a takedown notice?

Re:speed of takedowns

[Brucelet]

The question is whether Glee crossed the line from "sounds similar to" to "used the same background recordings as". Coulton has a karaoke version available, and at one point it was possible to purchase a usb drive containing source tracks of this song (among others) as part of a creative commons fundraiser, so it's certainly feasible that the Glee version simply stuck new vocals on top of JoCo's existing tracks. There is some strong evidence that that is exactly what happened.

Re:speed of takedowns

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worth pointing out that this was released under Creative Commons "Attribution-NonCommercial" license, which means anyone can adapt (remix, sing over, etc.) and distribute it, but must give due credit to the original author and must not use it for any commercial purpose.

Re:speed of takedowns

[Brucelet]

Actually, as I noted elsewhere, Coulton explicitly states on his online store that his covers are not CC-licensed.

Creative Commons

[MoonRabbit]

specifically, the license Jonathan Coulton uses, allows for noncommercial use. Anyone want to argue that this is non-commercial use?

Re:Creative Commons

[MrEricSir]

Huh? "Baby Got Back" is most certainly not licensed under Creative Commons.

Re:Creative Commons

[Brucelet]

JoCo explicitly notes in his store that his covers are not CC.

Re:Old news

[spazdor]

What Glee released is not a "cover." It actually samples his recording. If they'd re-recorded all the instrumental parts in the exact style that JoCo arranged them, they'd be in the clear. But they didn't. They sang, karaoke-style, over his instrumental recordings.

From your link:

(If Glee's producers used clips of Coulton's actual recording, like the duck sound, it's different: that would be copyright infringement of his sound recording.)

Re:Its not Jonathons song

[ExploHD]

Yes, he did a cover. However, he did a specific arrangement of the song that the show took as their own. From the opening chorus to the way the guitar is played, it's the same arrangement of Baby Got Back. I have a feeling that the music arranger for the show might be let go for getting credit where credit wasn't due.

Re:Old news

[spazdor]

It also notes that JoCo has posted that that happened:

What's more, Coulton also believes that Glee's music directors also illegally sampled his version, noting specifically that the sound of a duck quacking...

and then it goes on, undaunted by that detail, to talk about the legal ramifications of JoCo's claim assuming that the above is false, even though it gives absolutely no reason to doubt that it is true.

https://soundcloud.com/alacrion/joco-v-glee Here is a demonstration of the claim's truth. Now, like, let's keep on talking about why JoCo's legal claim has no merit in some other hypothetical universe where the Glee people actually went to the trouble of re-recording it, even though they didn't in this universe.

Re:I think he's got a case

[dgatwood]

According to the article, which was written by someone who knows nothing about copyright law, because it's a cover it's not really covered by copyright law.

FTFY.

A cover is a derivative work. It is covered by copyright to the extent that it contains new, original creative expression above and beyond the original work. So to say that "it's not really covered by copyright law" is pretty much completely wrong unless the cover sounds almost exactly like the original, which his cover clearly does not. At all.

I don't really see how the melody he wrote for the song is not covered though, that isn't a copy of the original song at all. A song is not solely composed of lyrics.

Oh, his melody is most assuredly covered by copyright. Unquestionably. Anyone who says otherwise is either deliberately lying or knows nothing whatsoever about copyright law. It's an independent musical expression sufficient to be protected on its own by copyright if not combined with those lyrics. Therefore, it is protected just the same as any other artistic creation. If Fox really stole his original melody, and continued to use it even after having been informed that their use was not authorized, that meets the criteria for willful infringement. I believe the words "treble damages" come to mind.

Based on what I'm reading, it sounds like Fox isn't remotely on the right side of the law here. I would strongly urge Mr. Coulton to contact a lawyer who specializes in copyright cases. What Fox's lawyers are telling him is complete bulls**t, and they're pretty much pissing their pants hoping he doesn't sue, because they have a pretty good idea how many figures they'll lose if he does.

I would also strongly urge Mr. Coulton to file a proper takedown request with Apple. This forces Fox to put all their cards on the table, and gives them notice that you intend to take action if they don't come to a reasonable settlement. It also takes their content off of iTunes for at least a few days, during which they're losing a metric f**kton of sales. This has a tendency to force their lawyers to take your claims seriously, where they otherwise might not.

That said, IANAL, and this is not legal advice except for the the "you should contact a copyright lawyer" bit.

Did you listen?

[Junta]

We aren't talking about someone doing a 'similar' cover, we are talking about Fox, by all appearances, using his Karaoke track verbatim against his license and singing over it. Hell, even the lyrics kept "Johnny C's in trouble" instead of the original lyrics. Analysis suggests they even had to work a bit to try to edit out a duck quack from his track, but still left some sign of that quack behind.

In fact, reports are that the show lifts a *lot* of differently done arrangements of well known songs done by obscure people without permission without a shred of apologetic tone or credit given.

But at least it is equal opportunity, a fair number of more well known musicians whose songs have been featured aren't exactly pleased to hear their works crop up in that show either.

A problem so easily avoided...

[Junta]

A show with a reported 3.5 million dollar an episode budget can't even be arsed to let artists know their stuff is going to be used....

All of these people being stolen from would be content with so little as an off-screen credit through some blog post or something. If they wanted to be decent human beings, they would have thrown in an on-screen one liner mentioning the names of the people that are actually responsible for the arrangements, rather than trying to perpetuate the lie that the people behind that show have even an ounce of original musical talent.

All this stuff they could have done without spending so much as a dime...

Re:Old news

[bcrowell]

What Glee released is not a "cover." It actually samples his recording.

And Coulton's version isn't just a cover either. If you listen to the Sir Mix-a-Lot version and then to the Coulton version, Coulton's puts the lyrics to a melody that wasn't there in the original rap song. Coulton owns the copyright of this melody.

Re:I've heard note-for-note covers that accurate

[spazdor]

Listen to the Soundcloud link I posted. Use headphones. This is not a hyper-accurate note-for-note cover. If it were that, there would be all sorts of stereo phasing wildness going on in your ears, because they would be all confused by the Haas effect. That is not going on because the instrumentals are the same instrumental.

http://s9.postimage.org/qq104s1zh/joco_glee_comparison.gif

Here is a spectrogram comparison I made from the first 15 seconds of each song, starting from the attack of the second 'clap' sample. They're not identical obviously, owing to different mastering and compression on the tracks, in addition to the differing vocal performances going on over top. But, the spectral components they share in common are clear. If you look at that clap sample by itself, before the vocals and other instrumentation start up, they are obviously the same sample.

Re:frist post?

[DaTrueDave]

This was a triumph.
You could at least have used the first post to point out that this is the artist who wrote and performed "Still Alive" from the video game Portal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6ljFaKRTrI
Not sure how this wasn't in TFS.

Not the first time Glee did this

[BenSchuarmer]

They stole Greg Laswell's arrangement of "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" about a year ago.

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