Kind of ironic that plagiarism is the subject of the week in the class I'm teaching.

Years ago, Jonathan Coulton, an indie musician who has plenty of fans in our household, (took a moment out of his busy schedule to give Daughter a big hug and pose for a pic with her at Ohayocon once!) released a soft rock version of Sir Mix-a-Lot's "Baby Got Back". He got the proper permissions and paid the proper royalties.

Last week, Fox's show Glee featured the same song on their episode Sadie Hawkins Day. Contacted, did paperwork, and made financial arrangements with Mix. But USED Coulton's unique mix. No acknowledgement in the credits, no payment to Coulton, and they didn't ask permission.

Some muckety-muck on the Fox/Glee end contacted Coulton to tell him that they were on solid legal ground, and besides, Coulton should be thankful for the exposure this is giving him. Except, without publicly crediting him, how, precisely, can that be called "exposure"?

Here is the post I wrote
, and here's a link to Jonathan Coulton's web site.

Kind of wiped out right lately, but if I can manage it, I'll add a bit more explanation and links to some of the better articles I've seen on this matter. For starters...

Plagiarism vs. Copyright Infringement

Copyright should protect artists like Jonathan Coulton, not Glee & Fox

Jonathan Coulton Explains How Glee Ripped Off His Cover Song — And Why He’s Not Alone

Jonathan Coulton ‘Covers’ Glee’s Ripoff of ‘Baby Got Back,’ Puts It on iTunes, Proceeds Go to Charity

Note the title on that last link--proceeds go to charity. And the more people buy Jonathan Coulton's version of Baby Got Back on iTunes, Google Play, and Amazon MP3, the more REAL exposure this talented indie musician will receive.

Your Email has been sent.