Reply To: JoCo in the Media
I’ve never seen him address whether he got a derivative works license from Mix-A-Lot to make, record & sell that arrangement – based on its place early in the TAW, I tend to doubt that he did so in advance. His blog post today clarifies that he got a compulsory mechanical license. But, legally speaking, it seems like what he would have had to do if he wanted his work to be considered distinct for the purposes of copyright law, is to acquire a derivative works license, which would have required negotiation with the copyright holder. If he got a compulsory mechanical license (available from agencies without involving the copyright holder directly to record & sell a “cover” of a song), then he was implying that his arrangement was not distinct for the purposes of copyright. Based on descriptions of mechanical licenses I’ve seen (this is particularly relevant), JoCo’s version of Baby Got Back is clearly a derivative work, not covered by a mechanical license.