[mr_eel]

That's how covers work. They can be a nice thing — essentially quoting an artist you like — or they can be bullshit, like this.

It's not illegal, but it's not ethical.

[richeyrw]

This article would seem to indicate that it is in fact illegal.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/01/18/jonathan_coul...

[gte910h]

To put the song on itunes, that's a cover

To broadcast it on TV with people singing it, that requires a sync license. That requires direct negotiation with all parties who hold any copyright.

[andrewchoi]

IANAL, but I thought those rights only extended to parodies? Covers aren't protected because the copyright extends to the words and music.

[tantalor]

The JC version has a distinct melody/arrangement, so qualifies as an original work. The lyrics are not.

[andrewchoi]

Exactly, the music is different enough that the entire production counts as an original work, whereas the Glee version has neither, and thus would be considered a cover.

[wmf]

IIRC parodies are generally legal due to fair use and covers are also legal (as long as you pay the royalties) due to statutory licensing.

[dthunt]

(edit: removed the happy birthday analogy, it doesn't really clarify anything)

In John Coulton's case, I'm not sure what he was required to do in order to license the lyrics for his original cover; i.e. whether he paid the calculated rate or negotiated something else. But it looks like Glee owes to two parties at best (if they actually lifted his audio like Timbaland this could get ugly)

[InclinedPlane]

The joco version is properly an arrangement. Also, parodies are certainly protected, but in what way is glee's version a parody of joco's arrangement?

[andrewchoi]

I'm not saying that it is, mr_eel claimed that Glee's version wasn't illegal.