What I don’t like about you, Romantics sue over Guitar Hero song |
The 80s version of Guitar Hero [see Hmmcast #147] has a great line-up of songs including “What I Like About You” by the Romantics.
Some of the versions of songs in the game Rock Band and Guitar Hero are extremely good cover versions. The companies pay licensing fees, but it seems that doesn’t stop a lawsuit from happening if the cover is too similar.
Copyright isn’t the issue for the Romantics. The band’s attorneys said Activision properly secured permission to use the song What I Like About You, which allowed it to record a cover version. But by creating an imitation so much like the Romantics’ original, they said, the company has infringed the group’s right to its own image and likeness.
I’ve had this one bookmarked for a day and read the article several times. I still don’t completely understand what the Romantics are so upset about. What is the difference between the license Activision purchased and a Master Use License? Isn’t the whole point of a cover version to sound as close to the original? The Romantics seem to be upset because it’s too close? Huh?
The Harry Fox agency which handles music licensing doesn’t handle Master Use Licenses:
Master use rights are required for previously recorded material that you do not own or control. The Harry Fox Agency does not process licenses for master use rights. They can only be obtained from the owner of the master recording, usually a record company…
Where did Activision buy a license for Guitar Hero II?
With the sales of these games and the replay value I’d think every band would be clamoring to get their music into these games. On the Xbox Live they are selling these songs over $2 each. Surely there is something in there that can be shared with the bands? This seems to be the crux of the issue for the Romantics that they aren’t seeing the revenue directly? The licensing fee got sucked up whom? The RIAA?
The article indicates the Romantics also are seeking an injunction against the game, which means if successful it could have the title removed from store shelves this holiday season. Hint: buy it ASAP.
Maybe you can help me sort out the details on this one below. They bought a license, apparently not the right one. Is this like buying deer tags and shooting an elk instead?
Did this post make you go hmm?
(2 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...Maybe Related Posts (plugin generated)
- Guitar Hero II songs pricey on Xbox Live
- 84 Rock Band 2 tracks announced at E3, Guitar Hero to get new Metallica album
- Acoustic Zeppelin jamming Bluegrass-style
- Using exclusive Rock Band songs to sell magazines and more
- Guitar music game genre a hit this holiday season and what makes a game of the year
- Guitar Hero On Tour and Guitar Hero Aerosmith weekend but games are too easy
people are so sensitive. I mean Cmon they are already filthy rich. they do get royalties what is the problem with musicians these days.
Comment by fadi — November 23, 2007 @ 2:38 pm PST
There is a difference between a cover and the exact same song. The issue here seems to be that the replica is so similar people can’t distinguish it from the original. The band seems to have a problem with it because they got paid for the production of a cover but it comes off as something else. The issue is with the image.
Some people may think “wow, they got the Romantics to play this song for the game” when they should be thinking, “wow, it is so cool that they covered a song by the Romantics.” Obviously, the cost to get the band to play the song for the game (and thus provide it’s commercial image) is surely higher than just the cover fees. That is what the lawsuit is about (and IMO it makes sense. I’ve seen some songs in there that I honestly don’t know if they are covers or if the band actually recorded them for the game, IE. Knigths of Cydonia in GH3, both versions can be found in Youtube).
Comment by Jose — November 25, 2007 @ 5:32 pm PST
Jose - The Romantics image was tarnished a lot more the minute they brought in the lawyers than it ever would have been by simply trying to work with Activision. Guys, this is an advertising opportunity.
Bands should want their music in these games because it will encourage people to go out and buy their music. The song is an advertisement for the song and them. By this lawsuit are the Romantics telling their fans that they don’t want their music played in a game? Or that they do, but only by them? If that’s the case, then why don’t they re-record the song and get it in a downloadable version? They could call it the Romantics real version, if they like. It seems to me there is a less severe and more productive option that doesn’t threaten to rip the game from store shelves — and make the Romantics look very, very bad in the process.
And I wonder if you lined up 100 people playing the game and asked them if they wanted the music from the cover band who played the music in GHII or Rock Band or the original artist’s music, who would say the cover band? The whole point of these games is to cover the songs as accurately as possible.
It’s not like covering a song like Jimi Hendrix did with Dylan’s All Along the Watchtower (or the U2 version, for example) where an artist might want to do their own rendition of a classic song.
The Romantics are being silly. Instead of lawsuits they should find ways to get more of their music in these games. Hopefully, that’s what will happen — or is happening — and the legal maneuvers were only to get a more careful dialog going.
Comment by TDavid — November 25, 2007 @ 11:23 pm PST
TDavid is right. This is what happening in Tamil songs (Country: India) too. Many of the old golden songs are repeating in the newer films in the name of re-mix where instruments are dominating the singers and the lyrics. Hope they would have got proper copyright since I didnt notice any lawsuits here.
Comment by Simon — October 15, 2009 @ 7:32 am PST