Guitar Hero Maker Sued - Cover Song Too Awesome 190
volpone writes "The band "The Romantics" are suing Activision over their wedding reception favorite, 'What I Like About You,' which appears in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the '80s. The problem is not copyright infringement; Activision had permission to make a cover version of the song. No, the problem is that the cover sounds too much like the original. 'The band's attorneys have indicated that they are seeking an injunction that would force the game to be withdrawn from sale. Although around half of the songs in the newly released Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock feature recordings by the original artists, in previous Guitar Hero games the majority of songs were cover versions.'" In not totally-unrelated news you can download the Mjolnir mix of the Halo theme for play on GHIII, free, today.
Done to death (Score:2, Informative)
Covers vs. derivative works (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Too simple a song perhaps? (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. [azchords.com] For those of you more familiar with Guitar Hero than sheet music or guitar tabs, this song basically goes like this: green, pause, green, pause, green, red, red, pause, red, yellow, repeat. Except it's really that easy IN REAL LIFE.
Re:Wow, just wow. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Too simple a song perhaps? (Score:5, Informative)
Not necessarily. I studied this for an entire semester, but I've apparently blocked it all out.
There are a bunch of different kinds of music "rights" - around six or seven basic ones, IIRC.
The important distinction here is between the rights to the song - the melody, chord changes, lyrics - and the rights to the recording. We don't care about the recording here, because we're making a new one.
The song isn't owned by the record company (again IIRC). Whether it's owned by the publisher, or the composer, or various artist's collectives, I couldn't tell you anymore. And, of course, sometimes the publisher is the label; a lot of times, the publisher is the songwriter (who may or may not be the artist).
Some of these rights are compulsory - that is, in lieu of actually negotiating individual agreements, the licensing fees are just declared by law or regulation, and you've implicitly agreed to them by copyrighting something. Some are in theory not compulsory, but are in practice always negotiated by the same group at the same rates (e.g. the Harry Fox Agency). Some are covered by international conventions, some aren't. And so on.
So without seeing the actual contract The Romantics signed, it'd be hard to say if they got money out of Activision's existing license. (Even seeing the contract might not clear it up; naturally, everyone involved is trying to get more than their share, and sometimes that means writing contracts that confuse artists, if you catch my drift.)
And, of course, when the song was written originally, the concept of "videogame rights" was nonexistent, so who knows what part of their contract would cover it now...
Decide for yourself (Score:5, Informative)
The Original [youtube.com]
Guitar Hero Version [youtube.com]
This I cannot believe - very murky business! (Score:4, Informative)
This is one of the most bizarre, convoluted claims one could imagine, as there clearly is no law preventing people from sticking close
to a song's original arrangement and sounds in a cover version, and arguably no way to prove, or no standards ever established to
define where things could be 'too close for comfort', or what would in turn constitute enough of a difference to be safe.
Matters here are not a case of impersonation, it's more just a bunch of musos with solid chops playing well, and 'nailing it' in the studio.
Also, isn't the whole Karaoke [wikipedia.org] business built on recording cover versions that stick so close to the original as to make them indistinguishable?
In theory, - if I were the game's publisher -, I would go to trial on this, as there is no legal set precedent that I have ever heard of.
However, before rushing to do so, there are two interesting bits to consider here, both gleaned from reading the excellent article linked on the band's history:
- This band is one of the rare winners of any lawsuit to regain ownership of their own compositions, and may feel emboldened by this fact.
- They managed to retain the services of a top-flight lawyer who didn't seem to flinch at the idea of taking up a long and drawn-out uphill battle on contingency.
So as far as the band, thinking that they've already won once in court, they may decide to stick it out, truly thinking that they'll do so again.From a legal perspective, if this went to trial, and some moronic jury actually awarded hem damages, think of the chilling effect such
a precedent would have on the whole 'cover version' process, and incidentally to this game publisher's gravy train franchise.
What's to then stop another aging rock star to show up at one of your gigs as a cover band, and sue you claiming that you're too close to their original?
So perhaps, there's a pragmatic legal counsel at the game publisher's headquarters that will make the suggestion that it might be better to shut them up
(by offering them a sealed out-of-court settlement for a few millions, out of the $115,000,000.00 they recently made in the first seven days their newest
game was offered for sale!) than risk turning the whole 'cover version' business upside down, which could cost them and everyone else heaps more,
and might well become one of the worst legal precedents ever set.
After thinking back on all of these ideas, the band's strategy might not be anywhere as bad as what any layperson thinks.
Rather than to risk setting the precedent, the game's publisher may just push to settle this one quickly for undisclosed terms out of the public's eye....
If they don't, all of this could hinge on 10 morons serving jury duty, and who will vindicate the band by just trying to quickly have the trial over
with, and get back to their normal lives rather than agonizing in court for what could turn out to be weeks of boring deliberations.
Oh, yeah!... IANAL, and all of the other disclaimers too.
Z.
Re:3-chord covers (Score:5, Informative)
2) I think it's at least possible the people are objecting to this case not out of a love for Activision, but out of the principle that intellectual property rights should be as least restrictive as possible. That is of high concern to many of us "slashdotters," one which might override concerns about which party is David and which is Goliath.
3) In Midler, there are several facts to the case which may be different from The Romantics.
First, we know for a fact that Ford attempted to negotiate with Midler for her performance and she refused. We don't know that in the case of the Romantics.
Second, Young & Rubicam, the ad agency, admitted at trial that they instructed Midler's backup singer to sound as much as her as possible. There's no evidence of those kinds of machinations here, yet. And even if there were, the law makes clear that "mere imitation of a recorded performance would not constitute a copyright infringement even where one performer deliberately sets out to simulate another's performance as exactly as possible." There has to be more than that -- see below.
Third, at the outset of negotiations, Midler's lawyer asked, "Is it a commercial?" was told yes, and responded, "We are not interested." Clearly Midler did not want her vocals to be considered an endorsement of an advertised product. Perhaps she was opposed to Ford's labor practices or simply preferred BMWs. The point is that a listener might reasonably infer that Midler was endorsing the prodcut through her vocals, and might form an untrue opinion of her character. The Romantics' (apparent) performance in GH does not imply any endorsement of a specific commercial product, and therefore it's possible a court will decide that it is not a misappropriation of their identity, regardless of the degree of verisimilitude.
The text is available online [google.com]. People can reach their own conclusions.
Re:3-chord covers (Score:4, Informative)
Much more important here is most likely the work of the recording and mixing engineers (and not to mention the instrument technicians, keyboard programmers, etc.) that managed to make it *sound* the same as the original recording.
That said, I agree it should not make a difference, a cover is a cover and the *sound* of the recording is not copyrighted, only the music and the recording itself.
A couple of years back I read an interview in "Sound on Sound" with a producer of cover music for use in commercials that specialized in copying the sound. Quite often, the advertiser wanted an original song but could not get a license at any price. More than once, when the rights holders heard the re-recording sounding almost indistinguishable from the original they relented and decided they might as well get paid for it and allowed the original to be used.
Interestingly, the same technique applies to "Greatest Hits" albums by label-hopping artists. A prime example is Tina Turner's greatest hits that contain only original recordings from one label and the rest are remakes that sound almost exactly the same as the originals. In studying the liner notes, you can see all the same musicians on all tracks, all recorded in the same place by the same people - different ones from those that did the original recoding.
Re:3-chord covers (Score:4, Informative)
With GH II and GH III, you can discern a cover from the original artist by the title
Covers are refered to, As Made Famous By and I believe original recordings simply state the band.
Dunno, might save them in court, but it really isn't up to me to decide.
Re:3-chord covers (Score:2, Informative)
Ditto Gloria and a million songs that go E-A-D...."
"Baby Please Don't Go"/"Gloria" was actually released a couple of months before "You Really Got Me" (the Kinks' first non-cover single and first real hit) in summer 1964.
Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)