What The Romantics don't like about 'Guitar Hero'

(Credit: Amazon)

Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but try telling that to The Romantics.

The new-wave rock band has filed a lawsuit against Guitar Hero game publisher Activision for its use of a sound-alike recording of What I Like About You in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s, according to a report in the Detroit Free Press. The band is also seeking an injunction against the game, which could result in the game being pulled from store shelves.

The band isn't claiming Activision infringed on its copyright of the song; indeed the game publisher had permission to use a cover version of the song. However, that cover version was too good, and The Romantics sued, claiming that game publisher infringed the group's right to its own image and likeness, the band's lawyers told the newspaper.

"It's a very good imitation, and that's our objection," William Horton told the paper. "Even the guys in the band said, 'Wow, that's not us, but it sure sounds like us.'"

Also named in he lawsuit was music firm Wavegroup Sound, which recorded the song for the game.

The game franchise has been wildly successful for Activision. Earlier this month, the company announced that Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock had earned $115 million in its first week on the market.

[satayboy]

Guitar Hero IV

Coming up next: "Guitar Hero IV: The Lawsuits of Rock!"

[Nentuaby]

Or better yet...

Phoenix Wright: Courtroom Guitar Hero.

[satayboy]

Guitar Hero IV

Coming up next: "Guitar Hero IV: The Lawsuits of Rock!"

[Nentuaby]

Or better yet...

Phoenix Wright: Courtroom Guitar Hero.

[TaintDeli]

Wait, what?

What game is this song in? I don't remember it being in GH2 or 3, and I don't see it on Wikipedia's lists of songs in GH1 or Rock Band.<br /><br />That aside, this is the most perfect example of a frivolous lawsuit I've ever seen!

[ricksterd64]

Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80's

It's in the game Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80's and in my opinion this is definitely not so good of a remake that you couldn't distinguish it from the original. The Romantics are most likely poor and trying to capitalize on the success of Guitar Hero. Pretty lame in my opinion. Hopefully the judge throws it out and makes them pay activisions legal fee's.

[surfrat6]

not frivolous

Activision bought a Mechanical License, not a Master License. Mechanical License allows you to cover a song...with the sound of YOUR band. But to duplicate it to sound exactly like original so that people think it IS the Romantics, then Activision should have bought a master license and paid the royalties. Activision is profiting at the expense of the romantics by trying to sound identical without having to pay royalties. That's why big bands that cover old songs sound DIFFERENT.

[TaintDeli]

Wait, what?

What game is this song in? I don't remember it being in GH2 or 3, and I don't see it on Wikipedia's lists of songs in GH1 or Rock Band.<br /><br />That aside, this is the most perfect example of a frivolous lawsuit I've ever seen!

[ricksterd64]

Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80's

It's in the game Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80's and in my opinion this is definitely not so good of a remake that you couldn't distinguish it from the original. The Romantics are most likely poor and trying to capitalize on the success of Guitar Hero. Pretty lame in my opinion. Hopefully the judge throws it out and makes them pay activisions legal fee's.

[surfrat6]

not frivolous

Activision bought a Mechanical License, not a Master License. Mechanical License allows you to cover a song...with the sound of YOUR band. But to duplicate it to sound exactly like original so that people think it IS the Romantics, then Activision should have bought a master license and paid the royalties. Activision is profiting at the expense of the romantics by trying to sound identical without having to pay royalties. That's why big bands that cover old songs sound DIFFERENT.

[jordinyc]

What a JOKE!

That's like George W Bush complaining because they included American Idiot because that sounds too much like him!

[jordinyc]

What a JOKE!

That's like George W Bush complaining because they included American Idiot because that sounds too much like him!

[Geminate]

Dead and Rotting

The Romantics were a crummy band with two okay songs, the rest was rubbish. IMNTBHO, I thought everything they came up with was garbage. I really believed these guys were dead by now.<br /><br />Romantics - Do our song on Guitar Hero!!! :)<br />Romantics - Oh no, it's too good :(<br />Romantics - We gonna sue your ***** &gt;:(<br /><br />Dear Romantics, please return to your graves and continue rotting.

[Geminate]

Dead and Rotting

The Romantics were a crummy band with two okay songs, the rest was rubbish. IMNTBHO, I thought everything they came up with was garbage. I really believed these guys were dead by now.<br /><br />Romantics - Do our song on Guitar Hero!!! :)<br />Romantics - Oh no, it's too good :(<br />Romantics - We gonna sue your ***** &gt;:(<br /><br />Dear Romantics, please return to your graves and continue rotting.

[surfrat6]

Romantics ARE the victims

to clarify what this means: Activision should have secured a MASTER license, not a Cover-song license or "Mechanical" license as it is called. the difference is that with a Master License you have to pay royalties based on sales. A Mechanical License lets you make a cover version but you are selling the cover version on your own merits, not as an imitation of the actual band. In other words, if I purchase a mechanical license for a song and if the public is fooled that the cover song that my band did sounds INDISTINGUISHABLE from the original artist, so that the public believes it's the original artist, then I am using the original artist for my own gain. That requires me to pay royalties to the artist, and a master license.

[boomslang]

Hmmm....

So you're saying that radio stations, Romantics fans and other people are going to go out and buy a copy of this game so they can have it to play just the song. I'd buy the argument that it should be a master license if it was a cover for some sort of "Best Of" CD collection. Sorry, but the venue does not match up to the intended purpose of the distinction between a MASTER and a COVER license.

[romantics-fan]

Master License vs. Mechanical License! Correct!

Surfrat6...<br /><br />You are absolutely correct! They are trying to avoid having to purchase the full rights.<br /><br />Romantics are indeed the victims.

[TerrinBell]

Not the Victims.

That sounds ridiculous to me. Activision approached the <br />Romantics to use a cover version of their song. The Romantics <br />knew what the song would be used for and knew Activision <br />would want the song to closely resemble the original so people <br />playing the game would recognize the song. Knowing all this <br />the Romantics licensed their song. <br /><br />By definition a cover song is merely one originally recorded by <br />somebody else. Activision didn't use the Romantics recording, <br />but recorded their own version of the song. Just because a song <br />songs similar to the original doesn't stop it from being a cover <br />song. The Romantics could have easily asked for final approval <br />of the song in the contract, or have clarified that the song must <br />not song like the original. It doesn't sound like they did that to <br />me

[usermoi]

Tribute Band?

A tribute band tries to sound exactly alike but has his own act name so the public knows it's not the original artist. So would a tribute band be safe in not securing a Maaster License?

[JadedGamer]

Hard not to make alike

As I understand it, the song in question has an incredibly simple chord progression and beat, that anyone with a minimum of guitar skill can play well enough to make indistinguishable.<br /><br />Would they really rather that their song appeared in a form that did not sound like the song at all? Do they really want gamers to say "eww, that song sucks, I will not check out that band!"? And it|s only indistinguishable if the person playing completes the song without any errors.<br /><br />Gift horse and all that... The Guitar Hero series is effectively MARKETING for the bands featured: That is why more and more of the melodies used are firt-party instead of covers.

[surfrat6]

Romantics ARE the victims

to clarify what this means: Activision should have secured a MASTER license, not a Cover-song license or "Mechanical" license as it is called. the difference is that with a Master License you have to pay royalties based on sales. A Mechanical License lets you make a cover version but you are selling the cover version on your own merits, not as an imitation of the actual band. In other words, if I purchase a mechanical license for a song and if the public is fooled that the cover song that my band did sounds INDISTINGUISHABLE from the original artist, so that the public believes it's the original artist, then I am using the original artist for my own gain. That requires me to pay royalties to the artist, and a master license.

[boomslang]

Hmmm....

So you're saying that radio stations, Romantics fans and other people are going to go out and buy a copy of this game so they can have it to play just the song. I'd buy the argument that it should be a master license if it was a cover for some sort of "Best Of" CD collection. Sorry, but the venue does not match up to the intended purpose of the distinction between a MASTER and a COVER license.

[romantics-fan]

Master License vs. Mechanical License! Correct!

Surfrat6...<br /><br />You are absolutely correct! They are trying to avoid having to purchase the full rights.<br /><br />Romantics are indeed the victims.

[TerrinBell]

Not the Victims.

That sounds ridiculous to me. Activision approached the <br />Romantics to use a cover version of their song. The Romantics <br />knew what the song would be used for and knew Activision <br />would want the song to closely resemble the original so people <br />playing the game would recognize the song. Knowing all this <br />the Romantics licensed their song. <br /><br />By definition a cover song is merely one originally recorded by <br />somebody else. Activision didn't use the Romantics recording, <br />but recorded their own version of the song. Just because a song <br />songs similar to the original doesn't stop it from being a cover <br />song. The Romantics could have easily asked for final approval <br />of the song in the contract, or have clarified that the song must <br />not song like the original. It doesn't sound like they did that to <br />me

[usermoi]

Tribute Band?

A tribute band tries to sound exactly alike but has his own act name so the public knows it's not the original artist. So would a tribute band be safe in not securing a Maaster License?

[JadedGamer]

Hard not to make alike

As I understand it, the song in question has an incredibly simple chord progression and beat, that anyone with a minimum of guitar skill can play well enough to make indistinguishable.<br /><br />Would they really rather that their song appeared in a form that did not sound like the song at all? Do they really want gamers to say "eww, that song sucks, I will not check out that band!"? And it|s only indistinguishable if the person playing completes the song without any errors.<br /><br />Gift horse and all that... The Guitar Hero series is effectively MARKETING for the bands featured: That is why more and more of the melodies used are firt-party instead of covers.

[Proustian]

I disagree

I was not fooled into thinking that the Romantics were playing their song on Guitar Hero. I think the group that played "What I Like About You" have twice if not three times the talent that the Romantics have.<br /><br />It was like a better band that played that song, and actually made improvements to it so it sounded a lot better than the original.

[Proustian]

I disagree

I was not fooled into thinking that the Romantics were playing their song on Guitar Hero. I think the group that played "What I Like About You" have twice if not three times the talent that the Romantics have.<br /><br />It was like a better band that played that song, and actually made improvements to it so it sounded a lot better than the original.

[x2percentmilk]

Oh man...

I can not believe they are doing this. Obviously they just saw the lawsuit and decided to go with it, probably got a great lawyer and whatever. This is just ridiculous...suing someone because the cover "sounded" too much like them? Get over it...you gave them the rights to make the cover of the song, and you never once said "you can't sound just like us" in the agreement. If they had an agreement like that (which is by the way..ludicrous) then sure...sue all you want. If the game is pulled off the shelves for this...then I have no faith in the music industry as a whole anymore.

[x2percentmilk]

And

oh yes...and for those saying they were trying to fool the public yatta yatta....they place "as made famous by: so and so" before every song that was covered, this giving them credit, and not "fooling" the public.

[x2percentmilk]

Oh man...

I can not believe they are doing this. Obviously they just saw the lawsuit and decided to go with it, probably got a great lawyer and whatever. This is just ridiculous...suing someone because the cover "sounded" too much like them? Get over it...you gave them the rights to make the cover of the song, and you never once said "you can't sound just like us" in the agreement. If they had an agreement like that (which is by the way..ludicrous) then sure...sue all you want. If the game is pulled off the shelves for this...then I have no faith in the music industry as a whole anymore.

[x2percentmilk]

And

oh yes...and for those saying they were trying to fool the public yatta yatta....they place "as made famous by: so and so" before every song that was covered, this giving them credit, and not "fooling" the public.

[piusg]

Oh puh-LEAZE!

Lemmie get this right... The Romantics, who (if I recall correctly) haven't been on the charts since the '80s--and whose last album was a flop--is bent-out-of-shape because one of their songs that THEY GAVE PERMISSION for Activision/Harmonix to cover is TOO ACCURATE!?<br /><br />Are the on drugs!?<br /><br />(wait, I withdraw the question.)<br /><br />File this under the "Looking a gift horse in the mouth" department. They get all kinds of publicity and exposure, not to mention a free ride back into the public consciousness in a way that very, very few groups could ever dream of, are members of a now-exclusive fraternity of recording artists who have been enshrined in a Guitar Hero game...<br /><br />...and they're MAD!? Because Wavegroup covered them TOO FAITHFULLY!?<br /><br />Give me a big, fat, hairy break, man. Hey--open message to The Romantics: Get the $#&#38;*%! over yourselves.

[piusg]

Oh puh-LEAZE!

Lemmie get this right... The Romantics, who (if I recall correctly) haven't been on the charts since the '80s--and whose last album was a flop--is bent-out-of-shape because one of their songs that THEY GAVE PERMISSION for Activision/Harmonix to cover is TOO ACCURATE!?<br /><br />Are the on drugs!?<br /><br />(wait, I withdraw the question.)<br /><br />File this under the "Looking a gift horse in the mouth" department. They get all kinds of publicity and exposure, not to mention a free ride back into the public consciousness in a way that very, very few groups could ever dream of, are members of a now-exclusive fraternity of recording artists who have been enshrined in a Guitar Hero game...<br /><br />...and they're MAD!? Because Wavegroup covered them TOO FAITHFULLY!?<br /><br />Give me a big, fat, hairy break, man. Hey--open message to The Romantics: Get the $#&#38;*%! over yourselves.

[romantics-fan]

Romantics are correct with this case.

This is about "likeness". Here's an example:<br /><br />When making a Comic Book adaption of a movie or TV series, the artists are usually restricted so that they cannot make the drawn characters resemble the ACTORS too closely (because that would infringe upon the rights of the actors themselves who need to protect their IMAGE and LIKENESS).<br /><br />An example; in the late 1970's, when Marvel Comics had drawn the characters within its adaptions of Battlestar Galactica and Star Wars too closely to the likeness of the ACTORS, they ran into trouble. Even though the likeness was only apparent on a few panels of the comics, it caused problems for the artists and Marvel, and warnings were issued.<br /><br />That is only one example, and an old one at that. If activision wanted the ACTUAL "Romantics" (exact likeness and almost exact sound) then they would need to negotiate THAT arrangement with the group.<br /><br />The song "What I Like about you" is one of the most SUCCESSFUL rock songs in the HISTORY of rock 'n roll and a true Cinderella story (since it also never charted in the top 40). The Romantics are a bunch of great, hard working musicians who have paid their dues 100 times over. They are not washed up, or poor by any means and this is not JUST about money. This is about protecting your IMAGE/LIKENESS and how (and when) it is used.<br /><br />This is a legitimate case regarding LIKENESS. Any actor or musician needs to protect their own LIKENESS and this is not the first time such a case has happened.<br /><br />I can't say if it's a case that they can win in court, but I can tell you that using the IMAGE and LIKNESS (visual and/or sound) must be properly negotiated. Example; If you were to negotiate the rights for a comic book adaption of the "Xena" TV series and then drew the character to look EXACTLY like Lucy Lawless, you would be sued by her in a quick second. Also, you can't sign a contract to create a "cover" of a song and then create something that sounds exatly like the original. That's an illegal way of not having to pay for the full rights to the REAL song.<br /><br /><br />J. McDonald<br />"Romantics Fan"

[piusg]

...And where did you get YOUR law degree?

You're talking like you know things about this deal that we, the raggedy-ass masses, don't.<br /><br />Are you privy to all the contractual details between Activision and The Romantics? Were you able to obtain the contract? How do YOU know exactly WHAT the terms were based on a short, vague CNet article?<br /><br />I dig the fact that you like The Romantics. Understand, however, that the appearance of "What I Like About You" on Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the '80s" was the first exposure in anything mainstream I've seen of The Romantics in decades, other than the odd plays of "What I Like About You" and "Talking In Your Sleep" on the '80s on 8 on XM Radio.<br /><br />They should be damn grateful that Guitar Hero is wildly popular and that one of their songs is a part of that success. If they were smart, rather than giving themselves a huge black eye and a bunch of really bad press, they would be focusing they energies on how to parlay the success of their appearance on Guitar Hero into ticket sales for their gigs.<br /><br />This lawsuit is a ridiculous waste of time and does nothing to broaden their fan base. In fact, the twenty-somethings whose first exposure to The Romantics is from Guitar Hero are sure to get a mighty sour taste in their mouths from this bull$#!+ crybaby act. How likely then will they be to attend a Romantics gig or pick up an album?<br /><br />Not bloody, I say.

[elvinort]

This was not the first instance...

Everybody who has seen or played this game KNOWS that the <br />tracks are very good imitations of the original. And the track has <br />to be re-recorded because of the different levels of difficulty can <br />also bring about slight re-arrangements of the guitar tracks to <br />make them easy or complex according to the level chosen. The <br />Romantics HAVE seen this game: they know how it works, and <br />their attitude just reflects some money-grabbing issue. They <br />shouldn't have given the rights away if they didn't like their <br />music being copied to the last note.

[jasonhoffman1977]

Correct?

If you're concern is someone sounding "too good", don't grant permission to use your material. I don't see a correlation between the struggling comic book industry and the lacking and sue-happy music industry. Comic books and graphic novels are drawn with specific characters and events that are very easily protected by copyright and production rights. But, music is expressive, not specific (unless nearly every aspect of the band's IMAGE/LIKENESS is similiar or exact to the original artist). Again, let it be said; if you're afraid someone will do your music better, don't let anyone use it for profit.

[romantics-fan]

Romantics are correct with this case.

This is about "likeness". Here's an example:<br /><br />When making a Comic Book adaption of a movie or TV series, the artists are usually restricted so that they cannot make the drawn characters resemble the ACTORS too closely (because that would infringe upon the rights of the actors themselves who need to protect their IMAGE and LIKENESS).<br /><br />An example; in the late 1970's, when Marvel Comics had drawn the characters within its adaptions of Battlestar Galactica and Star Wars too closely to the likeness of the ACTORS, they ran into trouble. Even though the likeness was only apparent on a few panels of the comics, it caused problems for the artists and Marvel, and warnings were issued.<br /><br />That is only one example, and an old one at that. If activision wanted the ACTUAL "Romantics" (exact likeness and almost exact sound) then they would need to negotiate THAT arrangement with the group.<br /><br />The song "What I Like about you" is one of the most SUCCESSFUL rock songs in the HISTORY of rock 'n roll and a true Cinderella story (since it also never charted in the top 40). The Romantics are a bunch of great, hard working musicians who have paid their dues 100 times over. They are not washed up, or poor by any means and this is not JUST about money. This is about protecting your IMAGE/LIKENESS and how (and when) it is used.<br /><br />This is a legitimate case regarding LIKENESS. Any actor or musician needs to protect their own LIKENESS and this is not the first time such a case has happened.<br /><br />I can't say if it's a case that they can win in court, but I can tell you that using the IMAGE and LIKNESS (visual and/or sound) must be properly negotiated. Example; If you were to negotiate the rights for a comic book adaption of the "Xena" TV series and then drew the character to look EXACTLY like Lucy Lawless, you would be sued by her in a quick second. Also, you can't sign a contract to create a "cover" of a song and then create something that sounds exatly like the original. That's an illegal way of not having to pay for the full rights to the REAL song.<br /><br /><br />J. McDonald<br />"Romantics Fan"

[piusg]

...And where did you get YOUR law degree?

You're talking like you know things about this deal that we, the raggedy-ass masses, don't.<br /><br />Are you privy to all the contractual details between Activision and The Romantics? Were you able to obtain the contract? How do YOU know exactly WHAT the terms were based on a short, vague CNet article?<br /><br />I dig the fact that you like The Romantics. Understand, however, that the appearance of "What I Like About You" on Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the '80s" was the first exposure in anything mainstream I've seen of The Romantics in decades, other than the odd plays of "What I Like About You" and "Talking In Your Sleep" on the '80s on 8 on XM Radio.<br /><br />They should be damn grateful that Guitar Hero is wildly popular and that one of their songs is a part of that success. If they were smart, rather than giving themselves a huge black eye and a bunch of really bad press, they would be focusing they energies on how to parlay the success of their appearance on Guitar Hero into ticket sales for their gigs.<br /><br />This lawsuit is a ridiculous waste of time and does nothing to broaden their fan base. In fact, the twenty-somethings whose first exposure to The Romantics is from Guitar Hero are sure to get a mighty sour taste in their mouths from this bull$#!+ crybaby act. How likely then will they be to attend a Romantics gig or pick up an album?<br /><br />Not bloody, I say.

[elvinort]

This was not the first instance...

Everybody who has seen or played this game KNOWS that the <br />tracks are very good imitations of the original. And the track has <br />to be re-recorded because of the different levels of difficulty can <br />also bring about slight re-arrangements of the guitar tracks to <br />make them easy or complex according to the level chosen. The <br />Romantics HAVE seen this game: they know how it works, and <br />their attitude just reflects some money-grabbing issue. They <br />shouldn't have given the rights away if they didn't like their <br />music being copied to the last note.

[jasonhoffman1977]

Correct?

If you're concern is someone sounding "too good", don't grant permission to use your material. I don't see a correlation between the struggling comic book industry and the lacking and sue-happy music industry. Comic books and graphic novels are drawn with specific characters and events that are very easily protected by copyright and production rights. But, music is expressive, not specific (unless nearly every aspect of the band's IMAGE/LIKENESS is similiar or exact to the original artist). Again, let it be said; if you're afraid someone will do your music better, don't let anyone use it for profit.

[piusg]

Maybe if they'd have poined up the original tracks...

Well maybe if they'd ponied up the original tracks for the game like Scandal did, then they'd have gotten a master license out of Activision/Harmonix now, wouldn't they have?<br /><br />Activision/Harmonix got license to do a COVER. They did a COVER. They give The Romantics credit for the COVER they did every time the level starts playing, for Christ's sake!<br /><br />With Activision having a signed contract in-hand, The Romantics have a shaky legal footing at best from which to launch this ridiculous suit.

[piusg]

Maybe if they'd have poined up the original tracks...

Well maybe if they'd ponied up the original tracks for the game like Scandal did, then they'd have gotten a master license out of Activision/Harmonix now, wouldn't they have?<br /><br />Activision/Harmonix got license to do a COVER. They did a COVER. They give The Romantics credit for the COVER they did every time the level starts playing, for Christ's sake!<br /><br />With Activision having a signed contract in-hand, The Romantics have a shaky legal footing at best from which to launch this ridiculous suit.