-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Naughty Dog Accused of Not Crediting a Songwriter’s Cover in Latest TLOU2 Trailer
- Thread starter IbizaPocholo
- Start date
- Drama
So Jeff Buckley shouldn't get any credit for his version of 'Hallelujah'? Jimi Hendrix no credit for his version of Dylan's 'All Along the Watchtower'? Gary Jules for his version of 'Mad World'?
Your being protective of ND to the point of stupidity.
Last edited:
By your logic why the hell would I have to credit Thin Lizzy? They didn't write the song, just covered it.
Your argument is just ridiculous and self-contradicting.
Go ahead. Of course you'd need permission from the original rights holder. Then, you'd have to wait for someone to cover your unique version.
Somehow I don't think you'll be run off your feet making claims.
Bryank75
Banned
When the words are actually humming or doo dooo dooo, I think that's pushing it...
tfur
Member
They are not playing the person's cover, so your analogy does not apply here.
Dibils2k
Member
so if a youtuber takes another youtubers playthrough and includes it in their video thats fine??Ownership in regards to a cover of a cover.
GIVE CREDIT WHEN YOU TAKE SOMEONES WORK, simple as that, no argument
Portugeezer
Member
Damn, druckman is a misogynist.
tfur
Member
Another analogy that does not apply. Nobody is using anyone's original recording.
Last edited:
They have made a copy of her unique version. That particular version was created by her.
My point stands.
If her version is so unremarkable then why did they copy it? They obviously rated it more highly than you do.
And then chose not to credit her.
That's not defensible.
tfur
Member
Never mind.
Last edited:
S
Steve.1981
Unconfirmed Member
Whiskey in the Jar is a traditional Irish folk song. As far as I'm aware, nobody knows who originally wrote it. Songwriting credits are always a bit different with regards to traditional songs, but (again, as far as I'm aware) Thin Lizzy rearranged the song into it's modern rock & roll structure & were given co-credit on their version.
People don't get credits for covering songs in a slower tempo & adding a new line. That's absurd.
It doesn't matter how many times you type 'derivative'. If she makes a version, even 15 derivatives deep, that adds her own unique elements and someone copies her unique elements, then they should credit her contribution. It's simple and it costs nothing.
So, I'm sorry to break the news, my point does still stand. Your point isn't an argument - Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
S
Steve.1981
Unconfirmed Member
No, no & no. Those are covers. Leonard Cohen, Bob Dylan & Roland Orzabal get the songwriting credits, because they wrote the songs.
Keihart
Member
Um, of course.
I have never suggested that the person covering the work get sole credit. However if you subsequently cover a version that has unique features and you copy those features, then you should credit the person who added those features alongside the originator.
It's the ethical thing to do, surely that's obvious..
Shin
Banned
I'll have to agree with you on this, at the same time there was an edit made (which I assume was granted and agreed upon by the original singer/songwriter).
Not sure if the middleman's permission was/is required as the rights still lies with the original singer, if they approved Sony/ND, Anna doesn't have a say in it I think.
Of course it would have been nice if the original singer informed her (kinda reminds me of Stefanie Joosten not getting the part for DS and Kojima never informing her - for some reason).
It's shitty, but sometimes if not often that money and/or power blinds people and all what they previously stood for and/or believed is tossed out of the window - darn human nature.
Bryank75
Banned
Was doing a bit of research..
'There's no hard and fast law about what changes make up artistic license, but in practice, it comes down to which elements of a song are covered by copyright. The US courts have often ruled that the melody and lyrics are unique foundational elements of a song and are thus protected by copyright, whereas elements such as key and tempo are not. Changing the lyrics or melody requires direct permission from the song owner and will likely cost more than the compulsory mechanical license you can get from the Harry Fox Agency. To stay safely within the bounds of your basic performance or mechanical licenses, you should only change the key and/or tempo of songs you cover.'
blog.sonicbids.com
Looks like the original song writer has all the ownership, has to be notified if the song is altered and owns all the copyright.... so as I thought, this lady is full of false entitlement.
'There's no hard and fast law about what changes make up artistic license, but in practice, it comes down to which elements of a song are covered by copyright. The US courts have often ruled that the melody and lyrics are unique foundational elements of a song and are thus protected by copyright, whereas elements such as key and tempo are not. Changing the lyrics or melody requires direct permission from the song owner and will likely cost more than the compulsory mechanical license you can get from the Harry Fox Agency. To stay safely within the bounds of your basic performance or mechanical licenses, you should only change the key and/or tempo of songs you cover.'
How Much Can You (Legally) Change in a Cover Song?
You've probably covered a few songs at least once in your life. But before you go changin' 'em up, here's what you need to know copyright-wise.
Looks like the original song writer has all the ownership, has to be notified if the song is altered and owns all the copyright.... so as I thought, this lady is full of false entitlement.
tassletine
Member
That's actually not how it works. You have to be able to prove that you added significantly to a work to get credit. A minor tweak isn't usually considered enough for a credit.
Movies are full of improvisation without credit to the actors involved.
Jon Neu
Banned
lol what?
Actors are one of the key elements of any movie and they get credited by how much they add to the movie all the time.
That’s why actors earn far more than writers.
Last edited:
S
Steve.1981
Unconfirmed Member
Well I guess we need to know what you mean by "credit" in this context? When I say credit in this thread, I mean songwriting credit. Anna Lynne-Williams specifically said "Credit? Compensation?"
She didn't write True Faith. She covered it. Covering a song & adding an extra line, or some humming, doesn't get you any songwriting co-credit. Legally, I don't think she's entitled to anything from ND or Sony.
alabtrosMyster
Banned
At first I though the exact same thing... I figured it was a joke thread, then I red the claim.
The artist who did the cover rewrote some portions of the song, so maybe she has a point? I would not bet either way on this.
enigmatic enthusiast
Member
I agree with this as long as she isn't seeking compensation just recognition.
Blond
Banned
I'm telling you when this game launches I'm not coming to Gaf for a month minimum
Yes, she does. If they use her lyrics, she should be credited.
And I’m sure Naughty Soy and Cuckmann are coming with an apology the moment they saw it was a girl the one asking for credit.
Cuckmann is probably fighting with Sony managers as we speak.
How? Did she get the original artist permission to alter the song and publish it?
Didn't seem that she even contacted them privately she went straight to complaining... "heartbroken" wow.
Dodkrake
Banned
Definitely!
Andodalf
Banned
You don’t have to get permission to make a cover. Famously weird AL knows he doesn’t need permission, but he asks anyway, and licenses music. If she wanted to distribute it, she would probably need a license. YouTube essentially has agreements with many major copyright holders where, whenever something is infringed, instead of needed legal action, YouTube agrees to just take videos down without a second question, or take away their earnings from the video. In this way, a YouTube cover actually gets around the laws of copyright. The problem with this is that it’s a system only major companies can use. They just flag a video and whatever they want happens. If a smaller person is targeted, all they can do is complain. If I straight up steal your video, there isn’t a ton you can do about it. Theoretically, if she can prove they used her work, which an edit of a song would absolutely be, she could have their YouTube page get a copyright strike and monetize the video. To achieve this she would need a team of lawyers and millions of dollars. You make fun of her for “complaining” showing you have no clue how the system works. It’s the only power consumer level people have on the platform.
Relevant video on copyright in general, and YouTube
#Phonepunk#
Banned
otm. arrangements are a thing. this is why remixers exist. its how producers end up with songwriting credits.
it's silly to pretend that an arrangement doesn't make a song. Bob Dylan isn't the only one to profit every time someone uses Jimi Hendrix's cover of "All Along the Watchtower" in a tv show
if you only got credit for owning the copyright on a song then consider the fact that most artists don't even own their own songs. the Beatles didn't own their own material until the 21st century due to copyright laws.
Paul McCartney Finally Regains Beatles Rights After Near 50-Year-Long Battle
Since 1969, Paul McCartney has been fighting to secure the rights to the Lennon-McCartney Beatles catalog. Over the weekend, the legendary musician won!
liveforlivemusic.com
Last edited:
I'm making fun of her complaining and drawing emotional attention yes, did she contact naughty dog and try to work something out? Silly little man according to your evidence she shouldn't be upset about someone covering her cover.
#Phonepunk#
Banned
why is it on her to contact them? if they are ripping her off, they could have contacted her directly.
"emotional attention" lol is this codeword for WOMAN CRAZY. if she wants to seek financial compensation for a giant million dollar company ripping off her arrangement that is entirely within her right. they are using this song to sell their game. "emotional attention" lol.
Last edited:
REE Machine
Banned
Not sure how that works out when its a cover and they gave. the original creator of the song credit. Sounds like someone trying to become relevant due to the fame the game will get.
Last edited:
Tripolygon
Banned
Yup it is clear they took inspiration from her cover and she deserves credit. I'm sure they will reach out to her behind the scenes if there is any monetary compensation involved which i don't think there will be. I'm sure they cleared all rights with the original copyrights holders.
MiguelItUp
Member
Yeaaaah, she's definitely an "artist" that wants more without putting in more. Originally I was like, "Oh wow, if that's straight up her recording, that sucks" I mean, yeah, it's a cover, but if it WAS ripping her recording that would be distasteful.
But, it's not. It's someone covering a song, that just happens to sound similar to her cover. That's stupid, lmao. I mean really, how many somber acoustic covers of True Faith could sound THAT different.
Regardless, I would've credited both to dodge potential bullets. People are thirsty AF.
But, it's not. It's someone covering a song, that just happens to sound similar to her cover. That's stupid, lmao. I mean really, how many somber acoustic covers of True Faith could sound THAT different.
Regardless, I would've credited both to dodge potential bullets. People are thirsty AF.
Last edited:
lock2k
Banned
It reminds me of American Idol 2007 when David Cook covered Billy Jean by MJ and Simon Cowell complimented him a lot for the originality of the version but he was just copying Chris Cornell's cover which was out that year and Randy called him out subtly on that "oh, good, you did a great rendition of Chris Cornell's version" lol.
kuncol02
Banned
What is there to understand? Every derivative piece of art is separate entity with it's own copyright. To use that kind of piece of art you need to have agreements with both creator of original and derived work. It's same for covers of songs, translations and ony other derivative work.
BlitzerRadic
Member
That's not entirely true. From what I've been able to google, covers have copyright protection, but only the actual sound recording. So I wouldn't be able to rip the audio from a cover from youtube and use it without permission from the cover artist.
I could however, make a cover of a cover without permission (from the cover artist) since the artist of a cover doesn't own the lyrics or underlying composition of a deritive work.
Last edited:
WouldYouKindly
Banned
Love how my comment was deleted because it "wasn't on topic" kinda was. If this was another dev this wouldnt even warrant a thread im not sure why gaf is so fucking against this game? Is it because its a big ass exclusive and the Xbox fans want to watch it fail? Because you guys don't like the writer? Ellie being gay?(even though she was clearly gay before part two)
Like give it a fucking break already the game is gonna sell millions period with or without all these bullshit articles.
Like give it a fucking break already the game is gonna sell millions period with or without all these bullshit articles.
Neofire
Member
Definitely too far on saying that
However I doubt Naughty Dog did it purposely. I do feel she could have have a private discussion with the company and that's them to make it right instead of grandstanding like Naughty Dog are a bunch of thieves.
Andodalf
Banned
It’s very strange how similar things have happened with them multiple times. Makes you wonder how much isn’t getting noticed
Similar threads
- Locked