If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
My judgement on this is clouded by my hatred of ironic rap covers.
ANYWAY, in "rearranging" the song he added melodies that werent in the original. Couldnt he just sue for the melodies? Instead of treating it as an unathorised use of "his" song, treat it as an original song that is ripping off his work. I dont know if theres precendent for this.
<img src="images/misc/quote_icon.png" alt="Quote" /> Originally Posted by <strong>gennation</strong>
<a href="showthread.php?p=42081230#post42081230" rel="nofollow"><img class="inlineimg" src="images/buttons/viewpost-right.png" alt="View Post" /></a>
<div class="message">Neither of us is gay or anything, it just happened.</div>
Chicken Monkey wrote: This looks like a situation where what's legal and what's right don't match up. On the other hand, deincentivising the creation of ironic cover versions may be the accidentally noble outcome.
I liked the cover version. (The original, not the one on Glee.)
Chicken Monkey wrote: This looks like a situation where what's legal and what's right don't match up.
+1 to this. Glee can do whatever they want, of course, and it's par for the course in Hollywood to ingore/bully the little guy. But you think they could have thrown him a bone somehow.
Legally, I'm not so sure that any change in this area would be a net positive. Every basement band in existence would try to establish claims on "their" arrangements, and you'd have a dozen lawsuits every time anybody performed a cover song in any highly (or not-so-highly) visible way.