s/o things in movies/books that would lead to a restraining order in RL

[Slartibartfast]

Ooh, yeah, forgot about the Kurt thing.  I'm all for them allowing Kurt to be his own character instead of just a gay stereotype (although yeah, he has a lot of stereotype-y behaviors), but the whole thing with him and Finn was just wrong and made me furious on Finn's behalf.

In ironic news about shows behaving badly, there's now a flap about one of the upcoming Glee songs and how they stole an arrangement lock, stock, and barrel from singer Jonathan Coulton.  Including the part where he changed the lyrics in his version to include his own name.  I will be interested to see where this goes.

[BabyMama]

Ooh, yeah, forgot about the Kurt thing.  I'm all for them allowing Kurt to be his own character instead of just a gay stereotype (although yeah, he has a lot of stereotype-y behaviors), but the whole thing with him and Finn was just wrong and made me furious on Finn's behalf.

But they addressed it in the show and Finn pointed out to Kurt that if it was him (Finn) doing it to a girl, he'd be arrested. So it wasn't just a throwaway act.

I used to love Glee. Continuing it while still featuring Rachel and Kurt though...I fear it's jumped the shark.

[Slartibartfast]

Ooh, yeah, forgot about the Kurt thing.  I'm all for them allowing Kurt to be his own character instead of just a gay stereotype (although yeah, he has a lot of stereotype-y behaviors), but the whole thing with him and Finn was just wrong and made me furious on Finn's behalf.

But they addressed it in the show and Finn pointed out to Kurt that if it was him (Finn) doing it to a girl, he'd be arrested. So it wasn't just a throwaway act.

I used to love Glee. Continuing it while still featuring Rachel and Kurt though...I fear it's jumped the shark.

I was excited when Season 3 finally made it on Netflix, re-watched the first two to be ready for it, then I saw one episode and saw Quinn say "We're getting our baby back!" and I was like "DONE."

[wolfie]

Bones.  Hodgkin's father-in-law (Angela's father) kidnaps him and tattoos him at least twice.  How is that not assault?  Never mind that he takes it on himself to name their child, and Angela is going along with that?

Not only would I not marry his daughter (who can't remember her first husband's name?), but the FIL would be behind bars.

Because it is tradition for her father to do that. But how much of a tradition could it be if she is the only child of the generation.

[flowersintheattic]

Ooh, yeah, forgot about the Kurt thing.  I'm all for them allowing Kurt to be his own character instead of just a gay stereotype (although yeah, he has a lot of stereotype-y behaviors), but the whole thing with him and Finn was just wrong and made me furious on Finn's behalf.

In ironic news about shows behaving badly, there's now a flap about one of the upcoming Glee songs and how they stole an arrangement lock, stock, and barrel from singer Jonathan Coulton.  Including the part where he changed the lyrics in his version to include his own name.  I will be interested to see where this goes.

I just read the article and...wow. This is a song that has been played at virtually every event I've ever been to that's included a dance since 1999 (my freshman year of high school). I've known all the lyrics since age 15. I take my Mix-A-Lot VERY seriously. So...I can understand the thought process that may go into using the same arrangement as a prior cover, but how could you not notice the name change??

Back on topic, though....a lot of the characters in Marian Keyes' books would probably have gotten restraining orders in real life. Starting with Tara, from "Last Chance Saloon," who practically stalks her ex-boyfriend, punching him when he gets engaged to someone else. The nice thing about Marian Keyes, though...these acts are never rewarded. Not always punished as much as they would be in real life, but still shown as bad acts.

[ica171]

Ooh, yeah, forgot about the Kurt thing.  I'm all for them allowing Kurt to be his own character instead of just a gay stereotype (although yeah, he has a lot of stereotype-y behaviors), but the whole thing with him and Finn was just wrong and made me furious on Finn's behalf.

But they addressed it in the show and Finn pointed out to Kurt that if it was him (Finn) doing it to a girl, he'd be arrested. So it wasn't just a throwaway act.

I used to love Glee. Continuing it while still featuring Rachel and Kurt though...I fear it's jumped the shark.

I was excited when Season 3 finally made it on Netflix, re-watched the first two to be ready for it, then I saw one episode and saw Quinn say "We're getting our baby back!" and I was like "DONE."

I'm not as into Glee these days as I was in previous seasons, but I would like to point out that they didn't get their baby back, and in fact the baby's father went to the adoptive mother and told her Quinn's plan, which was planting stuff around her apartment to make her look like a bad mother then calling CPS. How Quinn got into Yale, I will never know.

[Adelaide]

The Mob Doctor. Grace CONSTANTLY skips out on her shifts. She's literally gone for huge chunks of time. She'll take off for three hours in the middle of the day without telling anyone. She gets meds out of the hospital, and I'm pretty darn sure that someone somewhere has a log book or two that isn't adding up correctly at the end of the day. I realize that you can't arrest someone for giving insulin shots to a mob boss, but she would at least lose her license for taking the drugs, sneaking off, sneaking in patients on the dl, and using a dead man's I.D. to hide the fact that she's wheeling around a member of the mob through the hospital.

Edit: And while I will say that 50 Shades is worse than Twilight, I don't think that a lot of the stuff in the book, done between two consenting/aware/non-naive adults, is particularly creepy, if that's you're cup of tea. What is creepy is reading about a guy stalking/ordering around some random, naive girl he met all of five seconds ago. Too much, too soon.

[Kaora]

Ooh, yeah, forgot about the Kurt thing.  I'm all for them allowing Kurt to be his own character instead of just a gay stereotype (although yeah, he has a lot of stereotype-y behaviors), but the whole thing with him and Finn was just wrong and made me furious on Finn's behalf.

In ironic news about shows behaving badly, there's now a flap about one of the upcoming Glee songs and how they stole an arrangement lock, stock, and barrel from singer Jonathan Coulton.  Including the part where he changed the lyrics in his version to include his own name.  I will be interested to see where this goes.

Sure!  Clear the banjo sample and new arrangement track.  But if you're just going to ripoff what might be a cover with a new arrangement, at least catch the name drop from the new artist.  I get the feeling Coulton's fans are not ones you really want to ire...

[Virg]

Adelaide wrote:

"The Mob Doctor."

Considering the premise of the show, I'd say that it goes without saying that she'd be in legal trouble for doing what she does.  However, in real life organized crime does a lot of under the table operation, so it wouldn't at all surprise me to find out she's not the only one at the hospital in their employ, so money changes hands, and magically those log books get balanced and absences get "overlooked".  Given that, it's closer to real life than a lot of people like to admit.

Virg

[kherbert05]

Ooh, yeah, forgot about the Kurt thing.  I'm all for them allowing Kurt to be his own character instead of just a gay stereotype (although yeah, he has a lot of stereotype-y behaviors), but the whole thing with him and Finn was just wrong and made me furious on Finn's behalf.

In ironic news about shows behaving badly, there's now a flap about one of the upcoming Glee songs and how they stole an arrangement lock, stock, and barrel from singer Jonathan Coulton.  Including the part where he changed the lyrics in his version to include his own name.  I will be interested to see where this goes.

I heard about this on Tech News Today. It isn't going to play well - since the companies involved regularly go after people for things that are fair use. (TNT and other shows on the network gets taken down off of their Youtube channel regularly because of using clips that clearly fall into fair use because these companies file complaints.*)


In this case though the makers of Glee apparently technically don't owe Coulton anything because Coulton's work was a fair use derivative work. They have to pay some royalties to the original artist. Still not a good idea to tick off Couton's fans. All they had to do was acknowledge were the song came from and things probably would have been fine.


*Last week on TWIT. The founder of the network, Leo Laporte,  played a clip from CBS that featured him and wondered how long it would be before they got a take down notice.


The CBS wanted to explain a technical issue. So they took a Video clip of Leo's Tech Guy radio show/Video netcast and put it on their news show. They never asked Leo to come on their show and explain, they didn't ask for permission to use the clip - they just stole it.


The Buffy Vs Edward clip has been used by the US copyright office and/or Library of Congress as an example of transformative use allowed under Fair use. didn't stop the twilight people from filing take down, it getting taken down, the creator filing an appeal, twilight people issuing an 2nd take down.

[Adelaide]

Adelaide wrote:

"The Mob Doctor."

Considering the premise of the show, I'd say that it goes without saying that she'd be in legal trouble for doing what she does.  However, in real life organized crime does a lot of under the table operation, so it wouldn't at all surprise me to find out she's not the only one at the hospital in their employ, so money changes hands, and magically those log books get balanced and absences get "overlooked".  Given that, it's closer to real life than a lot of people like to admit.

Virg

I'm not saying that it's unrealistic as a concept, just in the execution. That's the downside of tv though: in order to make something that will earn ratings, you have to exaggerate several aspects until they aren't realistic anymore. I just think it's hilarious that she can do things like leave for 3 hours (and in one case a whole day, and after a hospital-wide search for her she called in and said she had the flu, and received no consequences) or take meds without anyone knowing. There are hints that some other people in the hospital are working for the mob, but not enough to convince me that she can run around with only herself and a lone nurse as an overt ally. I guess the biggie is her physical displacement. You can only say "Where's Grace?" so many times before people start realizing that their heart surgeon is AWOL the majority of her shifts.

Now, if all of this happened not during her rounds, I would be more ready to believe it. But she just straight-up leaves the hospital at all hours of the day.

[blue2000]

Ooh, yeah, forgot about the Kurt thing.  I'm all for them allowing Kurt to be his own character instead of just a gay stereotype (although yeah, he has a lot of stereotype-y behaviors), but the whole thing with him and Finn was just wrong and made me furious on Finn's behalf.

In ironic news about shows behaving badly, there's now a flap about one of the upcoming Glee songs and how they stole an arrangement lock, stock, and barrel from singer Jonathan Coulton.  Including the part where he changed the lyrics in his version to include his own name.  I will be interested to see where this goes.

I heard about this on Tech News Today. It isn't going to play well - since the companies involved regularly go after people for things that are fair use. (TNT and other shows on the network gets taken down off of their Youtube channel regularly because of using clips that clearly fall into fair use because these companies file complaints.*)


In this case though the makers of Glee apparently technically don't owe Coulton anything because Coulton's work was a fair use derivative work. They have to pay some royalties to the original artist. Still not a good idea to tick off Couton's fans. All they had to do was acknowledge were the song came from and things probably would have been fine.

Coulton did his own words and arrangement. They can use the original song and only credit the original artist, or do their own similar to Coulton's and credit the original, but they can't use his exact words and arrangement without crediting him. Kind of like if Saturday Night Live did a parody of Buffy and someone used video of it in their own parody, but only credited Buffy, not SNL. SNL would be ticked.

[ica171]

Ooh, yeah, forgot about the Kurt thing.  I'm all for them allowing Kurt to be his own character instead of just a gay stereotype (although yeah, he has a lot of stereotype-y behaviors), but the whole thing with him and Finn was just wrong and made me furious on Finn's behalf.

In ironic news about shows behaving badly, there's now a flap about one of the upcoming Glee songs and how they stole an arrangement lock, stock, and barrel from singer Jonathan Coulton.  Including the part where he changed the lyrics in his version to include his own name.  I will be interested to see where this goes.

I heard about this on Tech News Today. It isn't going to play well - since the companies involved regularly go after people for things that are fair use. (TNT and other shows on the network gets taken down off of their Youtube channel regularly because of using clips that clearly fall into fair use because these companies file complaints.*)


In this case though the makers of Glee apparently technically don't owe Coulton anything because Coulton's work was a fair use derivative work. They have to pay some royalties to the original artist. Still not a good idea to tick off Couton's fans. All they had to do was acknowledge were the song came from and things probably would have been fine.

Coulton did his own words and arrangement. They can use the original song and only credit the original artist, or do their own similar to Coulton's and credit the original, but they can't use his exact words and arrangement without crediting him. Kind of like if Saturday Night Live did a parody of Buffy and someone used video of it in their own parody, but only credited Buffy, not SNL. SNL would be ticked.

According to this article http://www.buzzfeed.com/perpetua/why-glee-did-not-rip-off-jonathan-coulton on Buzzfeed, they can. Assuming the article is correct, of course. Quote of the relevant part:

It is understandable that Coulton would be annoyed, but the producers of Glee don't actually owe him anything. According to copyright law, alternate arrangements of songs are "derivative works," and arrangers can only claim a copyright when the songwriter has granted that privilege to them. Sir Mix-a-Lot is the sole songwriter of "Baby Got Back," so only he is obligated to receive credit and payment for the use of the song in the show. Though Coulton's version includes elements that he wrote himself, he cannot claim a songwriting credit for those contributions, including that "Johnny C." line, which was almost certainly included in the Glee version as their way of giving the singer some credit.
This would be a bit different if the show had used Coulton's recording. In that case, the recording would be licensed and Coulton would receive performance royalties, while Sir Mix-a-Lot would get the royalties for songwriting.

[blue2000]

Ooh, yeah, forgot about the Kurt thing.  I'm all for them allowing Kurt to be his own character instead of just a gay stereotype (although yeah, he has a lot of stereotype-y behaviors), but the whole thing with him and Finn was just wrong and made me furious on Finn's behalf.

In ironic news about shows behaving badly, there's now a flap about one of the upcoming Glee songs and how they stole an arrangement lock, stock, and barrel from singer Jonathan Coulton.  Including the part where he changed the lyrics in his version to include his own name.  I will be interested to see where this goes.

I heard about this on Tech News Today. It isn't going to play well - since the companies involved regularly go after people for things that are fair use. (TNT and other shows on the network gets taken down off of their Youtube channel regularly because of using clips that clearly fall into fair use because these companies file complaints.*)


In this case though the makers of Glee apparently technically don't owe Coulton anything because Coulton's work was a fair use derivative work. They have to pay some royalties to the original artist. Still not a good idea to tick off Couton's fans. All they had to do was acknowledge were the song came from and things probably would have been fine.

Coulton did his own words and arrangement. They can use the original song and only credit the original artist, or do their own similar to Coulton's and credit the original, but they can't use his exact words and arrangement without crediting him. Kind of like if Saturday Night Live did a parody of Buffy and someone used video of it in their own parody, but only credited Buffy, not SNL. SNL would be ticked.

According to this article http://www.buzzfeed.com/perpetua/why-glee-did-not-rip-off-jonathan-coulton on Buzzfeed, they can. Assuming the article is correct, of course. Quote of the relevant part:

It is understandable that Coulton would be annoyed, but the producers of Glee don't actually owe him anything. According to copyright law, alternate arrangements of songs are "derivative works," and arrangers can only claim a copyright when the songwriter has granted that privilege to them. Sir Mix-a-Lot is the sole songwriter of "Baby Got Back," so only he is obligated to receive credit and payment for the use of the song in the show. Though Coulton's version includes elements that he wrote himself, he cannot claim a songwriting credit for those contributions, including that "Johnny C." line, which was almost certainly included in the Glee version as their way of giving the singer some credit.
This would be a bit different if the show had used Coulton's recording. In that case, the recording would be licensed and Coulton would receive performance royalties, while Sir Mix-a-Lot would get the royalties for songwriting.

That's the thing. They are suspected of using his recording - not just something similar to his, but actually putting his music together with their vocals. That's why there is such a screamfest around the internet.

I don't know if they did or if they just made a copy that is identical to his, but either way they have shot themselves in the foot with this. How hard is it to hire someone to do your own dang music??

[ica171]

Ooh, yeah, forgot about the Kurt thing.  I'm all for them allowing Kurt to be his own character instead of just a gay stereotype (although yeah, he has a lot of stereotype-y behaviors), but the whole thing with him and Finn was just wrong and made me furious on Finn's behalf.

In ironic news about shows behaving badly, there's now a flap about one of the upcoming Glee songs and how they stole an arrangement lock, stock, and barrel from singer Jonathan Coulton.  Including the part where he changed the lyrics in his version to include his own name.  I will be interested to see where this goes.

I heard about this on Tech News Today. It isn't going to play well - since the companies involved regularly go after people for things that are fair use. (TNT and other shows on the network gets taken down off of their Youtube channel regularly because of using clips that clearly fall into fair use because these companies file complaints.*)


In this case though the makers of Glee apparently technically don't owe Coulton anything because Coulton's work was a fair use derivative work. They have to pay some royalties to the original artist. Still not a good idea to tick off Couton's fans. All they had to do was acknowledge were the song came from and things probably would have been fine.

Coulton did his own words and arrangement. They can use the original song and only credit the original artist, or do their own similar to Coulton's and credit the original, but they can't use his exact words and arrangement without crediting him. Kind of like if Saturday Night Live did a parody of Buffy and someone used video of it in their own parody, but only credited Buffy, not SNL. SNL would be ticked.

According to this article http://www.buzzfeed.com/perpetua/why-glee-did-not-rip-off-jonathan-coulton on Buzzfeed, they can. Assuming the article is correct, of course. Quote of the relevant part:

It is understandable that Coulton would be annoyed, but the producers of Glee don't actually owe him anything. According to copyright law, alternate arrangements of songs are "derivative works," and arrangers can only claim a copyright when the songwriter has granted that privilege to them. Sir Mix-a-Lot is the sole songwriter of "Baby Got Back," so only he is obligated to receive credit and payment for the use of the song in the show. Though Coulton's version includes elements that he wrote himself, he cannot claim a songwriting credit for those contributions, including that "Johnny C." line, which was almost certainly included in the Glee version as their way of giving the singer some credit.
This would be a bit different if the show had used Coulton's recording. In that case, the recording would be licensed and Coulton would receive performance royalties, while Sir Mix-a-Lot would get the royalties for songwriting.

That's the thing. They are suspected of using his recording - not just something similar to his, but actually putting his music together with their vocals. That's why there is such a screamfest around the internet.

I don't know if they did or if they just made a copy that is identical to his, but either way they have shot themselves in the foot with this. How hard is it to hire someone to do your own dang music??

Well, that red-haired guy that played the piano quit, so their hands were forced.