Jonathan Coulton Publicly Shames Fox For Copying His Arrangement In Glee
from the social-mores dept
We've talked about Jonathan Coulton and his embrace of the internet and new business models plenty on Techdirt -- as well as his nuanced arguments concerning copyright infringement. He's not "pro-piracy," but recognizes that the overall growth of the internet that has resulted in more infringement has also created tremendously valuable tools and services that made his music career possible. Thus, recognizing that the two things go hand in hand, he notes that it's better in the long run. So what does he do when someone infringes on his rights? Well, he goes public.As some have noted, Coulton has called out Fox for apparently copying his arrangement of Sir Mix-a-Lot's "Baby Got Back" in the TV show Glee. You can see his version here:
In the end, though, almost none of that probably matters. Because Coulton seems unlikely (we hope) to go legal here. Instead, he's just going with the public shame route -- with a simple tweet about the situation, which has set off "the internet" to help him make his case and embarrass Fox and Glee.
Internet sleuths immediately went to work on the question, creating side-by-side comparisons of the audio (which are very convincing) and even unearthing an official Fox version of the as-yet-unreleased single in the Swedish iTunes store. While the track is not currently available in the American store, gaming blog Kotaku claims that it “was available earlier and was pulled by Fox.” Despite calls from Twitter and multiple media organizations, the network has yet to make a statement as of this afternoon, but, all things considered, it’s looking pretty bad for Glee.Of course, as a public storm of support rises behind Coulton, it seems likely that Fox/Glee producers will step up, apologize and probably cut Coulton a check of some sort. All of that seems a lot more efficient -- and it didn't require copyright law at all. Just a bit of public shaming for a bad actor. Of course, just imagine if the situation had been reversed, and Coulton was caught making use of a News Corp.-owned song. In that case, you'd have to imagine that the cease and desist letters and lawyers would have popped up quite quickly....
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copying, cover songs, glee, jonathan coulton, licenses, permission, public shaming
Companies: fox
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So why should Fox cut him a check?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nobody asked for a check.
How do you know his sound recording wasn't copied?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Good lord - learn the law if you are going to comment on it - you CAN NOT get a "compulsory license" for a AV Sync license if MUST be negotiated with the songwriters and publishers and it can be denied... so no, Fox did NOT do what Jonathan did as the bar for Glee is much higher than a cover for an album.
PLEASE LEARN THE ACTUAL LAW BEFORE COMMENTING INCORRECTLY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you want to point to the part of the article where he's asking for one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. Giving credit where credit is due
2. Must not be used to advertise for a company
Fox broke both golden rules regarding creative commons. Get real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think you are correct there.
Anything you add has it's own copyright. Remember the expression
"Change a word and take a third.."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Anything you add has it's own copyright. Remember the expression
"Change a word and take a third.."
Interestingly, US copyright law is based on statute, rather than ersatz nursery rhymes. From 17 USC S115:
A compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved, but the arrangement shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work, and shall not be subject to protection as a derivative work under this title, except with the express consent of the copyright owner.
Coulton admits to releasing the cover under a mechanical (compulsory/statutory) license. He has never indicated he got any permission beyond that to create a derivative work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The author of an infringing derivative work still holds the copyright on the alterations. A third party cannot use that material without his consent (or a mechanical license). They also need the permission of the original copyright holder but that is another story.
Whether he relied on the mechanical license to create his version doesn't affect the copyright situation.
If his version is sufficiently distinct that a copy of his version is identifiable as such then I would say that it is prima facie evidence that he HAS created a derivative work and hence holds a copyright. He is also in violation of the terms of the mechanical license but that is another matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Further to my previous comment I note that those who make arrangements of public domain works tend to claim that the tiniest amount of their input generates a new copyright. If what you say is correct then, for consistency, the arrangers of pubic domain works should leave their own output in the public domain when their changes would have been an acceptable arrangement under the mechanical license if the work was copyrighted.
They don't though. Hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is a specific case address with specific rules under the statute: arrangements under a compulsory license "shall not be subject to protection as a derivative work under this title,e except with the express consent of the copyright owner."
Also, even under general copyright law, there is conflicting authority as to whether authors of an infringing derivative works hold copyright to their own additions to the work. See Pickett v. Prince.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who said they "should"?
Mike says they'll *probably* cut him a check.
Because that's the usual way big corps make problems go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let's say they used his recorded music without permission and he can sue for copyright violation. The next question is, should he, or should he even accept in any money from them?
Does it put him in the pro-copyright camp to accept payment? Or should he accept payment and donate it to charity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
there's nothing confusing going on here. but it does raise an interesting point about Hollywood and Piracy:
http://thetrichordist.com/2012/06/04/how-copyright-encourages-creativity-in-hollywood/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which has no bearing on whether he was copied.
he did (most likely) an unauthorized remix himself utilizing masters he did not own to a composition he did not right.
Others are saying he paid the compulsory license fee to make a cover. Do you have contradictory information, or are you speculating?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there any doubt that FOX ripped off Coulton?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there any doubt that FOX ripped off Coulton?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aside from being bullied into it, why should they cut Coulton a check?
It's unclear he has any legitimate copyright claim here at all. As far as he has disclosed, Coulton covered the song under a mechanical license without getting permission from the original artist/copyright holder. That's fine, that's what mechanical licenses are for. He also rearranged the song, which you're effectively not supposed to do under a mechanical license, but given that he was playing in a markedly different "style" than the original he might be able to get away with that (legally).
However, it's clear in the law that without explicit permission, a cover is NOT a derivative work, and as such the arrangement isn't independently copyrightable. The Glee people would need to get their sync licenses from the original copyright holder and either a direct or mechanical license for the cover.
If they used Coulton's backing track without re-recording it (maybe they did, maybe they didn't), that's a different story, since he may have a legitimate copyright claim on that.
It's interesting that on TD, when a big conglomerate requires that people get permission to use their work, it's the awful "permission culture," but when the shoe is on the other foot and Saint JoCo of the Internet wants to be consulted on all uses of his (probably non-copyrighted) work, it's yay for vigilante justice!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I checked the link in the article and listened to the two at the same time and when they are synced it is the same song to the beat and note.
The comment about how likely it is that Fox cuts a check is because that is the only thing Fox understands: money and how to use the complicated laws to get more money now... they don't understand the real long term culture of music and how to treat it in the long term.
Fox/Glee should have just given credit to Coulton in the first place (it is hard to believe Coulton was not the source) and that would have made this a win/win for both parties. Sure Coulton could have asked for money but based on my knowledge of him he would have taken
the publicity of having his work on Glee over hard cash.
I didn't research all the facts and it would look really bad if Coulton had released his after Glee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's not about "should." It's about showing that if people feel wronged, there are ways to respond that don't involve the law. I'm not saying that Fox should do something, just that they may realize it's in their best interest to do so. That's a system that is functioning without the need to resort to a law.
Basically, the point is not what should be, but that there are mechanisms in place if the public feels someone has been wronged.
It's unclear he has any legitimate copyright claim here at all.
I agree, for the most part, though there may be copyright in the new parts, but it would be minimal. But, again, that's not the point of the post.
It's interesting that on TD, when a big conglomerate requires that people get permission to use their work, it's the awful "permission culture," but when the shoe is on the other foot and Saint JoCo of the Internet wants to be consulted on all uses of his (probably non-copyrighted) work, it's yay for vigilante justice!
Again, the point is that there are ways to deal with this that don't involve the law -- and some of that may include public pressure, whether or not we agree with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But was he wronged? As copyright falls away, I'm not sure people will necessarily take great pains to credit the history of what they borrow, copy, or incorporate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You mean like David Lowery and The Trichordist are doing with Advertising Funded Piracy?
http://thetrichordist.com/2013/01/17/golden-globe-winner-adele-exploited-by-american-express-att -british-airlines-target-nissan/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Umm...
First of all, it's a cover, not a remix. Second of all, Glee cleared the performance rights from Sir Mix-a-lot. If they sampled JoCo's recording, they violated JoCo's Master Rights, which is © infringement.
For someone who claims that "everybody knows" a particular "fact", you don't seem to know what you're talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Was Coulton claiming otherwise? I saw him use the term "ripped off" but not "copyright". Do you have a quote for us?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
also, if you want to check the recordings you could do a "null test" google it - it's just science and would prove if his recording was used...
PLEASE LEARN THE LAW BEFORE COMMENTING
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only if you believe that the only way to rip someone off is by committing copyright infringement, which personally seems idiotic to me at first glance.
also, if you want to check the recordings you could do a "null test" google it - it's just science and would prove if his recording was used...
I don't get it, how can you prove whether his recording was used by googling it?
I think I just replied to darryl. Ugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thing is, Coulton isn't demanding people get his permission as far as I can see, it's his fans booing Fox for having the gall to pass off this work as original without attribution to the inspiration (at least) behind it. I see no conflict here at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Perhaps you should seek an Optometrist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Another Jerry Falwell Liberty University law school grad, I assume. They have special colloquia in trolling, I hear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a matter of morals really. As a person, Johnathan Coulton probably would have been fine with them just CREDITING him. Shit, how hard would it have been to add ONE line in the credits that mentioned his name? It'd be on screen for maybe six seconds, and everything would have been fine and dandy. But instead they decided, "hm. Well, he;s not all that well-known, so maybe nobody will notice if we rip him off."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You realize, though, don't you, that as content becomes widely available for anyone to use as they wish without having to worry about legal ramifications or paying royalties, there is going to be a lot of copying and reuse without necessarily the proper credit. In fact, once something gets passed around enough, there's a good chance most people won't even know who the originator was nor will they care. The idea that you'll get credit if someone uses your idea with little or no modification is nice, but once all that content is freely flying around, I'm not sure people will bother to check. It's like folk songs in the public domain. They have been around for years, people perform them as is or modify them, etc. It becomes open source music.
If someone wants to mimic another person's work (as might be said to be the case with Glee), what's the harm, especially if lots of people start doing it? As people have pointed on Techdirt all the time, music is a collective effort. Does anyone really own it?
I think if you are going to push the copyright liberation boundaries, you have to expect this and live with it. Isn't the preferred response supposed to be for Coulton to thank Glee for exposing its fans to his music? Why bother to shame Fox?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When probably hundreds or thousands of Fox-owned pieces of media are pirated every day, they need to get over it, accept reality, learn to love the pirates, and decide how they can give even more away.
When one piece of St. JoCo's music (which is primarily popular because it spoofs an already-wildly-popular rap song) gets (most likely) legally used by Fox, it is appropriate to lawyer up, have moral outrage, and wait for the check and the apology (it's not clear what the apology would be for, but that's beside the point).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
When one piece of St. JoCo's music (which is primarily popular because it spoofs an already-wildly-popular rap song) gets (most likely) legally used by Fox, it is appropriate to lawyer up, have moral outrage, and wait for the check and the apology (it's not clear what the apology would be for, but that's beside the point).
You nailed it. Mike is, of course, too dishonest or stupid to see his own duplicity. He just got really excited about the story because it supports his childish "public shaming" theory of the internet world. Amazingly, he probably thinks it's something new and great, 'cause, you know, it happens on the internet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Who said they "should"?
Mike says they'll *probably* cut him a check.
Because that's the usual way big corps make problems go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It sure is. It's about an Internet artist, who covered a song without the permission or knowledge of the original artist, getting POed because somebody else did the exact same thing to him.
Does he owe Sir Mix-a-Lot a check and an apology for his original cover? Does everybody who covers a song on YouTube in their spare time owe the original artist a check and an apology?
Fox/Glee should have just given credit to Coulton in the first place
The episode supposedly containing this song has not aired yet. So you don't know what they were or weren't going to credit. Coulton's original link on Twitter was to a(n unauthorized?) copy of the song on YouTube, posted by some rando. Most people posting other people's songs on YouTube don't go to the trouble of crediting all the personnel involved in that song. The recording engineer wasn't credited either...so, uh, OUTRAGE?!?
Sure Coulton could have asked for money
He could have asked for a toilet made of solid gold, but without a copyright claim he's gonna have a tough time getting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So he formed a secret spy agency and is going to issue strikes taking away peoples internet access for allegations of file sharing?
I think what went whoosh right over your head is the idea that Fox has no problem screaming that everyone owes them if they copy and once again they had no problem "stealing" (to use their word) from some poor artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um, well…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why are you being such a butthead? These are the job creators we are talking about, and they simply want to help you get a minimum wage job ... growing popcorn or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Okay you clearly dont know what youre talking about. Coulton isnt just a 'internet artist', Hes created loads of TV and Video game music like Portals 'Still Alive'
Second, he GOT permission to do his cover you idiot. He had to pay royalties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, like lynching!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is an Absolute Travesty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is an Absolute Travesty
That lack of video in that glee video just makes the point stronger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess Fox didn't think so. Oh, and the rest of the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From jonathancoulton.com:
"My lawyers are researching the copyright issues..."
So I guess the lawyers pop up quite quickly either way. Oh, Internet...copyright law is for wankers - right up until you make something worth copying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you honestly not see the difference between Coulton getting advise on his legal position and the instant - often false or ignorant of fair use and other rights - takedown notices ejected from your beloved corporations? Probably not, you're too ignorantly single-minded for that.
"Oh, Internet...copyright law is for wankers - right up until you make something worth copying"
...in which case most people are OK with so-called infringement as long as they are correctly attributed (see: most posts here about artists). Copyright isn't just for wankers like yourself, it's for everybody. Unfortunately, it's so completely screwed up that an artist can't even correctly tell what rights he has without getting the lawyers' advice. Somehow we're wrong to criticise this, I suppose.
Oh sorry, were you going to try and base every point on misdirection and distortions of others' opinions again? I apologise for introducing reality to you yet again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And what do you suppose Coulton is getting advice on his legal position for?
...in which case most people are OK with so-called infringement as long as they are correctly attributed
OK, then, please tell us all how this song was attributed when the episode containing it aired. Alternatively, why don't you tell us all how this song was attributed when it was officially released by Fox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because he wants to know what his legal position is? Why is that wrong, especially compared to when major labels fired off DMCA notices without considering the fair use rights involved? At least he's considering the facts before taking action.
"OK, then, please tell us all how this song was attributed when the episode containing it aired. Alternatively, why don't you tell us all how this song was attributed when it was officially released by Fox."
Ah, classic misdirection - "I don't believe you, but YOU do the work to prove my assertions!". Besides which, you completely miss the point - deliberately, I assume. I was making a general comment, in response to your distortion of the typical attitude of "the internet". You can't address this, so you try sending the discussion off to another tangent. Predictable.
Anyway, I never watch Glee and I don't have access to the credits as they looked when they aired - unless you're asking me to pirate the show to find out, of course! So, I have no idea. Typically attribution is the major thing such artists care about - i.e. they don't care about piracy so long as they are attributed correctly as per the CC or other licence used. If Coulton was credited, then I don't think he'd have this problem. I may be wrong, but my comment was on the general attitude of such artists, not this specific case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you're the one making the assertion.
...most people are OK with so-called infringement as long as they are correctly attributed.
If Coulton was credited, then I don't think he'd have this problem.
This is an interesting assumption. Did you take ten seconds out of your life writing screeds against others to actually see whether Coulton was or wasn't credited?
Anyway, I never watch Glee and I don't have access to the credits as they looked when they aired - unless you're asking me to pirate the show to find out, of course! So, I have no idea.
Or you could, of course, have just used Google to find out. Or read Coulton's original posting.
I may be wrong, but my comment was on the general attitude of such artists, not this specific case.
Well let's take two seconds to look at whether this specific case is consistent with your made-up assertion.
You are wrong, by the way:
1. The episode containing this song has not aired yet. Therefore, we have no idea how the song was (going to be) attributed. Now, of course, they might change the credits due to all this hoopla, and we may never know their original intent.
2. The only possibly-official release of this song has been found on iTunes Sweden (why Sweden? Who knows?) Perhaps it's because of how iTunes is organized, but neither this nor the other Glee covers on iTunes have metadata associated with them indicating the personnel (including the original artist!) Neither the producer, the engineer, the arranger, nor indeed anybody but "Glee Cast" is credited. Should they also be outraged? It seems iTunes on the Web and in the app does not have the equivalent of "liner notes," although metadata for songs and albums is sometimes provided - if you buy the content.
Coulton's original post did not point out that they didn't credit him (because he, like the rest of us, doesn't know one way or the other whether they will). It was that they didn't contact him in advance (even though this may not have been legally required, and even though Coulton himself did not get permission from the original artist when he made his cover).
That's permission culture, plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I made some points in response to your blind, false assertion. Do try reading.
"Well let's take two seconds to look at whether this specific case is consistent with your made-up assertion."
So, in response to a general point I made that was a response to your claims, you are still trying to derail the discussion into a specific point on this story that I wasn't making? You can examine Coulton all you want, but it's not what I was talking about.
I give up. Do try to at least follow what people are actually saying rather than injecting your own reality. Strawmen and moving goalposts are rather tiresome, and just show you have no interest in what I'm actually saying.
You clearly have no interest in addressing the real point (my counterpoint to your bullshit general attack), and so I might as well bid you good day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what a child
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You silly git
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bad actor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bad actor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: bad actor?
The hypocrisy of this assbag is too funny. Good luck with your "shaming" campaign, Coulton. You're a douche.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: bad actor?
Hasn't stopped them in the past...
Google "Fox Sues"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: bad actor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bad actor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bad actor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: bad actor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol - All of Fox News is bad acting and those reality tv shows, well that is just a given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Black- The dark of ages past.
Tea- A drink with jam and bread.
That will bring us back to red.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where did you get a chance to watch an unaired episode? Are you from the future?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glee Sucks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yah right
Anyone who can hear both versions and not see a ripoff is working/shilling here for Fox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yah right
So many in this debate, including Coulton himself, have used the words "rip off" to describe what's happened here. It's a great term if you intend to have unfocused outrage, because it's not legal, and it's not well-defined. So it can mean whatever you think it means. Because of this, it's also a great way to make people feel like some wrong has been committed without actually identifying what wrong was committed.
Would you care to define what "ripped off" means here, and what wrong was committed?
Was it that Coulton wasn't credited? It's not clear the song has been officially released, except perhaps on Swedish iTunes (where nobody is credited, not even Sir Mix-a-Lot)
Was it that Coulton's copyright on the arrangement was infringed? It's not clear that he has any copyright on the arrangement.
Was it that Coulton's copyright on the recording was infringed? There is substantial debate over whether the recording was reused or merely well-mimicked.
Was it that nobody asked Coulton's permission? It's very likely they didn't have to. And Coulton covered the original song without permission (though legally) through the mechanical license mechanism. Are you really an advocate of permission culture, where everybody has to ask permission for any creative work they do?
So please, enlighten us all: who was wronged, and how? What is the nature of the 'ripoff' here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yah right
1) There was zero attribution (the Glee songs normally have who they're covering in the title, and that wasn't the case here in the UK Store); and
2) blatant plagiarism, which apparently is enough to get you suspected of being a criminal in the eyes of Fox. But because it's Coulton pointing this out, he's apparently a money-grubbing douche.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Throw out the law
The people at Glee did something pretty low-class here. Correction; REALLY low-class. They stole a creative thought and didn't give anyone but themselves credit.
Sometimes we get so wrapped up in the legal side of things that we fail to recognize the simple things. Ethics.
These "writers" stole an idea and should be ashamed. It's part of a larger problem in the world today that has people thinking, "Well, if there is no consequence, it's okay to do."
Screw lawyers, courtrooms, and "who ripped-off who". The Glee staff knows they did something low. If they had been working under me I; a) would have turned down the idea flat when presented, or b) discovered this and fired the people responsible.
It's about more than legal consequences, it's about originality, and having the mindset (as a group) that some things you just don't do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Throw out the law
And usually when they do, at least some people tell them:
(1) their ideas probably weren't all that original anyway, and/or
(2) the exposure is good for them, and/or
(3) if someone else has figured out how to make money from their ideas maybe they can learn something from the clever people who know how to monetize.
I'm pretty sure that copyright will lose its effectiveness sooner or later. And I think that sooner or later everyone will be copying everyone else and not necessarily giving credit. In some cases they might not want to, in some cases they may not know whom credit, and in some cases it's just too much hassle to credit every contributor for everything they use or borrow.
I think Coulton has run into what other creatives have or will run into and perhaps he didn't think it would happen to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Throw out the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
/silly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sometimes the Internet amazes me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The exact replicas are coming
Let's say someone snaps a photo, and then someone else goes and makes the same photo -- same pose, same lighting, same filters, etc. Is the second person supposed to credit the first photographer with the idea?
With 3D printing, exact replicas are coming.
People can copy lots of stuff and do. In most cases it is just for their personal use, but if there are no copyright laws, I don't expect to see everyone carefully attributing what they copy to those who first create it.
I'm not putting a value judgement on this. I just think as technology facilitates copying, it will be done.
I don't see Coulton a victim in this any more than I see anyone who has had his or her work copied without attribution a victim. It is what it is.
The anti-copyright folks like to point to fashion where copying is rampant. The design houses are expected to come out with new stuff all the time and let go of whatever they did last year. So maybe that's what someone like Coulton needs to do. Once you put it out there, it isn't yours. You've got to move on to the new stuff. The reason this hasn't been the case with songs is that there is copyright so once you write it or record it, you get to financially benefit for decades. But let's assume that goes away and the thinking switches from create it and own it, to create it and let it go. An entirely different way to perceive creations and it probably will happen as copyright disappears and the lines between one creator and another blur. One person writes the song. Another arranges it differently. Yet another records it in a manner which may or may not be identical to the first two. Will people trace the history of the song? Will they care?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The exact replicas are coming
People who are trying to make a living at creation want to remain linked to the creation for that reason. They want credit. However, if creation isn't the way one pays the bills, then the financial rewards don't matter and it becomes a matter of identity/ego. How much do we need/want to be recognized for what we create? Can we do it and let it go? Or, even more so, can we create and encourage people to make it their own for the greater good? How selfless is art/creation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The exact replicas are coming
In my ideal economic scenario, we would find ways to provide for everyone's basic needs. Then whatever they want to do with their free time is up to them. They can paint, write songs, perform songs, write books, make stuff, etc. But they don't need to sell any of it to live. So ownership of creativity becomes much less of a factor because you're not depending on selling your creativity. It's there as a common resource. But I am only advocating this vast commons as part of a much larger economic vision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Work for pay
Writers for the show get paid for writing scripts and story lines. Fox has no problem with that.
Fox also pays other writers and musicians to arrange other songs for the show. Fox pays musicians to play the backing tracks for other songs they perform. Why shouldn't they pay Coulton?
Suzanne Lainson and others, you are crazy to think that Coulton shouldn't be bothered by this. Coulton did the work to arrange the song. Coulton did the work to play the music. Coulton should not just be happy that Glee is exposing his work tho a bigger audience because we have no evidence that Fox was going to let the audience know that this was Coulton's work.
Coulton always admitted that he use Mix-a-Lot's lyrics. He paid for that right. Fox just assumes that honesty is not their duty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Work for pay
You've missed what I was saying. I'm saying this is where it is all headed and everyone is going to have to adjust to the new realities. I don't argue for or against copyright because the situation we have now is what we have. Where I have gotten into arguments on Techdirt is when I refuse to buy the idea that getting rid of copyright will be BETTER for artists. No, what I argue is that what will be better for artists is to have an economic system where one doesn't have to sell one's creativity to pay the bills. There are other alternatives to consider. Give away your art, but also get food, health care, housing, etc. for little or no money. I like the discussions over at the P2P Foundation because they look at other options than what we have now.
I, too, an skeptical of the "exposure" argument because it still puts creatives into a position to have to sell something. And as I look at overall economic conditions, I think selling anything that isn't a basic necessity will be hard unless your fans are affluent and have money to spend on what you are selling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Work for pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Work for pay
Yes, your art can easily be free if other things are free, too. If you live in a world where you don't have to sell goods/services to survive, then creation for creations' sake is much more doable.
I see the economic crunch continuing. As wealth concentrates in a few hands, everyone else has to figure out how to get by on little, which is going to penalize artists especially because their fans won't have the extra cash to support them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leaving on a Jet Plane?
Anything he manages to squeeze out of Glee should merely pass through his hands on its way to the Denver estate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Leaving on a Jet Plane?
Why, to make sure John Denver has incentive to write music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Leaving on a Jet Plane?
Check it out: http://youtu.be/f4hsC0nRvZM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, it's a small world after all... (middle finger pointed Disney-way)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crediting people will get blurred
How Twitter’s new embeds will make social media’s copyright issues even weirder: "... when a Tweet is set loose from its network, carrying with it video, photography, false attribution, and questionable copyright, it ceases to be a part of an ongoing, evolving conversation, and the best practices or expectations of that community no longer matter."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which version?
Except Jonny C. did pay the mechanical license for his version of "Baby Got Back". Nice try, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://thetrichordist.com/2013/01/23/grammy-award-nominated-black-keys-exploited-by-american-exp ress-delta-airlines-att-dish-network-mms-mars-nissan-and-others/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Johnny C. Responds in the best way possible…
So JoCo re-released his original cover of "Baby Got Back" as "Baby Got Back (In The Style Of Glee)", does his best impression of Glee's trademarked "Wink-and-L-Sign", and donates all the proceeds to the VH1 Save The Music foundation and Dan Savage's It Gets Better project.
Folks, this is not just winning the court of public opinion; this is analogous to winning a unanimous Supreme Court verdict. Also, Karma seemed to have entered the fray, seeing as I'm writing this, This charity single of "Baby Got Back (In The Style Of Glee)" is at position #164 on the US overall music chart…………and Glee's ripoff version is nowhere to be found! Oh frabjous day! Callooh, Callay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Johnny C. Responds in the best way possible…
no one can stop him from making and releasing the cover, and no one can stop any one else under the law.
coulton has benefited from the law, but he wants more benefits than the law allows. Is techdirt suggesting stronger protections in copyright for artists than currently exist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Johnny C. Responds in the best way possible…
What benefits, exactly, is Coulton demanding? Please supply the quote you have in mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Johnny C. Responds in the best way possible…
Except that Coulton made no changes whatsoever to his "cover of a cover of a cover" as compared to his original cover. In other words, IT'S THE EXACT SAME SONG AS THE ONE ON THE FIRST THING-A-WEEK DISC!!! But people are buying it up anyway (some of which already have the Coulton's original arrangement from the Thing-A-Week series, myself included) in a show of solidarity.
If you actually read Michael Masnick's post here, he is not suggesting that at all. If anything, he is suggesting that © is not necessary because JoCo decided to go the public shame route. If you're conflating the commenters here with the official position of Masnick, Geigner, Beadon, Paley, etc., I would suggest that you stop because the commenters' positions are representative of their own and not the site. But then again, that should go without saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does Glee really have to credit an arranger?
Folks, there are going to be mimics and homages all the time, and credit isn't going to be given in each case. In fact, it may not be given on the assumption that you "get" it. Perhaps Glee thought Coulton was more famous than Coulton views himself.
Streisand/Garland Duet and The Glee Reprise Rachel/Kurt | BillRisser.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does Glee really have to credit an arranger?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does Glee really have to credit an arranger?
► get happy / happy days are here again (glee cast) || full performance - YouTube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does Glee really have to credit an arranger?
Get Happy & Happy Days Are Here Again - Glee's Kurt & Rachel w/ Barbra & Judy - YouTube
Did Glee have to tell people, "We're copying Judy and Barbra" or did they figure fans would already know or word-of-mouth would do the job for them? Perhaps shows like Glee won't bother identifying the inspiration and it's up to the fans to figure it out themselves. Kind of a game.
Again I'm not saying how things should or shouldn't be. I'm just pointing out that when people can copy, they will copy, and for various reasons the source of the idea may or may not be identified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Does Glee really have to credit an arranger?
That could be a great idea, but the person they're copying should be in the know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Does Glee really have to credit an arranger?
I have many friends in creative fields (and I have been a professional writer myself in some capacity for more than 30 years), so I can understand the annoyance when a work is copied without credit.
However, I think there's been a bit of a double standard for Coulton because he has friends in the tech community. Other people who have said their ideas have been "ripped off" haven't gotten equal support on the issue. He was no more or less ripped off than other people whose ideas are copied or mimicked. I think rampant copying is where we're headed and we all need to adjust accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the bigger solution?
If people expect credit to be given for every creative work, how will this be implemented? How do you enforce a "full credit society?" How many years and through how many modifications should credit be attached?
Should we have more sites like these so we can be ever vigilant when a work is copied/used/modified/mimicked without credit?
Who stole my pictures? :: Add-ons for Firefox
you thought we wouldn't notice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the bigger solution?
Whereas Fox demands payment for every use of their material, Coulton merely requests that his work has his name associated with it. This is easily implemented, all it takes is the honesty of those redistributing his work - and said credit is always given with pirated material since it takes more work to remove the credit than keep it. However many iterations is irrelevant - if someone created something they should be credited, even if a sample is used from a work 10 times removed from the original.
As for sites logging instance where uncredited work is noticed, I don't see why this would be a bad thing. If an artist creates something then their work is replicated without credit, this should be pointed out so that the copying artist is exposed as who he is. That's not a bad thing, and it's infinitely better than the more common legal solutions that rarely benefit anyone other than the lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's the bigger solution?
I lean heavily toward the democratization of art, which means I think technology will enable more people to make it. But in the process, figuring out who made what contribution to each creative work will become less the norm. I think the outrage over Coulton is a bit of a step backwards. I can certainly understand why he's upset, but I think what happened to him will become very typical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What's the bigger solution?
The next step I took was to look for the photo in Google images. But I couldn't find it.
Finally I shared the link to the photo (but just to the photo, not to Doug's page) asking if anyone recognizes the photo and who took it.
Now, how many people do you think would go to so much trouble just to share a photo on Facebook?
I saw the photo because Sam shared it. According to Facebook, it is now being treated as Doug's photo. I could have shared it, too, as Doug's photo, but decided not to because I didn't want to encourage the world to think it is Doug's photo until I have confirmed it. But basically, the more it gets shared as Doug's photo, the more the world will perceive it as Doug's photo until someone points out that isn't. But by then, it will have been shared so much as Doug's photo, I doubt people will go back and give the original photographer the proper credit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's another question for you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]