Johnathan Coulton gets revenge on Fox

Kotaku:
Unable to get any satisfaction from Glee, 20th Century Fox Television, or its lawyers, Jonathan Coulton has put his version of of Sir Mix-a-Lot's "Baby Got Back" on iTunes, called it "my cover of Glee's cover of my cover," and will give proceeds from its sale through February to charity.

Coulton put the song on iTunes today under the title "Baby Got Back (In the Style of Glee)." For good measure, he changed his iTunes icon to a picture of him making the L-for-Loser hand gesture, which is used in Glee's logo.

Coulton is the artist who wrote and composed Still Alive, the iconic closing-credits song of Portal.

http://kotaku.com/5979255/coulton-covers-glees-ripoff-of-baby-got-back-puts-it-on-itunes-proceeds-go-to-charity

Coincidentally, this is the exact thing I said he should do yesterday.

Eri:
So is there anything at all from stopping him from copy pasting songs from Glee, and selling a "new original album"? After all, if it's just a cover, it doesn't matter right?

That'll teach you Fox bastards!

Arrangers are entitled to royalties and credit for their work if they have asked the owner of the copyright for permission and pay royalties on their work. Now this is my guess at what happened Glee went to the publishers of the original to negotiate for rights to use that first, after all their is no point going to the arranger before getting the rights to the original. At which point they discovered Copland had not any legal right to use the original and had not being paying royalties. So Copland has no copyright, but the publishers probably won't sue him because he can use the parody defence that was used in the 80's for an explicit rap version of stand by me. Until such times as a court case is heard, Fox can only pay and give acknowledgement to the properly constituted copyright holder. Further more, any statements that Fox make on the subject could be used in a court case between Copland and the publisher.

albino boo:
Arrangers are entitled to royalties and credit for their work if they have asked the owner of the copyright for permission and pay royalties on their work. Now this is my guess at what happened Glee went to the publishers of the original to negotiate for rights to use that first, after all their is no point going to the arranger before getting the rights to the original. At which point they discovered Copland had not any legal right to use the original and had not being paying royalties. So Copland has no copyright, but the publishers probably won't sue him because he can use the parody defence that was used in the 80's for an explicit rap version of stand by me. Until such times as a court case is heard, Fox can only pay and give acknowledgement to the properly constituted copyright holder. Further more, any statements that Fox make on the subject could be used in a court case between Copland and the publisher.

Why hello there Fox execu-bot. Couldn't be bothered to call him Coulton and not Copland?

albino boo:
Arrangers are entitled to royalties and credit for their work if they have asked the owner of the copyright for permission and pay royalties on their work. Now this is my guess at what happened Glee went to the publishers of the original to negotiate for rights to use that first, after all their is no point going to the arranger before getting the rights to the original. At which point they discovered Copland had not any legal right to use the original and had not being paying royalties. So Copland has no copyright, but the publishers probably won't sue him because he can use the parody defence that was used in the 80's for an explicit rap version of stand by me. Until such times as a court case is heard, Fox can only pay and give acknowledgement to the properly constituted copyright holder. Further more, any statements that Fox make on the subject could be used in a court case between Copland and the publisher.

Did you know it was still a dick move anyway? Because it was. A whole bucket full of dicks. You can be a dick while still following the law. I'm pretty certain I can send you pm's filled with gay pornography without necessarily qualifying as sexual harassment. That would be rather dickish, but not illegal. Same here.

I fucking love Johnathan Coulton.
Seriously, he does damn good songs and shit.

Eri:

That'll teach you Fox bastards!

And what, pray tell, has that taught them?

That they can use his songs and not pay him a penny while he tries to one up them by selling his own arrangement re-titled to mock a show that doesn't give a shit about him?

Yeah, that showed them....

Eri:
So is there anything at all from stopping him from copy pasting songs from Glee, and selling a "new original album"? After all, if it's just a cover, it doesn't matter right?

And as I told you when you first posted this, in order for Coulton to release songs done on Glee he would first need permission from the original artists of those songs. Then he would have to pay them royalties.

It would not do him any favours.

All he's done above, which you seem so happy about, is sell his own song.

Wow, what an achievement. I wonder why other artists never considered selling their own songs ..... oh, wait.

Rawne1980:

All he's done above, which you seem so happy about, is sell his own song.

Wow, what an achievement. I wonder why other artists never considered selling their own songs ..... oh, wait.

How about the fact that he didn't make a giant fuss and try to sue the show causing a massive shitstorm?
Or that he's giving all money earned from sales in February to charity?
Or that he just handled this in a somewhat amusing way?

Granted, it's not "showing the Fox bastards" like OP says but Coulton is generally a funny and seemingly nice guy and the way he's reacted to someone taking his song kind of shows that.

hazabaza1:

Rawne1980:

All he's done above, which you seem so happy about, is sell his own song.

Wow, what an achievement. I wonder why other artists never considered selling their own songs ..... oh, wait.

How about the fact that he didn't make a giant fuss and try to sue the show causing a massive shitstorm?
Or that he's giving all money earned from sales in February to charity?
Or that he just handled this in a somewhat amusing way?

Granted, it's not "showing the Fox bastards" like OP says but Coulton is generally a funny and seemingly nice guy and the way he's reacted to someone taking his song kind of shows that.

It wasn't Coulton I was having a dig at, it was the over excited OP that made a big deal out of nothing.

Also, he asked for legal advice to see whether he could sue them but he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Coulton said that while his lawyers have been looking into the copyright issue, it seems unlikely that he will have any legal recourse. "It seems that because of the compulsory license I purchased when I made a cover of this song, the arrangement itself is not protected under copyright, although it's the darkest gray of the gray areas [of the law]... While there may be some weird offshoot of the law, it doesn't seem like something where a little guy could sue to get any satisfaction."

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/01/jonathan-coulton-glee-song/

If he'd had any chance at all he would have sued them.

And he would have been right to.

A dickish move on Fox's part it may be but it was a legal dickish move by the looks of it.

Eri:

albino boo:
Arrangers are entitled to royalties and credit for their work if they have asked the owner of the copyright for permission and pay royalties on their work. Now this is my guess at what happened Glee went to the publishers of the original to negotiate for rights to use that first, after all their is no point going to the arranger before getting the rights to the original. At which point they discovered Copland had not any legal right to use the original and had not being paying royalties. So Copland has no copyright, but the publishers probably won't sue him because he can use the parody defence that was used in the 80's for an explicit rap version of stand by me. Until such times as a court case is heard, Fox can only pay and give acknowledgement to the properly constituted copyright holder. Further more, any statements that Fox make on the subject could be used in a court case between Copland and the publisher.

Why hello there Fox execu-bot. Couldn't be bothered to call him Coulton and not Copland?

Apart from getting Coulton's name wrong, Albino is correct on all counts.

edit: although if he can prove Glee actually used "his" version of the song, he should be entitled to performance royalties.

I hate to say this, because I want Coulton to get the last laugh over this Glee thing as much as anyone, but this really hasn't accomplished anything. Sure, people will buy it to show support, but Fox still won't actually LOSE anything over this. Way MORE people will still buy Glee's "version" of his song.[1]

I mean, he handled this in a pretty amusing and mature way, and that's admirable, but I certainly wouldn't call any of it "revenge".

[1] Although the correct phrasing is technically "Glee's version of Coulton's version of Sir Mixalot's song".

Wow...

Johnny C's kinda shit at getting revenge...

Huh, I'd support him too if I used iTunes...still, it's a shame that he can't actually sue Fox over it

albino boo:
Arrangers are entitled to royalties and credit for their work if they have asked the owner of the copyright for permission and pay royalties on their work. Now this is my guess at what happened Glee went to the publishers of the original to negotiate for rights to use that first, after all their is no point going to the arranger before getting the rights to the original. At which point they discovered Copland had not any legal right to use the original and had not being paying royalties. So Copland has no copyright, but the publishers probably won't sue him because he can use the parody defence that was used in the 80's for an explicit rap version of stand by me. Until such times as a court case is heard, Fox can only pay and give acknowledgement to the properly constituted copyright holder. Further more, any statements that Fox make on the subject could be used in a court case between Copland and the publisher.

The law is not just, it's only trying to be. that's why we always have problems with legal dickmoves and need to revise our rules so often. Hiding solely behind legal texts is morally questionable.

Fox can only pay and give acknowledgement to the properly constituted copyright holder.

Actually, you're free to give credit to whomever you like. Please do not make it sound like they had no choice on the matter.

albino boo:
Arrangers are entitled to royalties and credit for their work if they have asked the owner of the copyright for permission and pay royalties on their work.

He does pay royalties. Both the original release and the one in the OP. That's why this is such a big deal to the internet. Fox showing double standards.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked