Jonathan Coulton Explains How GLEE Ripped Off His Cover Song - And Why He's Not Alone

blah blah blah wah wah wah

Oh my God, Joe. I've been using that line all week!

I'd really think people would be more responsive to this story on here. Oh well. Bitchiness takes precedence.

---

Coulton actually released a new version of his cover, "in the style of Glee", with proceeds going to VH1 Save the Music Foundation, and the It Gets Better Project.

And Coulton is a pretty great musician in his own right. Quirky, nerdy, and often very funny songwriting, in the same vein as They Might Be Giants, though less abstract.

---

So what am I supposed to be outraged about? The artist that actually wrote the song got paid. He's getting a ton of exposure. This cost him nothing and maybe will make him some money. If he had a case he'd be suing the pants off them.

No one gets up in arms when IDOL contestants steal arrangements of covers and then get praised for their originality by the judges.

Didn't Adam Lambert get into some trouble for not crediting the bands he stole from? I'm not wording that correctly. I do remember he did some "original" arrangements that turned out to be copies of lesser-known covers.

Seriously, what "credit" does he deserve? "We're covering this song because we heard this other guy cover it"? HE DIDN'T WRITE IT. His "contribution" was to slow it down. Cover artists don't get to copyright the idea of singing someone's song.

Yes, he covered Baby Got Back. Now Glee covered Baby Got Back. Now he's managed to get people to write articles about that. That's about the best he can expect.

In Lambert's case I think the trouble arose because Idol framed it as "He came up with this amazing arrangement" when it was not his arrangement. Even so, nothing came of it.

Kad is right, Coulton is only getting exposure because he called Fox out. If he did not do that, then this whole thing would have gotten swept under the rug.

Coulton isn't asking for a royalties check for his song. He is however asking Ryan Murphy to give credit where it's due and to have given him some credit for the arrangement that he had come up with. There is nothing wrong with that. It would be a whole different story if Glee did Baby Got Back in the style it was originally done. It doesn't matter if Coulton can sue or not. This just gets added to the pile of why I feel that Ryan Murphy's view of getting music for his show reeks to high heaven.

---

I stand corrected in re: Idol.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's ethical. Coulton's pointing out the slack ethics of Glee's producers, who made bank on a show all about the underdog and then take the work of others and essentially say, "You should be happy we even stooped to acknowledge your work." And it would appear this is not the first time.

If Fox was as brazen as they were about incorporating Coulton's revised lyric (which references *himself*) and cover arrangements and actually sampled Coulton's track, they could see a lawsuit.

And this dismissal of "it's only a cover"- which is implicitly saying that it is a lesser work and worthy of lesser consideration- is nonsense. I see it as being no different than a an original production and a revival of a play- both valid and artistically unique expressions of a source material.

Coulton did his own artistic work on the cover and deserves at the least credit when it's used.

Granted, this extension of copyright law is still murky- as it has been when applied to lawsuits about theatrical productions allegedly using direction/etc.

---

Is it wrong? Yes. But Glee, X-Factor, Idol, it happens to all those shows (I guess just because they use so much music on that network.) For example, the Let's Have a Kiki choreographer was up in arms last month because he wanted credit. Glee uses particular arrangements all the time, complete with corresponding lyrics. When they do showtunes, they'll often use the movie version arrangements. They should give some sort of credit, but they probably want to keep royalty costs down, so they count it as "inspiration." Credit, whether unspoken or not, means money.

---

Coulton wrote a new arrangement and, more importantly, a melody for a rap song without a melody. Fox is attempting to bully him out of taking legal action over his original melody.

Now, here's the problem. Since he never copyrighted the arrangement with the courts, he has a big uphill battle for an actual legal case against Fox. His mechanical license only proves he recorded the song. It does not prove that he added enough value to the cover song to be unique enough for its own copyright. That's what he would have to prove in court to get Fox to pay up.

It's why that guy that can prove Chris Martin saw his show and stole one of his songs for Coldplay doesn't have a leg to stand on. He was an indie artist who didn't pay copyright his work. Technically, you have a copyright as soon as you create something novel. The only way to guarantee legal protection is to register it. Neither of these artists did this.

As for the Idol argument, I'm one of the jerks who informs people of where Idol is stealing arrangements from. A few of the contestants have been confronted in interviews about stealing arrangements and they can never explain it other than "I liked it so I did it." Its not their fault Fox, as a policy, does not give credit to the arrangers it steals from.