Powered by i.TV
May 26, 2012

Did The Simpsons use a song without paying the composer? - VIDEOS

by Bob Sassone, posted Dec 17th 2007 6:31PM

The SimpsonsYou may have noticed the homage to a famous YouTube video during last night's episode of The Simpsons. The scene where we see the rapid flashbacks of Homer's life to the beautiful piano music was based on (as some readers pointed out) a video by Noah Kalina, where he took a picture of himself every single day for 6 years, from 2000 to 2006. The music he used was by Carly Comando.

At first I thought this was a takeoff on several videos of this type (I've seen a couple of others that are similar to this, and the effect has been used in commercials) until I read this. Seems the producers of The Simpsons contacted Carly about using the song in a video that would parody Kalina's video. They were talking about money until the negotiations stopped. They didn't agree to anything or sign a contract, and now both Kalina and Comando are surprised to hear they parodied the video and used the music without compensating her.

Both videos are included after the jump if you'd like to compare.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

9 Comments

Filter by:
judi

If the Simpsons took the song off of YouTube, wouldn't it be up to Google to give them rights?

December 18 2007 at 11:37 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Horse N. Buggy

That Engadget article was written by an IP lawyer. Read it before you make assumptions.

IANAIPL, but logic tells me that the parody has to be "of" the thing being used. The parody was "of" the video, not the song. I think it is arguable that fair use does not cover using the song.

However, I do acknowledge that I don't know what arrangement exists between the artist and her label. Perhaps the label does "own" the copyright and they granted permission to Fox/The Simpsons. If that is the case, I would encourage the artist to end her relationship with the label so that she will retain copyright to all future work.

December 18 2007 at 10:42 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
MLO

Parody - even without changes to music - are almost always considered Fair Use. Go look at the historical arguments around this. I'm not a lawyer, but even I know that. (Don't go by what bloggers such as engadget tell you, go talk to an IP lawyer.)

Pax,

MLO

December 18 2007 at 6:13 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
RI_red

Although Parody can be a basis for a fair use claim it does not automattically grant the user a waiver of copyright on the source material. Great explanation at: http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/21/know-your-rights-how-does-fair-use-work/

December 17 2007 at 9:51 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Arc|Angel

Perhaps the seeking of permission/compensation was a courtesy? I was under the impression that copyright cannot be violated by parody.

December 17 2007 at 9:30 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
bruce

There's no parody of the music (which is hard to do when a song doesn't even have words) so as to give it first amendment protection. There's arguable parody of the premise of the pic-a-day video, but not a good argument.

December 17 2007 at 9:04 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Tony Scida

I'll believe that the producers did something wrong when I hear there's been a lawsuit filed. Perhaps they broke off talks with the artist because she wasn't the one with the legal right to negotiate rights on the music, and instead negotiated with Deep Elm Records (see the copyright notice in iTunes). I don't pretend to know what Ms. Comando's agreement with Deep Elm Records is, so I'm just offering this as an alternate theory to assuming nefarious activities by Fox or the Simpsons producers. Generally when you license recorded music, you deal with the label, not the artist.

December 17 2007 at 8:33 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Tony Scida's comment
Frank

This sounds VERY likely.

December 18 2007 at 2:34 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Brooks Williams

Please, like The Simpsons have ever been awful at getting all of their bases covered beforehand. While 'forgetting' is a stretch, I'm sure she'll be compensated and some sort of apology will be issued. Really basic stuff when you think about it.

And also, with the episode scoring 10.1 million viewers (great considering how Fox is chicken-pecking it's way through the episode lineup) it's not like she's suffering from not getting any exposure, that almost pays for itself anyway. But yeah I'd imagine she'd get some form of payment and the aforementioned issued apology. Not much of a headline here.

December 17 2007 at 6:51 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Follow Us

From Our Partners