[droithomme]

I see. The compulsory license clause explicitly prohibits new creative work in the arrangement so that derivative copyright doesn't apply. The problem here is that his arrangement goes way beyond a straight cover and has a new melody, new chords, new instrumentation, rhythm - the only part he retained was the lyrics.

Coulton does own the copyright to his unique arrangement because of its obvious creative and new nature.

But if Coulton only has a mechanical license covering non-creative arrangements, then Coulton has actually never had the right to distribute the creative derivative work. He still owns the copyright to the unique parts of the arrangement - everything but the lyrics - but he has no right to perform or sell this derivative arrangement because he has not negotiated a license to distribute a derivative work that changes the nature of the song, and the compulsory license was the wrong thing for him to get as it does not cover that.

Fox Network/Glee still doesn't have the right to distribute because they are violating Coulton's arrangement copyright, but Coulton also doesn't have the right to distribute because the compulsory license doesn't cover substantial changes.

[taylorlb]

Very likely true! It's complicated and murky indeed. He may own a good part of the song that he has created, but not enough to ever see it released without a claim from the Mix-A-Lot song publishers.

[ChuckMcM]

Except that he has already paid licensing fees to Mix-A-Lot per his blog.