Guitar Hero Maker Sued - Cover Song Too Awesome

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 'The band's attorneys have indicated that they are seeking an injunction that would force the game to be withdrawn from sale.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.

WTF did they expect?

[TibbonZero]

Have they been living under a rock? Everyone knows what Guitar Hero is! I've never heard of someone doing a cover song, "Too close" without sampling being sued like this.
If Activision or Harmonix came to me and was like, "Hey, we are going to do a cover of your song for GH/RB" I'd have a pretty damn good idea of what they are doing. It's not going to be a Salsa cover of a rock song, but a pretty damn close cover with at best some parts adapted to fit the game better!

Really, i mean what did they expect?
morons.

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[BronsCon]

Who cares. Presumably, "have permission" means "paid for permission", which, in turn, most likely means "pays royalties on every copy sold", which translates directly to "the label is being paid", which we all know really means "the artist isn't seeing a penny from the label", which means...

Oh. Right. In that case...

If true, poor move by the band

[eebra82]

The band's attorneys have indicated that they are seeking an injunction that would force the game to be withdrawn from sale.

If true, what on earth could have triggered them to ask their lawyers for such a ridiculous action? Clearly, no one is a winner if "the Romantics" win over Activision in court:

- Activision will lose a lot of cash on all the disks that must be reprinted.
- Fans of the title will be furious if they have to wait for weeks.
- The band will be perceived as greedy and ignorant to their own fans who wait for this title with great anticipation.

If anything, they should ask Activision for money. Maybe I am ignorant or just unaware of some fundamentals here, but at least if I was an artist, I would have allowed this. Maybe I'd had been bothered but I would certainly try not to make an ass out of myself in front of my fans.

Re:If true, poor move by the band

[compro01]

If true, what on earth could have triggered them to ask their lawyers for such a ridiculous action? Clearly, no one is a winner if "the Romantics" win over Activision in court:

presumabley they're trying the "sue for the world, settle out of court for what they really want" tactic.

either that or they're certifiably nuts, which is always a distinct possibility.

Last time I checked...

[mille666]

...Imitation was the highest form of flattery. Ohwell, times change.

RAY DAVIES

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

The bloody Kinks oughta sue the Romantics, in such a world! "What I Like About You" is pretty much an early Kinks pastiche. Fits right in with "'Till the End of the Day", "All Day and All of the Night", "You Really Got Me" and "Stop Your Sobbin'".

Maybe what's left of the Yardbirds can get in the act, too! That "Hey!" in the song comes right out of "Over, Under, Sideways, Down".

Come to think of it, that last song is just "Rock Around the Clock" with some awesome guitar work by Jeff Beck. Oh!

Fuggeddiboutit.

Re:WTF did they expect?

[Enoxice]

What you didn't mention is that Tom had previously declined their offer to use a song of his ("Step Right Up", off of Small Change, for those that care). Frito-Lay turned around and hired an impersonator to sing a jingle similar to the song.

The difference here is that they had permission from the band to make a cover, they made a cover, and now the band is pissed for no legally-justifiable reason. Also, Tom Waits is 10 million times as awesome as The Romantics.

3-chord covers

[weighn]

"What I Like About You" is pretty much an early Kinks pastiche.

Ditto Gloria and a million songs that go E-A-D.

According to TFA, the attorneys say that publishing an accurate cover is "infringing on the group's rights to its own likeness".

FFS, we are talking about a 3-chord riff that a child could master in 10 minutes.

can someone explain to them the purpose of a cover song? I hardly think that the makers of GH would want re-interpretations of original songs on their product.

Re:Covers vs. derivative works

[webmaestro]

Actually, under 17 USC Sec. 115(a)(2) - "A compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved..." As long as you keep the melody pretty much the same you could make a rap version of a country song for all the copyright law cares. It's true that it would be considered a derivative if it modifies it extensively, and would therefore not be eligible for compulsory licensing. Likely though, the Guitar Hero song was not under a compulsory license, but a separately negotiated license, such as through the The Harry Fox Agency.

On a similar point, you can make it sound as close to the original as possible, as long as you don't use the actual recording. That is to say you make your own recording. Though you still have to license the underlying musical composition, which is a separate copyright than the recording of the performance. 17 USC 114(b).

Re:Too simple a song perhaps?

[ThisIsForReal]

Yeah, the lawyers will tell you the last step is profit, but the small print will read (for the lawyers).

Re:Romantics History

[p0tat03]

A sad story to be sure, but that doesn't justify them suing someone who is, for all intents and purposes, an innocent party. There are no laws against covering a song - so long as you pay the right royalties to the right places (which I am *sure* Activision isn't dumb enough to forego). If they're not seeing a penny of that, pursue the parties responsible for THAT...

Re:3-chord covers

[shark72]

"can someone explain to them the purpose of a cover song? I hardly think that the makers of GH would want re-interpretations of original songs on their product."

Sorry -- there's precedent here. If you deliberately do a cover that sounds too much like the original as to cause confusion, you're likely to be sued. Maybe this is one of those cases where the rest of the world really needs a good explainin' from the Slashdot populace, but nonetheless, this is how the rest of the world works for the time being.

For those of you with Westlaw, look up Midler v. Ford Motor Company. Ford hired one of Bette Midler's background singers to do an exact copy of Midler's vocal style on a cover of one of her songs ("Do You Want To Dance") for an ad for the Mercury Sable. They did this because it was cheaper than hiring Midler, so they set out to attempt to confuse the audience. It worked -- I knew people who swore that it was the Bette Midler version. Midler sued; Ford lost.

What the makers of GH want has absolutely no bearing here. What matters is what they are legally entitled to get. If you don't want to pay up to use the original recording, you don't get to record a soundalike. To avoid being sued, you do a re-interpretation, no matter how much you want something that sounds just like the original article, without having to pay for it.

This is little band vs. big corporation here. I can't believe that some people think it should be simple as "explaining" to the band that they have no case because the big company wanted an exact copy of their song, but didn't want to pay for the privelege. Big companies should not have the ability to trample the little guy's rights simply because they "want" something. Sure, it happens enough... but why are Slashdotters suddenly supporting this notion?

Re:3-chord covers

[mabhatter654]

copyright is copyright... they PAID for a copyright license to the owners of the music and lyrics. That's probably NOT the actual band that made the piece famous. Getting into sound-alikes of 20 year old pieces is a bit silly, the band should have taken what the publishers offered in the first place, even if they win it will all go to lawyers and they'll still put LESS into their pockets. I've seen the box and the artist/tracks are clearly labeled on the OUTSIDE of the package as covers or originals. There is absolutely no misrepresentation going on.

As far as little artist being beat up, I'm sure they were offered fair compensation, but wanted more, like they always do. They signed away the rights to the song and the lyrics years ago, or it wasn't even THEIR song to begin with, they were just performing what somebody else wrote for them. yes, it sucks but that's what happens... EVERYBODY's job is for sale to the low bidder.. just like companies hire Indian programmers to implement YOUR designs that are owned by the company, music is the same thing, it's just a job and some studio guys got a weeks pay to sound like somebody famous, just like a Mexican worker gets paid less instead of a UAW worker to turn a bolt on a car.

Re:Yay bands

[British]

People probably think that The Romantics are a "one hit wonder" since "What I like about you" gets played endlessly on those tired 80s compilations. Perhaps a better label: "The only song the band is known for". Sadly, most bands get pidgeonholed into being known for just 1 song, and the radio stations enforce it.

Imagine how many people don't know of any songs by Devo OTHER than "Whip it". Yes, kids have to be told that it is Devo singing on that Dell laptop commercial. Sad, really.

Re:3-chord covers

[random0xff]

So why didn't the little band get a prerelease version of the game so they could check out the cover? Your example of Ford seems to indicate that there was no communication with Middler, she found out when she first saw the commercial maybe. In this case, both parties already had an agreement, seems only natural that the band would receive a copy when it was finished but before the release of the game.