I read earlier this week with disgrace the case Jonathan Coulton has against the show Glee.

In summary, Coulton created a VERY unique version of the (classic) Sir Mixalot track "Baby Got Back" (see video below). Now on first listen I found his arrangement so unique it took a while to become accustomed to it and enjoy it for what it was - a truly original interpretation of the track.

It can be nothing short of plagiarism then when this obscure and unique arrangement is featured on the show Glee, without so much as a credit to Coulton as the arranger.   

You can view Coulton's tweet notifying the world of this blatant copy of his arrangement.

As some of the comments beneath this tweet point out, the plagiarism is so overt that they even kept Coulton's self-referencing line "So find that juicy double, Johnny C's in trouble..." at 2m:16s in (see this link) - a line totally irrelevant and out of context when presented on Glee. 

And for the record, I really love what Coulton did with the thick vocal harmonies in the chorus. A very original take and shamefully not likely to achieve the credit deserved. 

This show is a disgrace. 

For further details read the Wired.com article "Jonathan Coulton Explains How Glee Ripped Off His Cover Song — And Why He’s Not Alone".

In interesting news today, Apple have successfully trademarked the sound made by their Mac on startup. 

Apple filed for the trademark in June 2012, and was granted the trademark yesterday, according to Patently Apple.

Apple's trademark application stated that the "mark consists of a sound mark consisting of a slightly flat (by approximately 30 cents) G flat/F sharp major chord."

I actually find it interesting that you can trademark a sound like this. Given that you can't trademark common words like "car" or "house" in isolation, it's interesting that you can take a chord in isolation and create some sense of ownership of it. It's all about the context in which it's used I'm sure. 

For more of the history behind the Apple Mac's startup sound, check out this discussion with Jim Reekes, who developed the original Apple Mac startup sound in his home studio on a Korg Wavestation synth. 

Well now you know! 


-
Paul Doolan provides online keyboard session recordings for bands and solo artists. 
Want to add keyboards to your track? Learn more now. 

In the past 24 hours, much attention has been given to a case of potential copyright infringement - the track in question being Zebra by John Butler Trio (official video below).

During this week's Super Bowl, an ad for yoghurt made by Dannon in the US has featured music sounding very similar in feel and melody to Zebra. 

Was this a case of unauthorised use of the John Butler Trio track? No, it is clearly a different recording. Is the music similar between the two? Yes. 

Now here's the kicker. Is this an infringement of copyright?

Well...? Who's to say. Really - who's to say? Who will make a public, legal ruling that there has been an infringement of copyright in this case? I strongly believe NO ONE will. And I will stand corrected and surprised if this uproar amounts to anything more than an undisclosed out of court settlement between the two parties. 

Why? Simple. Because music is very complex and questions of similarity are incredibly hard to quantify. The instruments used, pitch, speed, melody, number and placement of rests, time signatures, additional layers added or subtracted all have an impact on how "similar" one track may seem to another - and it is all subjective. But what is the threshold beyond which a track could be seen to infringe upon another?

As I discussed over 18 months ago, there is not likely to be a legal precedent set on music copyright infringement in cases like this any time soon, due to the inevitable opening of floodgates which would follow. All manner of claims of "this sounds like that" and "this bit is almost exactly the same as that bit" begin choking courtrooms. 

When it comes to copyright infringement like this, who'll be the judge?