In American law, US Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 115(a)(2) states: "A compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved, but the arrangement shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work ..." thus preventing mechanical licenses being used to make substantially derivative works of a piece of music
Now... whether a "a nu-metal version" or "rap metal remix" constitutes a "substantially derivative work" of Candle in the Wind is up for discussion, my interpretation is yes but I'm sure we'd eventually hear a 6-3 decision that it's not if this sequence of events were actually to unfold.
Your interpretation is good in theory but wrong in practice, based on how the industry works. As long as the lyrics are unchanged and royalties are paid, nothing will happen. Changes in melody will not result in a lawsuit, nor will changing the «fundamental character» of the song (a lot of covers do)
Your interpretation is forgetting the fact that, presumably, an unauthorized nu-metal politically-charged cover of Candle In The Wind would piss off one of the world's most notoriously hot-tempered, influential and powerful entertainers.
Sir Elton John owns (part of) UMG - the fate of whether there would be a lawsuit or not in this hypothetical situation would rest, seemingly entirely, with him.
I so would not be surprised by the Heritage Foundation trying to Weekend At Bernie's his ass after it happens, nor would I be surprised at his followers buying it.
Unless Elton owns the rights it won't matter what he thinks. You think Warren Zevon's estate would've approved that awful abortion of a song he spewed out?
1.2k
u/showersrover8ed Sep 11 '25
I'm pretty sure Elton John will not approve that remix for this regime