Weird Al does:
I will like it more if they do Laibach’s version of “Across the Universe.”
What I think sets Coulton’s parody aside from other parodies is that his arrangement was a complete departure from the original song. Even Weird Al’s polkas use the same music, just with a drastically altered tempo and key.
Coulton’s version of Baby Got Back is definitely new work.
To be protected, a work of parody needs to somehow comment on the original work. Lots of Weird Al’s music doesn’t meet this criterion; instead, they’re funny songs that happen to use the same music and similar lyrics. Or they parodize some completely other work.
Coulton’s original work seems like a gray area. Is a rearrangement into an unexpected style considered significant commentary? Well, that’s for a judge to decide. Of course it doesn’t matter since he received permission.
Surely they give the benefit of the doubt to the artist, right? I think there’s a pretty good case that the arrangement does comprise significant commentary. The original song is, in the best sense of the word, nasty. It’s tongue-hanging-out unapologetic leering.
Coulton’s rearrangement makes it sound beautiful and tender and loving, but keeps the lyrics almost entirely intact. The humor comes then from the disconnect between the lyrics and the arrangement. It acts as a commentary on how our emotions are affected by these different aspects of music.
Seems like a really murky issue. And music isn’t just covered by copyright, it also has special rules from the music industry that covers usage. I’d like to hear from experts.
I’ve been following closely because I admire Jonathan Coulton very much. I can’t say that I understand the entire legal background of what’s going on, but Coulton took a rap and made it into a ballad. He wrote music for it. And these Glee guys didn’t just take a fun idea and do their own version - it looks like they took his actual audio track for their show.
An audio geek analyzes the hell out of the songs here. Can anyone here make sense of it?
What bugs me the most is that many of my favorite musical artists are mostly “internet famous” and release their work under a Creative Commons non-commercial license. There are enough people who enjoy their work that they’re willing to pay for it, but situations like this put that whole concept in jeopardy. On Twitter, Glee-defenders are saying that since he puts his songs on the internet for free, he can’t complain about people using them. But that’s not how that works. You can’t just float around the internet looking for neat stuff and then use it without asking or giving due credit.
I’m upset that what could have been a huge opportunity for Jonathan Coulton to break into a more “mainstream” audience is instead turning into a legal mess. Had they asked him about it, I have no doubt he would have agreed to let them use it. It’s not even a money thing, although a fat check would have been great. It’s sad to think that people coming across JoCo for the first time in a year or two or three will hear his version of Baby Got Back and think he covered the Glee version.
A friend wrote a little more about the story and why it’s so upsetting to us fans here.
Coulton has said some of his stuff is NOT released under the CC license, specifically covers and stuff he doesn’t own.
He’s said he’s angry and will be writing about it soon. So, we’ll see.
Right. So what kind of permissions does he actually need? Like I said, I always thought that any permissions he got were a formality and a courtesy, and nothing more. I can’t seem to find an Internet source out there that say something different; perhaps someone else can?
As for the Coulton situation, given that Fox is a huge corporation, I wouldn’t be surprised if this whole thing wasn’t a misunderstanding or screw-up that the legal eagles are dragging their feet on resolving (at least until the publicity gets their bosses to get them moving again).
In this day and age, it seems to me that the visual presentation of a song, whether via music video or live stage performance, is as much a part of the composition as the music and lyrics. So Al incorporates the “whole package”. Where the parody lyrics themselves may not seem to be a direct comment on the original lyrics, when combined with the subsequent music video or stage presentation, you get to see the the apparently-unrelated lyrics being “shoehorned” into a scenario that resembles, to one degree or another, the original song’s scenario, and that is the juxtaposition that completes the parody.
Which artist? Actually, I don’t think any benefit of the doubt is made. My understanding is that fair use is a “weight of the evidence” determination, and the court basically adds up all the things that count in favor or against fair use protection, and then sees where the balance lies.
I agree. I just don’t know that the court would see it that way. I think it’s plausible, even probable that you could succeed in the argument–just not assured.
Well, there’s also the fact that Weird Al wants to stay out of court. Court is unpleasant even if you’re legally in the right. At any rate, I doubt it’s true that asking permission is simply a courtesy in every single case.
Maybe so. But the song still exists by itself, and so I’d think it would have to stand on its own in terms of parody. The ancillary components might help to clear up intent, but probably not much more. Think of it this way: suppose Weird Al release a cover of a song which was identical in every way to some other song, but then had a music video that reframed the song in some new, parodic light. Even though song+video might constitute parody, the song by itself would still be a direct violation.
Disclaimer up top here that while I sometimes have to deal with questions regarding fair use as part of my job (academic librarian), this has always been in the realm of educational use of informative text or videos. I have zero professional experience when it comes to copyright issues regarding music or other creative works, or with parody as fair use. So take my post below with the same grain of salt you would anything on the Internet, and I certainly welcome corrections from anyone with experience in this area.
I wouldn’t bet on it.
My decidedly non-expert opinion is that a musician would have a snowball’s chance in hell of convincing a judge that a different arrangement of a song counted as a parody protected by fair use and that he didn’t need to give credit/pay royalties to the original songwriter. Even if the ruling did go in his favor, the musician could very well end up spending way, way more defending himself in the lawsuit than he would have just paying the royalties.
Performer Richard Cheese, whose whole act is doing radically different arrangements of popular songs (he’s the guy who does lounge music covers, here’s his version of “Baby Got Back”), says on his website that he is not a parodist and that he does always give proper credit and pay royalties to the original songwriters.
Note that doing of a cover of a song (without altering the lyrics) doesn’t require permission of the original artist/copyright holder, the cover-er just needs to give credit and pay the appropriate fees. Since there is a well-established and (relatively) straightforward licensing mechanism for doing song covers, it would count against the cover-er in court that he chose not to handle things in the usual manner. See the Columbia University Copyright Advisory Office’s Fair Use Checklist for more on what would count for and against use of copyrighted material being considered fair use.
I don’t know what sort of source there would be regarding a counterfactual situation. To my knowledge, Weird Al has never been sued for copyright violation and there’s not another high profile song parody artist comparable to Weird Al. I can say that there have been lawsuits over cover versions of songs that made unauthorized changes to the lyrics of the original. (I don’t know whether this “no lyric changes” thing is a standard part of music copyright law or if it has to be a provision of the licensing agreement.) In 2009 Gordon Peterson filed a lawsuit against Eddie Vedder over the cover of Indio’s “Hard Sun” (original/ cover) that Vedder recorded for the Into the Wild soundtrack, saying he had not given permission (or even been asked permission) for changes to the song’s lyrics. It was found found that the changes Vedder made were minor enough that he didn’t need permission, but had he made radical changes he presumably would have lost. I assume the “no lyric changes” provision exists to protect songwriters from something like a neo-Nazi band paying the standard fee to cover a song and then throwing in a few lines about how much they love Hitler, and not changing “she” to “he” in a love song or making other trivial changes to the original.
Coulton himself said today that Fox is apparently in the clear legally. He’s not happy about the situation and if it turns out that his actual recording was used without his permission then he can go after them for that, but “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”.
I’ll mention just as a music fan that covers-of-covers aren’t that unusual and I can’t remember ever hearing about a cover artist suing another cover artist for doing an arrangement closer to the earlier cover than the original song. If you have much exposure to mainstream media you’ve probably heard a cover of Leonard Cohen’s 1984 song “Hallelujah”, but most of these (here’s Rufus Wainwright, and here’s k.d. lang) sounds more like the well-known 1994 Jeff Buckley cover than Cohen’s version. The Buckley version itself is said to have been inspired by the 1991 John Cale cover.
It’s clear enough that all these people, and anyone else who wants to cover “Hallelujah”, need to pay Leonard Cohen for use of his song. But if it were expected that a cover artist credit/pay earlier cover artists if the arrangement was similar then if I wanted to use basically the same arrangement as the Rufus Wainwright version it’s not so obvious whether I’d need to credit/pay him, the Jeff Buckley estate, John Cale, or all three.
I still think John Fogerty is a scumbag for ripping off John Fogerty. :dubious:
Speaking of which:
(Probably Yankovic’s most “pure” parody)
See also: Alanis Morisette’s cover of My Humps.
Jonathan just released a cover of the Glee cover of his cover of Baby Got Back. I bought it. He’s just awesome.
In addition, proceeds from the sale from when he started it until the end of February will go to charity.
I’m also encouraging everyone I know to stop watching the show, as it supports Fox and their bullying arrogant ways.
The TV broadcast doesn’t list songs in the credits. Somebody needs to check iTunes to see who is credited there. It might also end up on one of the show’s CDs, in which case the author should be credited there as well.
This isn’t the first time a show on Fox had this sort of problem; remember the two dancers on So You Think You Can Dance? in 2011 that were accused of stealing another pair’s routine, right down to the music, only for the show to reveal (a) that the contestants had actually used different music but the producers replaced it “for legal reasons” (which they do on occasion) with the other music, and (b) the contestants had been interviewed by Cat Deeley and had mentioned that part of the routine was actually designed by the other pair (and mentioned them), but the interview didn’t air until 2012?
All it says in iTunes is “Glee Cast”. I don’t see any other way to check without buying the track and checking the file’s metadata there, and I don’t think I’ll be doing that.
I’m surprised that the songs and credits aren’t listed in the closing credits of “Glee”. Movies include a complete list of all the songs used with writing, performing and publishing info for each one. Seems like TV shows shows should do this as well.