Hey look, @GLEEonFOX ripped off my cover of Baby Got Back: bit.ly/WME9Ho. Never even contacted me. Classy.
Why "Glee" Did Not Rip Off Jonathan Coulton
His fans may be outraged, but the show doesn’t owe him anything for using his arrangement of Sir Mix-A-Lot’s “Baby Got Back.”
I know, right? Now tell your friends!
Why "Glee" Did Not Rip Off Jonat...
Matthew Perpetua
Image by Mike Lawrie / Getty Images
Fans of the singer-songwriter Jonathan Coulton are up in arms because his arrangement of Sir Mix-a-Lot’s hit “Baby Got Back” will be used in a forthcoming episode of Glee.
Here’s the original version of the song, in case you somehow have never heard it:
Source: youtube.com
…and here is Coulton’s version, recorded in 2005 as part of his “Thing A Week” project.
Source: youtube.com
Here’s the version that was recorded for Glee:
Source: youtube.com
It is very obvious that Glee used Coulton’s arrangement of “Baby Got Back.” The guitar part and general tone is identical, and they even carried over his alteration of one line to refer to “Johnny C.” rather than Sir Mix-a-Lot.
Coulton was not pleased.
It is understandable that Coulton would be annoyed, but the producers of Glee don’t actually owe him anything. According to copyright law, alternate arrangements of songs are “derivative works,” and arrangers can only claim a copyright when the songwriter has granted that privilege to them. Sir Mix-a-Lot is the sole songwriter of “Baby Got Back,” so only he is obligated to receive credit and payment for the use of the song in the show. Though Coulton’s version includes elements that he wrote himself, he cannot claim a songwriting credit for those contributions, including that “Johnny C.” line, which was almost certainly included in the Glee version as their way of giving the singer some credit.
This would be a bit different if the show had used Coulton’s recording. In that case, the recording would be licensed and Coulton would receive performance royalties, while Sir Mix-a-Lot would get the royalties for songwriting.
So, really, there’s no reason to get mad at Glee about this, though it may seem unfair at first glance. If Coulton fans want the singer to get paid big Glee bucks, they should channel their energy into lobbying the show’s producers to do a version of his viral hit “Skullcrusher Mountain” in a future episode.
Source: youtube.com
Seriously, wouldn’t that just be delightful?
HOT ON
Follow BuzzFeed
More Buzz
Facebook Conversations
13 Responses So Far
- cclark + Why "Glee" Did Not Rip Off ... and thinks it’s Fail
-
-
- Why "Glee" Did Not Rip Off ... is starting to get hot on Facebook Share It
- witchywomin Why "Glee" Did Not Rip Off ... and thinks it’s WTF, Fail & Ew
- Samma G. Why "Glee" Did Not Rip Off ...
- calinj Why "Glee" Did Not Rip Off ... and thinks it’s LOL & Win
- Johnny LaRue thinks Why "Glee" Did Not Rip Off ... is Fail
- Tess thinks Why "Glee" Did Not Rip Off ... is Win
- mariannen Why "Glee" Did Not Rip Off ... and thinks it’s Trashy & Fail
-
Noella Glase 3 months agoI’m still annoyed Glee used Greg Laswell’s arrangement of “Girls Just Want to Have Fun,” but I think what we can all really take away from this is that Jacob H needs fucking hobby.
-
- bosstweed thinks Why "Glee" Did Not Rip Off ... is Trashy
- amberf5 thinks Why "Glee" Did Not Rip Off ... is Fail
-
Jacob H. 3 months agoYou write “According to copyright law, alternate arrangements of songs are “derivative works,” and arrangers can only claim a copyright when the songwriter has granted that privilege to them” Rather than just citing “copyright law,” how about an actual reference to a section of copyright code, or a link to an official statement? Because I suspect you will never find it. I read the whole info PDF from the US copyright office (specifically on derivative works), and I couldn’t find any such provision (requiring the granting of permission)
-
-
Jacob H. 3 months ago
Say I recorded and sold a note-for-note copy of “All Along the Watchtower,” the Jimi Hendrix version. The songwriter (Dylan) would get a royalty, and so would the author of that arrangement (Hendrix). No “hijacking” involved. Because, as the US copyright office puts it: “The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions,
changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in
the work. It does not extend to any preexisting material and
does not imply a copyright in that material.” In other words, yes, you can have a copyright on a derivative work, providing that “To be copyrightable, a derivative work must differ sufficiently from the original
to be regarded as a new work or must contain a substantial amount of new
material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting
work will not qualify a work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new
material must be original and copyrightable in itself.” both of those quoted passages are taken directly from copyright.gov. Did you check there before writing this piece? Doesn’t seem like it. -
-
-
- Hedgetopia Why "Glee" Did Not Rip Off Jonathan C... and thinks it’s Trashy & Fail
-
SpiderManBand 3 months ago
Wow… does this writer work for the show? It reads like he was contacted by the producers to push back with come clarifying P.R. bullsh*t. Look at the point he’s making: Glee isn’t awful for stealing another artist’s song (clearly the case), they’re exploiting a legal loophole! Yay! “His fans may be outraged, but the show doesn’t owe him anything for using his arrangement of Sir Mix-A-Lot’s “Baby Got Back.” How about just a “thank you?” I suppose it’s really too much to expect common curtesy these days…?
-
-
joeb11 4 months agoI’m going to have to echo the opinions of the others here and say that you’re missing the point entirely, Matthew. You’re talking copyrights and songwriting royalties, and the real issue at hand is wholesale artistic thievery. This is not a legal matter; it’s an ethical one. In my opinion, Glee acted unethically in this situation. Thus, while they were perfectly within their legal rights, they were most certainly ripping off Jonathan Coulton. This is a breach of integrity, not copyright law.
-
-
Matthew Perpetua 3 months ago
I think you need to seriously rethink the “artistic” nature of Coulton’s cover version. This is not a post advocating either side of this situation - I am simply pointing out that people are wrong in their assumptions about copyright law and the realities of licensing, and whether or not it’s “good” is up to the reader - but from a strictly critical viewpoint, the whole “white person doing folk version of rap song” gag is very old and tacky, and maybe should not be held up as great artistic statement. Two things to think about here: 1) Glee is a show about a cappella groups and show choirs, etc. In real life, a cappella groups and show choirs routinely use other groups’ arrangements of popular songs. The arrangements are originated by particular people, but those people can lay no claim on the songs. The arrangements just travel around, like a folk tradition. 2) The whole “derivative works” thing exists to protect songwriters from having their work ripped off. From another point of view, it would be deeply unfair for Coulton to hijack songwriting royalties from Sir Mix-a-Lot because he did his own version of the song. Think this through - if this law did not exist, how many people could be out there scamming their ways into big money by altering works by famous songwriters? In this way, an artist can simply reject all offers to have their music used on a show like Glee, rather than have a third party alter their work and give permission to the show to use their bastardized version instead.
-
Jacob H. 3 months ago
You are missing a few obvious points here:
1) Nobody can “hijack” songwriting royalties from the original author - in this case, for example, Glee could have just used the original song, rather than the derivative. JC couldn’t do anything to “hijack” royalties without Glee deciding to use his version instead of the original.
2) AND MORE IMPORTANTLY - When someone uses a derivative work, like in this case, THE ORIGINAL ARTIST STILL GETS ROYALTIES!!! Seriously, don’t write about the law without doing your research first! -
Jacob H. 3 months ago
Also, this differs from how a cappella groups operate - there is a big legal difference between performing a copyrighted work live (like a band performing a cover song, or an a cappella group performing live), and a recording (like a TV show or CD). I agree that there is nothing particularly novel or interesting about some white indie guy covering a rap song. Yes, it provokes a ho-hum reaction in me, but that’s not the point. The point is, new arrangements of existing songs can, in fact, be copyrighted, provided they are “different enough”.
-
-
John Kearney 4 months ago
This legalistic argument shoots wide and attributes claims to Jonathan Coulton he didn’t make. Coulton didn’t say, “Glee violated my copyright!” He wrote Fox “[n]ever even contacted me.” The network acted in an unprofessional, disrespectful manner towards Coulton, regardless of whether or not they legally exposed themselves with their Glee recording. It’s a blatant rip-off of Coulton’s rendition — n.b., “rip-off” isn’t a legal term, but that’s exactly what Fox’s recording is. Mr. Perpetua seems to believe that one only has reason to get exercised at an entertainment company’s craven decisions when they rise to the level of breaking the law. He concludes that Fox could pull this off without legal repercussions; ergo, “there’s no reason to get mad at Glee about this.”
No: it’s reasonable to get mad when people in entertainment don’t show respect and recognize others in the field when they’ve contributed to a product. Lots of people and even companies go the extra mile to recognize all contributions. They’re the good people, the good organizations. Fox, or at least Glee, has shown it’s not in that category. It’s unseemly to use legalism to defend such behavior. -
-
Matthew Perpetua 3 months ago
Why would Glee need to contact him, though? They would have no legal reason to do so. I mean, would it be nice if the producers were like “hey dude, guess what?” Sure, I suppose. But it’s no obligation and it seems clear that the “Johnny C.” line is their way of giving him a nod on the show. But again: Coulton can’t lay any claim to owning that line because the whole thing is a derivative work. This isn’t a legal issue at all, then, just a matter of personal etiquette.
-
Jacob H. 3 months ago
Go to copyright.gov. Read the following PDF: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
You will see that you are quite wrong that “His version is a derivative work of the Sir Mix-a-Lot song, and thus he has no claim to it.”
Derivative works can indeed be copyrighted, so the “thus” in your claim crumbles.
-
-
- Why "Glee" Did Not Rip Off ... is starting to get hot on Twitter Tweet It
-
Disco Mike 4 months ago
I’m unsure where exactly you get off posting information that is incorrect and in fact giving legal advice without having passed the bar is actually a crime in some states so you might want to be a bit concerned for yourself depending on where you’re located, but just as an FYI: Derivative works ARE copyrightable, and have been since 1909. A variety of successful lawsuits have been levied against people who steal arrangements, perhaps most notably by lawyers representing The Rolling Stones; their cover of Chuck Berry’s “Come On” is their intellectual property, though Chuck still receives his 10% from ASCAP. In more recent times, Tim Berg and At Night entertainment successfully pursued a suit against Leona Lewis for her use of a derived work without compensation. I understand that having the text of the Copyright Act of 1909, or a degree from any law school in the US, or even a short cheat sheet on the ins and outs of copyright law might all be entirely inaccessible to someone like you, but given that you were sitting in front of a computer when you posted this I’m rather shocked at your regurgitation of something absolutely false.
-
- alexl30 Why "Glee" Did Not Rip Off ... and thinks it’s Ew, Trashy & Fail
- darthphunk thinks Why "Glee" Did Not Rip Off ... is Fail
-
darthphunk 4 months agoHow about sources to back up your claim that he isn’t entitled to claim copyright of his works? Jonathan Coulton does not own Baby Got Back, but he certainly has the right to his derivative works… which any judge will see that this is an exact copy of Jonathan Coulton’s cover of Baby Got Back. At the very least, the Creative Commons license that Jonathan Coulton’s cover of this song is under doesn’t allow for commercial use. Glee’s version isn’t different enough to be considered derivative from Mr. Coulton’s licensed cover. Your article is titled “Why “Glee” Did Not Rip Off Jonathan Coulton” but then you don’t adequately explain why other than “Because!”
-
-
Matthew Perpetua 4 months ago
Yes, I did. His version is a derivative work of the Sir Mix-a-Lot song, and thus he has no claim to it. Anyone can use his arrangement of it, and only Sir Mix-a-Lot is required to receive credit and money.
-
Matthew Perpetua 4 months ago
It would be different if Glee had used Coulton’s recording of “Baby Got Back.” In that case, they would be required to pay a license for the use of his recording, and he would be paid performance royalties. All songwriting royalties would be paid to Sir Mix-a-Lot. But that is not the nature of Glee! Glee is a show in which people perform covers of songs, so they own their own recordings, and only pay out songwriting royalties.
-
elliew3 3 months agoActually, he does have a claim as it is a derivative work and he’s not properly credited for it, if it’s under a Creative Commons non-commercial license (like his original songs are.) Anybody can copy it, true, under the terms of the license, but only if it’s non commercial use and if he is accredited for it. Glee can still legally pull it back, but the repurcussions are clearly out of its control.
-
Matthew Perpetua 3 months ago
This is getting to a more complicated area, but it’s extremely unlikely that his creative commons license can supersede the copyright laws governing “Baby Got Back.” Sir Mix-a-Lot would need to grant a special permission to Coulton, and that…is just not going to happen, this song is that guy’s fortune and it is not in his financial interest to give up any bit of control or credit.
-
Jacob H. 3 months ago
Where are you getting this legal analysis from? According to this article in “Slate,” (http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/01/18/jonathan_coulton_glee_and_baby_got_back_did_fox_steal_the_arrangement.html), JC DOES in fact own a copyright to his derivative version. Here’s the meat of the article: ‘according to the U.S. Copyright Office, “the copyright of a derivative work covers … the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work.”’
- Show 7 More Contributions ...
-
![[link]](http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/images/public/icons/external-link2.png){kind=icon}
Special Reactions
Your Reaction?
React with an animated GIF!
READY. SET. REACT!
GET STARTED