Comment by tunesmith | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tunesmith | Hacker News Reader

This distantly reminds me of the Jonathan Coulson / Glee situation that happened a few years back.

Basically, a recording of his came out that had the lyrics to "Baby Got Back", but against music that was entirely fresh and original. And then later, Glee had a scene with a (really weird) a cappella group that did a cover of Coulton's recording - his music, but with the Baby Got Back lyrics.

The show gave Coulson zero credit, didn't ask his permission, didn't give him any compensation, and I believe didn't give him any notice ahead of time. (I'm typing this all from memory, so I'm sure I might have some details wrong, but that's the thrust.)

So the question is, should they have? It turns out it depends entirely on how the creation process was described.

There's an old songwriting exercise where you take a song, and then write entirely different music for the lyrics, and then write new lyrics for the song. Presto, it's a whole new song, and there's nothing wrong with that songwriting process. You can do the reverse where you write new lyrics for the old music, and then new music for the new lyrics, too.

Coulson could have easily written that new music for "Baby Got Back", and then written new lyrics for it, and copyrighted the song. And then, I'm not sure, but he possibly could have then released the version with the "Baby Got Back" lyrics as a joke/parody of his song, and it still would have been his song. But since he released his version as a cover of "Baby Got Back", all Fox had to do was "steal" his version, pay the royalties to Sir Mix-A-Lot, and cut out Coulton entirely.

> Coulson could have easily written that new music for "Baby Got Back", and then written new lyrics for it, and copyrighted the song.

Why wouldn't Coulton have the copyright on his version of the song? If I create a derivative work, I would own the copyright on the modifications, so I would have thought that Coulton would similarly own the copyright on his music.

For example, if I take Apache-licensed source code, add my own modifications, and release my work under the GPL v3 (as is permitted by both licences), someone else cannot reuse my work under the terms of the Apache licence, just because it is a derivative work of something licensed under the Apache licence. They would have to follow the GPL if they wanted to use my version. So how is that different to Fox reusing Coulton's work without his permission?

Because it's possible to create a cover of a song that doesn't sound a lot like the original song. In that case, if you record it, you have the copyright of the recording, but not of the song itself. You still have to pay royalties to the songwriter of the original song if you record a cover.

Coulton's "cover" just stretched that past the breaking point (or just before the breaking point, from Fox's point of view). In fact, there's an argument that Coulton did something wrong here, and should have gotten a "print license" since it changed the fundamental nature of the melody, and that the recording was technically breaking copyright.

But either way, Coulton didn't have copyright of the music, only of the recording. And since Fox didn't use Coulton's recording on Glee (although there was apparently some disagreement about that), their argument was they didn't owe him anything.

It makes sense that Coulton would not have copyright on the lyrics (because they are not his) but why would he not have copyright on everything but the lyrics? I just listened to his version and the Glee version (which sound the same), and they sound completely different to Sir Mix-A-Lot's original version. Is there a special rule for musical works that sets a very high threshold of originality for derivative works?

In music, there's a difference between holding the copyright for the music, and the copyright for the recording. And it's absolutely possible to write a cover, but where the music sounds different than the original version. People that do this don't have the copyright for the music, since the cover would not have existed were it not for the work by the original artist.

That said, Coulton's version is very different, and probably could have led to some interesting legal arguments had it been challenged in court. But it's probably very relevant that Coulton first represented it as a cover, and that the entire reason his version (pre-Glee) became famous is because he marketed it as a cover.

> his music, but with the Baby Got Back lyrics

Well, his version is slightly different. He says “Johnny C’s in trouble” where the original says “Mixalot’s in trouble” and I believe Glee used the Johnny C version. That’s probably not enough for a legal claim but it would have been classier either for them to use the original lyrics without his twist or give him at least a little bit of credit.

(tiny correction: It's Jonathan Coulton. Coulson is the Marvel SHIELD agent)

and he has made very good niche nerd humor songs (and has a wonderful voice) https://www.youtube.com/@jcoulton/videos

loved his time as the musical support for Ask Me Another in NYC https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510299/ask-me-another (now dead, sadly)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com