Geekosystem: Ah, Glee. Can you get any worse? The answer to that question, for those playing along at home, is an unequivocal “yes, though not much.” It came to light last week that an episode called “Sadie Hawkins” would use a version of Sir Mix-a-Lot’s “Baby Got Back” song. That version, unfortunately, turned out to be Jonathan Coulton‘s specific arrangement and even lyrics. Well, now it’s aired and, yup, it’s basically JoCo’s version. Even worse, Glee apparently thinks they did the man a favor by using it.
5 comments:
I get that the legal ground on this is very shaky. But from a perspective of artistic integrity, come on! I never really assumed that the big networks like FOX really had any in the first place, but it's nice to know my opinions were correct. I feel bad for the guy, his work really should be respected, but I guess a cover song of a cover song doesn't have a whole lot of clout under the law. I wish the producers of Glee would at least have the decency to apologize or credit him, which would be a small step in the right direction.
there is a great point made by jonathon that they are compensating him or even crediting him. Glee took someone elses work and are making plenty of money off of their work. This is a low blow for a company even like FOX. Im not necessarily an advocate for hardcore copyrights but there is a point where you need to give the credit to the person that actually created the piece that your making money off of.
This guy was on WNYC's "On the Media" this weekend (http://www.onthemedia.org/) talking about his experience. He admitted that there is a legal grey area concerning an "arrangement," or in this case a cover of another artists song. While the rights to the music and lyrics of the song itself clearly belong to Mr. A Lot, it is disputable if Mr. Coulton has a right to profit from his own rendition. The layers of intentionality that pile up as one considers rights to cover of covers of covers, etc., is almost not worth the time. There is no disputing his rights to the actual recording however, and it sounds like his legal team is taking the approach of trying to prove that Fox used his online recording at least in part. There is also no disputing taste ("Degustabus non disputantem est" for you Latin buffs) and I have to admit that when it comes to the rights of popular culture and pop artists, I really have to wonder what all the fuss is about. What is really worth protecting? On the radio, Mr. Coulton claimed that part of his "inspiration" for his cover of "Baby Got Back," was what he called, "a positive body image thing," as well as a desire to comment on his own "white-ness." These endeavours fall flat for me. In my mind Mr. A Lot and Mr. Coulton are after the same things, recognition and money. Let them have as much as they can garner off of there undertakings, but let's not get too sentimental and forget that pop culture thrives on imitation, and fifteen minutes is more than most of us deserve.
I do find it amusing that Fox claims that they gave him exposure, while the only exposure he's gotten has been because he has brought attention to the issue. Which I would think begs the question of whether they have done this to other artists, who have either not noticed, or have not had the fan following Coulton has and have not been able to raise awareness. I do wonder what the copyright status of the cover of a cover is. Regarding whether Coulton has the right to profit from his cover, I do believe I read somewhere that he was given permission from Sir Mix-A-Lot. I also find it amusing that in response, Coulton has gone and put a cover of the glee cover of his cover of the song (so the original version) for sale on itunes, and I believe the profits go to charity? Possibly, I'd have to refind the article on that.
Dang Glee, really? Come on. When other people and companies steal from the internet, they at least make it known and a big deal (at least the ethical ones do) and thank those people as collaborators for the material they use. But really? I don't know very much about the legal matters of ripping someone's music off, but I'm sure there's a lot of loopholes to letting the big buys take the little guy's stuff and not give him credit. Really unfortunate.
Post a Comment