Jonathan Coulton strikes back by re-releasing his own song

I think it's important to realize exactly what Fox is (regularly) doing here.<p>Fox/Glee finds a popular song. Fox/Glee wants to do a cover. Fox/Glee searches the internet to find a popular cover of the song. Fox/Glee does their cover in the same style, by having musicians play/record a note-for-note re-creation of that popular cover. Fox/Glee pays mechanical royalties to the original songwriter/publishing-company, pays absolutely nothing to the arranger that came up with the stylized cover version, and refuses to acknowledge them.<p>This is 100% legal, no matter how creative the arranger was in coming up with their cover. If the cover artist was granted a mechanical license, the only copyright protection they were granted was to their <i>sound recording</i>.<p>This is also not the first time it has happened. In episode 1, Glee's cover of Don't Stop Believing was practically identical to a famous a cappella arrangement (from a college a cappella group that released a cd and won some awards from it). There was another "regionals" number that was largely identical to another similarly famous a cappella arrangement.<p>It's lousy behavior and I think they deserve every bit of blowback for being poor citizens, but it is technically legal.<p>(Big asterisk: There is reason to believe that Fox actually took Coulston's karaoke version of BGB and recorded vocals over it. This, in contrast, <i>would</i> be a copyright infringement.)

This is not just a cover it's clearly a new arrangement. As an arrangement it is a derivative work. Derivative works, specifically including arrangements of preexisting compositions, are most certainly themselves copyrightable materials by their authors, which in this case is Coulton as he is the author of the arrangement.<p><a href="http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf</a><p>Coulton notes that he has bought a license from the Harry Fox Agency giving him the right to perform and distribute his original arrangement of Sir Mix a Lot's work, so that is all proper and legal.<p>There is no doubt legally that Coulton holds a copyright to his arrangement and that Fox is engaging in copyright violation since it is obvious the Fox piece is a cover of the Coulton arrangement, given there are almost no differences between their cover and his original arrangement.<p>The opinions of the Fox lawyers who contacted him are predictable, but incorrect regarding law.

Awesome response. I bought the song. I'm guessing that Fox/Glee either doesn't know how stupid this makes them look or they believe that any publicity is good publicity. Now all we need is the bear-luv inman cartoon for Adam Anders [1], the executive music producer for Glee.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2946490/" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2946490/</a>

I don't understand the law here. Fox/Glee can separate two independently copyrightable components of a work -- the lyrics and the arrangement --, then pay off the lyricist and rip off the arranger with the law being none the wiser? Why do lyrics receive preferential treatment under the law? What happens if you take two popular songs, strip the lyrics from one and combine it with the arrangement of the other? What if you add your own lyrics to someone else's arrangement: do you now own the work? What if your cover of their cover is byte-for-byte identical to their cover, that's <i>not</i> a copy?! Can this channel separation copyright hack be reused in other contexts (software, movies)?

Glee isn't the only thing to do this sort of shitty move, either. Ludachrist [1] did a remix of Major Lazer's "Pon De Floor" vs the Beverly Hills Cop song, entitled Pon De Foley.<p>Several months later, DJ Hero 2 (same family as Guitar Hero) took the same two tracks and made one of their game songs the exact same remix [2]. Players have to mix both tracks together and if they successfully do it, it plays the arrangement that Ludachrist had come up with.<p>Activision had permission from both Diplo (Major Lazer) and Harold Faltermeyer (composer of the BHC song), and therefore had legal clearance from it. At no point did they acknowledge the arrangement as coming from Ludachrist and legally didn't have to.<p>It's really scummy but that's how the outdated copyright laws work. It's just another argument for large-scale copyright reform.<p>[1]: NWS remove the space if you want to view it: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch</a>? v=9TYEgFfFdUY [2]: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M93Aji4MJBk" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M93Aji4MJBk</a>

I haven't been paying much attention to the legal details but I love that Sir Mix is getting royalties from this (partly because this stops the debate from descending into a "everything should be free" tangent).<p>Edit: after taking the 30 seconds to find and listen to an excerpt of Coulton's song, I can reasonably weigh in on the debate: Fuck Glee

Can someone give me some more context on what this is about and the backstory here? A link to something that explains whats going would be great!

At the time of this writing there are 719 ratings for this single on iTunes. This isn't scientific, but I'd say the song is doing well. Ultimately, this whole Glee fiasco will undeniably end as a net positive for JoCo.

Coulton (or for that matter, you or I) could release an entire album of covers of Glee songs, and only owe money to the original author, not the Glee dudes?<p>Someone should make the "Low Rent Glee Ripoff Band" and do this.

While it would have been nice for Glee to acknowledge Jonathan's influence, an arranger can only claim copyright when the original songwriter has granted that privilege to said arranger, which I don't believe was the case when Coulton recorded his cover.

While it's a tad low to do this without any acknowledgment, this stuff happens all the time. Particularly with commercials. At least he has re-released his master and can monetize this way. This controversy will probably earn him more money than had it just been a 2 second blip in the credits.

I bought his version of the song. I hope he uses the proceeds to sue the shit out of Glee/Fox.

Well, I never would have heard his version if it weren't for this fiasco. I don't watch Glee (I enjoyed the first few episodes, i'll admit... then it just got silly).<p>I'm not saying it's a good thing they did this - it's not. But hey, he did a great arrangement here, and i'm happy to have heard it now.

The best revenge involves laughing all the way to the bank.

How much does this cost on iTunes for those of you in the US? It cost me $1.69 in Australian dollars, but the exchange rate is 1 USD to 0.96 AUD.

It would be wonderful if JoCo makes more money off thissnafu than if Fox had give you him a gratuity or credit in the first place.<p>It would be beautiful if the above were true and the creative team did it on purpose, for example by intentionally preserving the duck sound after being told to swipe and wipe and the song.