Naughty Dog Acknowledges Inspiration for The Last of Us 2 Commercial's Song

I don't think it's naughy dogs responsbility, it's between new order and kestner.

She can remove the credit part because we all know it will turn to compensation. 😆

I was wrong

@wiiware I think you have a point there why is she talking about compensation from ND?

@Flaming_Kaiser @wiiware Well, if I understand this correctly; Kestner made a heavily adapted cover that changed some of the lyrics; and apparently Sony used that version and not the New Order's version. So in a way Sony should've asked both parties for permission; New Order to use their song, and Kestner to use her lyrics.

Sounds like a musician trying to get some extra cash. It must be annoying if someone does a similar thing to you though I get that. But surely covering someone else’s song in the first place kinda stops her claim in the first place? I mean it’s not really her lyrics etc. I’m no expert though but when someone tweets compensation I highly doubt she cares about the actual music side of it.

@get2sammyb I guess it depends on the contract Kestner has with The original artist maybe. Again I’m no expert, I imagine it’s very complicated. But yea if it is her version then credit at least is due.

I say again . This game cannot catch a break. I hope it is remembered for being a genre and generation defining piece of art once the dust has settled. @get2sammyb - your review can't come soon enough!

@get2sammyb I looked up the lyrics of both versions; and whilst Kestner's version does indeed include some different words (the changes are minimal though); none of those are used in trailer. Only the first part of the first verse and the chorus, and they are identical in both songs. So in that case we're only talking about the music style here, not the lyrics.

This is the AC Black Flag x Uncharted 4 shiz aaaaaaall over again

Great job being greedy lady. This isn't even your original song. It's a cover and SONY probably got the rights from the original owner of the song. I love how she asks for and thinks she can get compensation for a song that isn't even hers.

@DeanySevigny What was that if i may ask?

As all things law, this is a whole lotta grey. What's scary is that if injunctive relief is an avenue that is sought and the court agrees, it could delay the game if the song is in there.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/music-law-101-copyright-infringement-53761/

She's referring to the "ooohh oohh oohh ooh" 's that Ellie sings in the end. They are in her rendition, not the original. Not really lyrics - and again it's a cover of a cover - so I don't think there's much merit there - but I'm sure Naughty Dog will end up crediting and or compensating her for it

It's virtually the same song. They have to pay her and that's it x)

@Octane @get2sammyb @Flaming_Kaiser Now that I think about it, maybe the responbility is between kestner, new order, and the one that license the songs (either sony or ND).

@Zombie9ers Is this for real ok wow.

Bad doggy naughty doggy!

Can this game go one week without something going wrong? Please

@AFCC not how it works since it’s not even her song to begin with, it’s a cover which they would’ve paid the original artist for.

Honestly it just comes across is greedy and scummy.

@wiiware Then it will be Sony because they are the owners of ND.

I hummed something back in '87. That was also a cover. Pay me!! Lol.

"I am Heartbroken that Millions of people will visit my YouTube channel and make me money and maybe like my version and buy my Music and make me even more money. How could you do that to me ND" It does sound the same tho but saying that i hate her and ND versions and the Original is 100% better. I have the Original 12" version to. I wish these New artists would leave these old Classics alone and stop ruining them with there weak and pathetic versions :-/

Someone's trying to make a quick buck

Wouldn't be surprised, ND stole a bunch of stuff for TLOU1 as well, maps, designs, art, etc

Every time I hear a terrible slowed-down ballad version of an 80s song I die a little inside. That being said, the poor woman should get at least some compensation, it is a bit obvious.

Okay, hands up... who's ever heard of her before now?

I'm guessing Sony came to an agreement with New Order for use of the lyrics. She says she wrote some new lyrics, but none are used in the trailer, so that won't apply.

As for 'her version'... genuine question... can you copyright an 'arrangement'? 🤔 I'm guessing Sony have covered themselves on this, since they have a tiny bit of experience in the music industry.

That said, mistakes happen, and it's possible that they've never heard of her or this version. If she's owed, give her what she's due. Although it does smack of an unknown looking for their 15 minutes.

Looking at her discography, a very large proportion of her output seems to be covers of other artists work, so... y'know...

@Octane But if i understand it correctly its the ohh ohh ohh or whatever in the end?

I don't get why people are getting so defensive? The artist's cover is incredibly similar to the trailer. It doesn't matter if she wasn't the original artists, it's her version. Demanding compensation for your work isn't greed, it's just life. It's like people are suddenly Naughty Dog's defense attorneys.

Just seems another case are some greedy person trying to make easy money. Can bet if it was a less well knowing game they wouldn't of bothered . Just greed sadly these parasites are getting more and more common

There's no real similarity between the two unless you class slowing down a track. If you listen to the TLOU version it's basically a slow acoustic version of the original with full chords. The other is using a picking style.

This is just the marketing team cocking up. Naughty Dog aren't at fault here and don't deserve any criticism. The original artist is entitled to her compensation, but that should be through Sony's marketing arm and not naughty dog

Niether Girls have a clue how to write a song but hey they never lived in Manchester in the 70s either...............The original lyrics included a verse that read "Now that we've grown up together/They're all taking drugs with me". Hague convinced Sumner to change the latter line to "They're afraid of what they see" because he was worried that otherwise it would not get played on the radio. When performing the song live, the band have usually used the original line.

During a live performance in 1993 in Reading, Sumner replaced the first lines of the second verse with the lyrics "When I was a very small boy, Michael Jackson played with me. Now that we've grown up together, he's playing with my willy." as a topical reference to the allegations of sexual abuse against the singer.

Sony I understand own all Jacksons stuff including The Beatles.

THE LAST OF US BIGGEST FAN!!!! I AM SO PUMPED FOR PART 2 I GET BUTTERFLIES IN MY STOMACH THINKING ABOUT IT.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read.

How can someone plaguerize a song that's not even theirs to start with?

Secondly (and I must admit I'm not an expert on law when it comes to music copyright, so correct me if i'm wrong), but there are loads of songs that bear similarities, hell there are youtube channels that purposefully showcase the similarities between certain songs. But these are people copying other peoples songs.

How can you copyright a cover of a song? It's not theirs, so it's just down to a stylistic play, which is open to huge subjective process, especially when you're just doing covers of an original, of course people are bound to create songs that sound identical, as many people are going to try and use similar styles.

Bottom line, if you're doing a cover of someone elses track, you don't own jack.

Watch it if you follow the link to the artist's youtube. Some absolute swine has put a pretty heavy spoiler in the comments there.

"How dare you cover my cover version!??!!"

I wonder if New Order ever said to her
"How dare you cover our song, and they say you've changed it enough to claim songwriting credit for it?"

She has done a cover. And now ND made a cover.

Who "stole it" first?

Imagine having the gall to demand money for a song that wasn't even their's to begin with lol...

I believe the lady has deleted the original tweet now.
Guess she realized how irrational it was?

***** off lady that no one has ever hear before... this just moronic. New Order should demand compensation from her for using their song then.

She already deleted her tweet figures...

She I imagine would have something called a mechanical license in able to cover a copyrighted song, so she herself would had payed to cover the song what ever they agreed on. You don't just start covering other people's work, it doesn't work like you'll be sued to Kingdom come.

She has deleted the tweet since. lol

What a choise picture for a thumbnail, lol

Yeah, I was thinking the song sounded way too similar to my liking. I hope this is just a big understanding

https://youtu.be/NW9rIBZPRhw

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. Could just be considered a simple acoustic version.

WARNING - Do NOT read the comments on her video. There are spoilers

I went so long without seeing any spoilers and then just saw one. People are such ****s.

And all because a nobody made a claim she has no right to. Forget this woman and don’t draw attention to it.

@ArmyofOne

I seen Artist put their spin on other people's Art work, they shouldn't be payed? And if you believe covering a song or even art work just copying, why would you even buy that? Because they obviously add nothing to it, No?

So in order for her to be due any compensation she would have needed to get a special license as she is not the original copyright holder.

“Master Use for Sync Fees - If your cover song gets licensed to a TV show, a movie, a commercial, or any other audiovisual media, you would need to obtain a synchronization license from the publisher of the composition. While you own the recording of your cover song, the copyright owner owns the composition and still give permission for the composition to be used in audiovisual media (this is a separate license from the compulsory mechanical license). The producer of the content will need to pay the synch fee for the composition and pay a master use fee for the master use license of the sound recording. These negotiations take place directly between the producer of the content (or their representatives) and the owners of the copyrights (you for the master sound recording and the songwriter or publisher for the composition that you’ve covered).“

Source: https://www.tuneregistry.com/blog/how-to-legally-record-and-sell-a-cover-song-in-3-steps

Looks like she's deleted the tweets

@Kienda I'd say that's harsh saying a nobody that didn't have a right to.

If ND or whoever done the trailer for them stole her arrangement then she is absolutely right to be miffed. She would have contacted and paid to use the original in the first place and ND or whoever should pay her for stealing her arrangement.

Regardless of it being a cover, it was changed and thereof her work is also covered from theft.

@solocapers refer to my comment above, it’s not as simple as you’re making it seem. If she doesn’t have the separate license she isn’t due anything.

@MarcG420 you would assume she does though.. Especially if it was commercially released.

@solocapers no, a synchronization (or sync-which strictly covers audio-visual media) license is wholly different than a mechanical license (audio media only) she would have obtained the mechanical license yes, but almost certainly not the synchronization license.

Edit: all of this is moot though really. As a cover she would only be entitled to compensation if they used her recording which it clearly isn’t. There is enough different here (To her cover) that it could easily just be labeled as a new cover (IMO) and she wouldn’t be entitled to anything since the original is not her original work.

@solocapers okay, I take back the “nobody” comment. That was an emotive comment on my part after having something I’m looking forward to being ruined.

She is still walking in thin ice on the grounds of copyright though. She performed an acoustic cover of someone else’s song. The Ellie version made is also an acoustic cover. They weren’t identical and they are both very similar to the original. The fact she has deleted the tweet is a telltale sign that she’s either been paid off / had the issue sorted in private or doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on.

Sorry, I don't hear any infected on her song. Doesn't sound like this ad at all!

Seems like we should all make as many cover versions as possible and upload them to YouTube so we can wait for someone else to accidentally make something similar and sue them, like a little musical landmine.

Yeah.... She's reaching.

This isn't exactly new for ND, they have done stuff like this before.

@Mpquikster alright I laughed at that one.

She deleted quite a few tweets about this, second thoughts maybe aha.

@LN78 God, it's like you read my mind!

Neil Druckmann is a scumbag so I wouldn't be surprised if this was plagiarism

Vocal line is almost the same note by note. At least the few seconds I've heard until I said "ok, enough" 🤣

This is going nowhere. 'Arrangements' have almost no copyright protection. For a comparable case, which was clearly copied, look into the cover of 'Baby Got Back' they did on the show Glee, which was a blatant copy of Jonathan Coulton's (well known) acoustic arrangement. This is worth reading: https://www.wired.com/2013/01/jonathan-coulton-glee-song/

@MattSilverado Er, for the most part those are the same notes that are sung in the original song, it is a cover after all. Not surprising that the covers follow the original melody.

So she wants to see money because she claims it is her ‘COVER’ ???? Weird.......

@Grindagger 🤣 I know, I'm sort of musician also, but I wanted to keep it simple. You can do covers in many ways, take for instance the abominations of "Bossa n [add artist name]".

Heh, she's a bit grasping at straws here.
I mean, if you take an existing song and strip it down to its basic chords and play it acoustically, there's very little personal merit added to the original version.
Now, I've listened to the two versions once each and I should analyze the harmonies in order to be able to tell how different they are from each other and the original, but from a superficial listen I wouldn't say she has the strongest of cases.

If naughty dog has to pay her does she have to pay the original artist

@get2sammyb
Sadly not.
In music publishing Lotta must have agreed on a "mechanical license" to be able to use New order intellectual property for commercial purpose. Under this deal,
she has to pay 9.2% to the publishing company(universal publishing) on every profits made on the sale, download or other streaming revenues from that song and in no way can she claims any ownership rights of the song whatever the rendition, re instrumentalisation or other changes she may have made to the original version. 😔😔.

That's good of them to publicly acknowledge this, thumbs up.

Because she made a modified version of the song, none of the copyright should go to New order...as the product has now changed. Is their a copyright lawyer in the comments?

Well then, she sure had a quick change of heart.

Cynicism alert: I don't think legalities make much of a difference - it got out, it looks bad and it's a blemish - they now need the artist to say nice things. They went to her and said: 'look, you haven't got much of a case and we would fight you to death with our best lawyers but really, really don't want to as the PR for our game was already destroyed; you'd maybe able get this much but we'll give you [insert a bigger amount] if you show support. Deal?' Of course a deal was struck, and why wouldn't it be?

I can't tell if this is all a piss take, or not, and that worries me.

@glassmusic

A cover of a song start's and ends with the original artist.

Acknowledgement for the track is still far away from the compensation that was initially being called upon when this first became an issue.

She should be acknowledged for the inspiration for a track, but that's where it should begin, and end.

It's all a bit odd. I really don't think you can claim someone copied you by also doing an acoustic cover of an existing song. And 'wasn't initially credited?'. It was a tv ad, no one was credited, not New Order, and not the person who actually recorded the song in the advert.

This is such a basic cover. Any amateur singer songwriter could come up with it. Maybe she should write her own songs then she would have more solid ground to stand on.