Sexy & I Know It Cover

[AUChizad]

 

[AWK]

Someone ripped him off...

[AUChizad]

Damn. Same exact arrangement six months later on National Television. And he didn't do it as well, either.

If I were ol' Jonah, I'd be pretty pissed.

[AUChizad]

http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/91887/VIDEO-X-Factor-Finalist-James-Arthurs-Rendition-Of-LMFAO-Sexy-And-I-Know-It-Branded-A-Joke

By Deepika Rajani On October 23, 2012
X Factor's James Arthur Accused Of Plagiarism Over 'Sexy And I Know It' Cover

By fans who allege that James copied Youtube star only1Noah

He may have been commended for his performance of LMFAO's club tune 'Sexy And I Know It', but it appears that not everyone was loving James Arthur's rendition following claims of plagiarism by fans of Youtube star only1Noah.

Viewers tuning into the X Factor last weekend saw Gary tell James: "You turned that song on it's head. It's a silly dance song but you gave those lyrics meaning tonight.

"This wasn't the performance of the night, it was the performance of the series so far."

Adding to the compliments, Louis said: "James Arthur, what a brilliant interpretation. You are a real professional, you had a tough week but when you get on that stage you own it."

However, James' rendition of the song soon became the topic of conversation for the wrong reasons when fans of Noah hit out at James. Branding the X Factor finalist's rendition as a "joke" over Noah's version which was reportedly recording in May this year, one fan said:

"complete joke that he sung it TWICE, once at the judges houses and now on the live shows, with no mention of it being a cover of Noah's."

However, the fans were soon placated when James tweeted Noah thanking him for giving him inspiration for the song.

James tweeted: "thx for the inspiration Noah! Xfactoruk team loved ur version & asked me to put a spin on ur spin".

[War Eagle!!!]

Damn. Same exact arrangement six months later on National Television. And he didn't do it as well, either.

If I were ol' Jonah, I'd be pretty pissed.

Surely he had to get permission didn't he?

[AUChizad]

Surely he had to get permission didn't he?

Not from a YouTube video. Doubtful Noah had "permission" to cover it from LMFAO in the first place.

[Vandy Vol]

Not from a YouTube video.

All creative works are automatically copyrighted upon creation.  It's advised that you register a copyright on the work with the USPTO so that you have official documentation of ownership and the date of creation, but registration isn't required.

So if you see original content on YouTube and use it without permission, you're still violating copyright laws; it's just a matter of whether the owner can prove that they're the original author without a copyright registration.

At any rate, the YouTube video of this kid was likely a copyright infringement in and of itself, as I doubt he obtained the appropriate mechanical license to make use of the underlying composition and lyrics of the song.  Nor does it appear that he altered anything enough to make it a new work separate from the original.

Sucks that the guy ripped the kid off, but the kid wouldn't have any copyright infringement claims that I can see.

[AUChizad]

All creative works are automatically copyrighted upon creation.  It's advised that you register a copyright on the work with the USPTO so that you have official documentation of ownership and the date of creation, but registration isn't required.

So if you see original content on YouTube and use it without permission, you're still violating copyright laws; it's just a matter of whether the owner can prove that they're the original author without a copyright registration.

At any rate, the YouTube video of this kid was likely a copyright infringement in and of itself, as I doubt he obtained the appropriate mechanical license to make use of the underlying composition and lyrics of the song.  Nor does it appear that he altered anything enough to make it a new work separate from the original.

Sucks that the guy ripped the kid off, but the kid wouldn't have any copyright infringement claims that I can see.

This is what I said in much more words.

[Vandy Vol]

This is what I said in much more words.

It didn't appear that way to me.  WE!!! asked if he had to get permission; you responded with "Not from a YouTube video."

Original material is copyrighted upon its creation and expression in a medium, such as a video.  So yes, one would have to get permission to perform an original work contained in a YouTube video...which is not at all what I interpreted your response to mean.

[Snaggletiger]

This is what I said in much more words.

Verbose bastard this one is.

[AUChizad]

It didn't appear that way to me.  WE!!! asked if he had to get permission; you responded with "Not from a YouTube video."

Original material is copyrighted upon its creation and expression in a medium, such as a video.  So yes, one would have to get permission to perform an original work contained in a YouTube video...which is not at all what I interpreted your response to mean.

For someone whom words are awfully important, you ignored the other 3/4s or 98% of my post.

[Vandy Vol]

For someone whom words are awfully important, you ignored the other 3/4s or 98% of my post.

Words are awfully important.  Stating that you don't need permission to use content from "a YouTube video" is a generalized statement that isn't always correct.  If you had used a few more words to tie the two sentences together so as to not create a generalized statement about all YouTube videos, then it may have relayed your thoughts a little more clearly.

[Snaggletiger]

What are words for, when no one listens anymore?  There's no use talking at all.

[Godfather]

[AUChizad]

 

[Vandy Vol]

The ring would have made it to the volcano sooner if I had used less words.  My bad.

[wesfau2]

All creative works are automatically copyrighted upon creation. 

Original material is copyrighted upon its creation and expression in a medium

The second quote is much more accurate than the first.

[Vandy Vol]

The second quote is much more accurate than the first.

I wasn't focusing on the "expression in a medium" aspect of it initially because we were talking about a YouTube video.