Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by 702, Oct 9, 2013.
What do they do about the character? This wasn't a goodbye to Cory, it was a goodbye to Finn.
Well, yes, but if you're going to use the word, learn how to spell it.
I think it was both. While watching the episode, I kept thinking they were going to show flashbacks of him during pivotal moments from the show. About halfway through, it suddenly dawned on me that they made a deliberate decision for the episode to be more about the actors saying goodbye than the audience. I'm cool with that. It wasn't just a character dying, it was their friend. I'm sure filming those scenes was very cathartic for them.
I wondered (and then realized) the same thing.
The scene with Burt and Finn's mom had me sobbing.
"After your child dies, you are still a parent...you're just a parent without a child..."
God, that was emotional!
Crap. It is business and standard practices. Glee understood them. He didn't. This kind of thing happens everyday.
And I meant he is stamping his feet. Them co opting the name of Glee. Yup. He is a great man.
Btw, my facts came from his website.
And "this kid" gets a send off on HIS show. Hardly the same scale because he wasn't the legend that Michael Jackson or Elvis were.
What are you both talking about?
A great many injustices happen everyday. Just because Glee's brand of plagiarism is a standard business practice, that doesn't mean their victims should just silently take it dry.
"Co-opting the name of Glee", wow... that's some high comedy right there. I picture you holding your wrist to your forehead as you say that.
He sold his song as a cover of Baby Got Back with an arrangement that was in the same style as the one on Glee (which just so happened to be his original arrangement, but hey, that's just a standard business practice, right?), and advertised it as such.
What he did was perfectly legal too. By your stated standards, you should have no problem with that. And in any case, the fact that you do is largely unimportant as yours is the vastly minority view: his "cover" of the Glee version ("It's a cover of Glee's cover of my cover of Sir Mix-a-Lot's song, which is to say it's EXACTLY THE SAME as my original version.") absolutely crushed Glee's version on the iTunes charts.
And all the proceeds from the sales of that single (minus itunes fees and royalties to Sir Mix-a-Lot) went to charity.
So your sarcasm notwithstanding, he's certainly a better man than most.
Well then, you'll have to link to the page on his website where he supports you claim that "he violated the copyright agreement on [Baby Got Back] when he did the arrangement", because either you are reading his words wrong, or... well... actually, there's really no other explanation, since that's a patently false statement.
As for the show, just because what you do may be legal, that doesn't mean you can't be a dick for doing it. What Glee did was a dick move.
Personally, I don't feel the need to patronize dicks. What you choose to do with your free time is your business.
When the show featured the Sir Mix-A-Lot song "Baby Got Back," last season I believe, they used an arrangement of the song that internet recording artist Jonathan Coulton composed and recorded. Coulton only found out when the Glee recording of the track hit iTunes.
Not that you're taking a side...
Music rights (and cover songs) confuse the hell out of me. I thought this was Sir-Mix-A-Lot.
Ryan Murphy said that most of what you see on screen were first takes because the cast and crew were too emotional to do a second.
The lyrics are Sir-Mix-A-Lot's. The music and arrangement are Coulton's (but by virtue of certain wrinkles of copyright law governing covers, Coulton doesn't actually own the rights to his own music and arrangement in that song).
So while they (maybe*) did nothing wrong from a legal standpoint, they passed off the original arrangement of the song as their own, or at the very least, without giving due credit to the composer.
*I say "maybe" because there's a strong argument to be made that not only did they plagiarize the arrangement, but they might have simply used JC's original recording as well, instead of having their own musicians just rerecord "in the style of". If they in fact did that, then they would have done something illegal.
Couple that with the fact that JC rather abruptly went completely mum on the matter, leads me to believe that Glee's producers came to a legal settlement with him.
With music, could I record an album of a bunch of cover songs, and as long as I don't take writing credits, could I sell it?
Is this why with the early Guitar Hero songs they used cover versions for most songs?
You'll owe royalties to whoever owns the rights to the song, but otherwise yes.
Furthermore, the person who owns the rights to the song can't actually stop you from putting out a cover version; all they can do is collect the royalty.
(And they can't "backdoor veto" your cover by charging an exorbitant royalty either, the royalties for just audio-only covers are based on a scale determined by the copyright office. The artist has no say in that instance.)
More or less, yes. Not using the original recording means that there's one less type of royalty to pay.
Yes. You would obtain a type of license called a compulsory license, then as long as you just want to re-record their song, don't change the lyrics or the fundamental nature of the song, and you acknowledge their ownership of the song, you're OK.
What does the fundamental nature mean? Some of the covers are vastly different.
Hayseed Dixie comes to mind.
On a related note, parodies are fair game right? I know Weird Al seeks permission, but he doesn't need to correct?
parody and satire is covered under fair-use.
Music licensing is complicated, messy and quite lucrative. Groups like ASCAP and BMI act similar to the mob doing things like going to restaurants and demanding licensing fees. There's a story out there about a guy named Richard Phillips who was playing his own original music in a restaurant and BMI still demanded licensing fees on it. It's a messed up business.
It's a racket for sure - my music industry survey class in college could have been renamed: "**** the RIAA and **** BMI, too"
I actually switched schools and majors after that class because I didn't want to be a part of it.