# Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what? (New demo)



## Studio E (Apr 9, 2011)

I was asked to compose as closely to a particular piece of music as possible for a local 30 second spot. Now that I've done it, I fear that I'm WAY to close to the mark. I do NOT want to get sued over this. Please have a listen and tell me what you think. If you feel that I'm way too close to the original, could you please give me some suggestions for backing it off to a safe distance? They were adamant about it sounding like this though. Sigh,

http://soundcloud.com/studio-e/ala-alt-2


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Apr 9, 2011)

*Re: Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what?*

Including the original reference would help.

I just have one thing to say, from recent experience: the agency is not the one that is liable in the end. So getting too close can result in a lawsuit and your ass in the line of fire.
I recently mockep up a pop track given to me as a reference by the agency.
I thought i was cool, since it only had drums and guitar arpeggio and both parts were not anything these guys invented, but stuff that one can hear in many other tunes. I thought that as long as you stayed away from the melody, you were ok.
I have done research since and it isn't the case.
You can be sued if it can be proven that you used a tune as inspiration and stayed too close.
Sure enough, we got into trouble and i had to redo the track presto.
Fortunately, it wasn't for a big national campaign so the band didn't go for blood, knowing that little money was to be made by sueing.

Good luck!


----------



## David Story (Apr 9, 2011)

*Re: Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what?*

Yes. This is a great song, you'll need a system to keep the vibe, but not copy the melody/harmony.
Here's one method:
The intro is ok, and the first 3 notes of the tune. For the rest, invert the melodic intervals. And every 3rd chord, substitute. It will take time, great music retains it's character even when you vary it.
Good start, the timbres are effective, imo.


----------



## Studio E (Apr 9, 2011)

*Re: Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what?*

Thanks guys. I purposely didn't list the reference track because I wanted to see how noticable it would be blind. I did alter the melody but the backing chords are the same. I'm sure the inversions aren't identical as I basically just followed the bass track but then inserted my own harmonies/counterpoint on the cellos and violas. I also added celeste and harp, both not in the original. Perhaps I should alter the bass every three bars or so as suggested. Thanks again.


----------



## David Story (Apr 9, 2011)

*Re: Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what?*



Studio E @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> Thanks guys. I purposely didn't list the reference track because I wanted to see how noticable it would be blind. I did alter the melody but the backing chords are the same. I'm sure the inversions aren't identical as I basically just followed the bass track but then inserted my own harmonies/counterpoint on the cellos and violas. I also added celeste and harp, both not in the original. Perhaps I should alter the bass every three bars or so as suggested. Thanks again.



Orchestration is fine.
Please don't shoot the messenger here  
The track does copy parts of the melody that are identifiable. I urge you to be more systematic about making sure it's different, since it is a recognized tune. The fact of infringement is based on similarity to "golden nuggets", little bits of the tune. Inverting the melody gets rid of those.


----------



## Studio E (Apr 9, 2011)

*Re: Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what?*

I will David. Thanks so much!


----------



## Synesthesia (Apr 9, 2011)

Wow.. that would be way WAY too close for me.

No way would I let that be used without a full indemnification from the agency.

Sorry man, I know thats probably not what you want to hear..


----------



## stonzthro (Apr 9, 2011)

Change up the rhythm too maybe? I bet you could make it more 'your own' as a melody too. Right now it sounds like you are trying to sound like Leigh Harline's tune but wanting to avoid a lawsuit. Try improvising over the chords some until you find stuff that says it is yours. 

Tough task and you are well on your way - good luck (but do look into the full indemnification for sure).


----------



## José Herring (Apr 9, 2011)

*Re: Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what?*



David Story @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> Studio E @ Sat Apr 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks guys. I purposely didn't list the reference track because I wanted to see how noticable it would be blind. I did alter the melody but the backing chords are the same. I'm sure the inversions aren't identical as I basically just followed the bass track but then inserted my own harmonies/counterpoint on the cellos and violas. I also added celeste and harp, both not in the original. Perhaps I should alter the bass every three bars or so as suggested. Thanks again.
> ...



Yes follow this advice. There are too many notes in the melody that are similar to the original that if noticed (and that's a big "if" on a local commercial spot, but not a big "if" should the commercial go national) would open you up to a lawsuit.

I'd continue to work on it and make the melody as different as possible. One of the things we use to do back when I interned at a commercial house in NY was, when presented with a job like this, to do the melody in retrograde motion. So if the original went up an interval we'd go down, when it went down we'd go up. With an eye towards aesthetics you can actually make some pretty good new melodies that way and after a while it will take you into a new direction entirely. That new direction will be your new melody and it will be entirely different from the original.

I'd be extremely careful on this one. Remember the tune is also the Disney logo and the suits don't take kindly to people ripping their logo. If caught it would be war.


----------



## Lex (Apr 9, 2011)

*Re: Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what?*

This is more then close...and even worse its very clear that it's done deliberately close.

Risky business.

alex


----------



## JohnG (Apr 9, 2011)

*Re: Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what?*

This company will come after you for sure; they are extremely protective of their IP. It's way too close. Inverting is by no means a foolproof method either.


----------



## nikolas (Apr 9, 2011)

Yes, the said company is apparently awful at such... :-/ And it IS extremely close.

If I remember my laws correctly (which I don't. I'm a composer, not a lawyer), you can keep the orchestration and the harmonic progression and the rhythm (these things are not copyrighted as far as I know) but NOT the melodic progression or the voicing inside the harmony... Now balancing all these are VERY difficult and IT IS a difficult position you're in.


----------



## Studio E (Apr 9, 2011)

*Re: Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what?*

Thanks guys. I'm continuing to rework this. I'll get the melody to be completely different and then try to rework some of the backing tracks too. Believe me, it doesn't make me happy to do this either. Just trying to make a client happy, get paid, and not get in trouble. I would have much rather just started from scratch on this. Thanks again for the help. I'll try to post a revision later. 

Eric


----------



## JohnG (Apr 9, 2011)

nikolas @ 9th April 2011 said:


> Yes, the said company is apparently awful at such... :-/ And it IS extremely close.
> 
> If I remember my laws correctly (which I don't. I'm a composer, not a lawyer), you can keep the orchestration and the harmonic progression and the rhythm (these things are not copyrighted as far as I know) but NOT the melodic progression or the voicing inside the harmony... Now balancing all these are VERY difficult and IT IS a difficult position you're in.



I don't know Nikolas; I'm not a lawyer either but I don't think that you can can keep all that and expect to be in the clear. It is the company's signature tune.


----------



## José Herring (Apr 9, 2011)

JohnG @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> nikolas @ 9th April 2011 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the said company is apparently awful at such... :-/ And it IS extremely close.
> ...



You can't. This is a common misconception. 

In NY anyway there's a complicated system of figuring out infringements and it's not just limited to melody.

Oh, and btw I wasn't suggesting inversion as a final solution but as a starting point that leads to further exploration that by the end, if done right, would lead to a completely different melody, which would imply unique chord changes but that would still bear a harmonic and melodic similarity but not exactness to the original. It's worked well in the past.

Jose


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Apr 9, 2011)

*Re: Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what?*

But you know, screwing with the melody to that degree ends making it sound like pooh. So in the end, you end up with a bad melody, that kind of sounds like the original. I would write another melody (your own), with the same arrangement, and see if you can't make them see the light: it's better to have a good melody that is yours than to have a former great, now bad melody that you might get sued over.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Apr 9, 2011)

nikolas @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> Yes, the said company is apparently awful at such... :-/ And it IS extremely close.
> 
> If I remember my laws correctly (which I don't. I'm a composer, not a lawyer), you can keep the orchestration and the harmonic progression and the rhythm (these things are not copyrighted as far as I know) but NOT the melodic progression or the voicing inside the harmony... Now balancing all these are VERY difficult and IT IS a difficult position you're in.



I can definitely tell you that such is no longer the case. As mentionned above I ran into trouble two weeks ago, and there were no melodies involved, but just drums and a guitar arpeggio...

Do a search on music copyright infringement and you will discover that the old "only the melody counts" is no longer applicable.

Oh, and an inversion still very much relates to a referenced melody DNA...


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Apr 9, 2011)

*Re: Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what?*

This reminds me of something that is on my mind every time I write a melody: given the limitation of melodies that are pleasing to the average ear (and director/producer), you know, what are the chances that my 'original' melody is actually identical to that of another cue, by another composer, that I've never heard, but that is part of a score for a big $$ project? I suppose I should get an iPhone recognize-that-song app so that it can tell me if my melody already exists... Unless the other cue has not been released as part of a separate soundtrack cd/download, is only heard in the film/tv show; in which case I'm toast. :( >8o ~o)


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Apr 9, 2011)

Interestingly enough, I just did a quick test on Google, and very, very little came up when I entered strings like, composer+film+copyright+infringement, or even composer+sued.


----------



## rJames (Apr 9, 2011)

*Re: Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what?*

I've been told that it is more about whether a "jury of your peers," can be convinced that you are infringing on the copyright.

I can hear the original melody clear as a bell.

It's not just the melody, it is very recognizable...not an easy cue to replace!


----------



## mverta (Apr 9, 2011)

*Re: Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what?*

If you use this, you're going to Mousechwitz.

_Mike


----------



## José Herring (Apr 9, 2011)

Patrick de Caumette @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> nikolas @ Sat Apr 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the said company is apparently awful at such... :-/ And it IS extremely close.
> ...



Jeez, nobody is talking about him being so daft as to leave it at just a pure inversion. The inversion becomes the starting point, then you develop the melody from there. Trust me, it's highly workable. You just can't be stupid about it. You have to put the time in to really come up with something original, but that originality would be based on the genus of the original tune so it will still bear some relation to the original, but it would be a whole new tune. It's a quick way of analyzing a tune I guess.

Jose


----------



## Mike Greene (Apr 9, 2011)

*Re: Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what?*



Ned Bouhalassa @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> But you know, screwing with the melody to that degree ends making it sound like pooh. So in the end, you end up with a bad melody, that kind of sounds like the original. I would write another melody (your own), with the same arrangement, and see if you can't make them see the light: it's better to have a good melody that is yours than to have a former great, now bad melody that you might get sued over.


Yes. No offense, but to my ears, the changes you did make to the melody just make for a weird song. It's almost like it's a gameshow called "Spot the Wrong Note." (I'm truly not trying to be mean. Its just that someone listening is going to think _"Oh, I know that song! Wait, that note wasn't right!"_

Ad campaigns are the biggest targets for lawsuits, so you have to be the most careful with them. It sounds like they're trying to reference "the company" in one way or another, which means you're screwed from the get-go, because the ad will make it crystal clear what you're doing. They basically want "the song," but don't want to pay for it, so they're having you do a soundalike. All to fool the audience into thinking they got "the song." That more or less guarantees you lose in a lawsuit, even if you change a lot of notes. With advertising, intent can be just about all they need.

As Ned says, your better bet is to do a song with a similar feel and forget trying to cop the melody. Make an entirely new melody that evokes the same emotions. The ad agency might balk at this, but when you tell them they'll need to sign an waiver indemnifying you of any legal actions, they'll change their tune.


----------



## David Story (Apr 9, 2011)

*Re: Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what?*

The magic lullaby vibe is probably the goal that can please the client and not be actionable.
A new melody can resemble the old, even unconsciusly. A systematic alteration of every note can get you in the right direction. But you could look to another song as a model...

This may be of interest
here


----------



## Guy Bacos (Apr 9, 2011)

*Re: Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what?*



Ned Bouhalassa @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> But you know, screwing with the melody to that degree ends making it sound like pooh. So in the end, you end up with a bad melody, that kind of sounds like the original. I would write another melody (your own), with the same arrangement, and see if you can't make them see the light: it's better to have a good melody that is yours than to have a former great, now bad melody that you might get sued over.



I'd agree with that.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Apr 9, 2011)

*Re: Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what?*

Dont do the job! If you do it, they will ask you to do it in the future as well! Advertising is indeed notorious for referencing.

Just tell them its not possible. In the end, its your ass and reputation on the line.


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## Studio E (Apr 10, 2011)

*Re: Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what?*

Ok guys,

First off, I really appreciate your feedback, really. I feel a bit like an idiot presenting this stuff and then coming to the realization of how badly I have just blatantly ripped this thing off, lol. However, at the same time, as a local guy, I was kind of proud of how well I had managed to rip the thing. You know, like a practice mock-up and it had all kinds of harmonies that I had never worked with before. Rob and a few others really helped me understand those. It's just bitter-sweet to make the client happy and not be able to appreciate what you have done at the same time. 

So anyway, I have pretty much completely changed the melody, and now, a few harmonic aspects. Sigh, I'm not saying it's great. I'm just trying to figure out what I can do to pull my ass out of hot water and still come out clean with the client . So, I changed the link to a revised version and I'm also putting the link below so you don't have to go back to the beginning post.. Please, I'd love some more feedback. You've all been very generous with your time already and I cant begin to tell you how much I appreciate everyone's help. This is a GREAT community! Feel free to rip apart this one, lol. Thanks a million.

Eric

http://soundcloud.com/studio-e/ala-alt-2


----------



## Studio E (Apr 10, 2011)

*Re: Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what?*

Oh, and I might mention that, since this melody/harmony is in flux, I haven't really smoothed everything out yet. It's close but I'll try to smooth the melody line a bit more for sure. Thanks.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Apr 10, 2011)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> Interestingly enough, I just did a quick test on Google, and very, very little came up when I entered strings like, composer+film+copyright+infringement, or even composer+sued.



Ned, try "music copyright infringement"
a bunch of things show up with a search under that title...


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Apr 10, 2011)

*Re: Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what?*



rJames @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> I've been told that it is more about whether a "jury of your peers," can be convinced that you are infringing on the copyright.
> 
> I can hear the original melody clear as a bell.
> 
> It's not just the melody, it is very recognizable...not an easy cue to replace!



The goal is to never end up facing a jury of your peers.
By that time, your reputation is compromised, and the agency and the client will never call you again for a gig ever.

The lesson i've learned is that no matter how close the agency wants you to get to a reference track, you have to go as far as you deem reasonable, and then stand your ground and say no to further edits that will put you in the dangerous zone.
They may decide to go to someone else, but it's your ass, not theirs...


----------



## poseur (Apr 10, 2011)

*Re: Please listen, and; Am I just asking for it or what?*



Lex @ Sat Apr 09 said:


> This is more then close...and even worse its very clear that it's done deliberately close.
> 
> Risky business.
> 
> alex



more risky than risky.

not a great way to get started in a composing career, imo.

more personal creativity needs to be applied,
to avoid trouble..... and, if it were me, for my own personal satisfaction.

the harmony, and maybe even its periodicity need to be "in the style of",
but not nearly so close.....
which may inspire re-writing the actual melody, itself.

if it were me:
if i couldn't find a creative way to develop or twist _much_ further than this,
i would def NOT do the job.

all from my limited perspective, of course, my <2¢;
ymmv.

so, yes:
you are _*clearly*_ & _*indubitably*_, ime, "asking for it".

best,
dt


----------



## David Story (Apr 10, 2011)

Caution, yes. But plenty of people write magic lullabies. I wouldn't give up.

EDIT
I would defer to poseur or Patrick. I think it's the middle section that's causing the concern, but if they still see it as too close, I would go with a Ravel model.


----------



## David Story (Apr 10, 2011)

Pretty good, I like it. The harmony at :14-18 could be different. Maybe something like In My Daughter's Eyes.
The end is nice. You're getting the lullaby vibe.
You can learn a lot in studying a great song in a style you don't usually do.


----------



## Studio E (Apr 10, 2011)

Thanks David. I'm about to post a further revision........with sprinkles on top


----------



## Studio E (Apr 10, 2011)

.......and a bit more revision.


http://soundcloud.com/studio-e/ala-alt-2


----------



## EthanStoller (Apr 10, 2011)

This thread reminded me of this Family Guy clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qI3IHahHQIg

I guess different rules apply to parody.


----------



## poseur (Apr 10, 2011)

Studio E @ Sun Apr 10 said:


> .......and a bit more revision.
> 
> 
> http://soundcloud.com/studio-e/ala-alt-2



dude (or, dudesse);
me, i'm not gonna "help" you more, by listening to further of your revisions.

if you cannot analyse the original piece for yourself,
as well as "your own version",
and be truly & simply capable of comparing them, w/authority?

then, in my single, potentially stupid opinion:
*you should NOT be doing this job, at all.....*
except (maybe) in PRIVATE, for your own edification:
_*but, certainly NOT within a commercial environment, for a paying client*_.

sorry. i apologise if this appears harsh; i do not mean any harm, at all.

dt


----------



## rJames (Apr 10, 2011)

I see the problem as this; to please the client, you need to evoke Disney. If a jury of your peers hears Disney, then you are infringing on copyright.

I guess that's too simplistic, but that is the crux of it.

I don't know your age and situation in life, but if you have a family that you need to take care of you must think about the worst outcome. They could take pretty much everything from you unless you are protected (personally) by incorporation or something like that.

BTW no one in this thread is giving legal advice. Everyone here could say it sounds great now and if a giant corporation wants to take it to the jury and has powerful expert witnesses, you have to defend yourself with lawyers and expert witnesses. Your new beach home could be gone forever!


----------



## Studio E (Apr 10, 2011)

Well rJames, I think that you're correct in analyzing the situation. That is the crux of it. I'm just really unsure of it at this point. I have changed every single note of the melody. None of it is the same and I have also reworked the bottom end so that the chord progression varies from the original too. The production company is one that I have worked with for 7 or 8 years and who provides me with 90% of all my work. I'm just sitting between a rock and a hard place and determined to make this thing mine enough to make everyone happy and not ruffle anyone's feathers over copyright infringement. When I first started this thread, I WAS indeed way too close. No doubt about it. I feel way better about the way it sits now but was just wanting a bit more input. I have done probably 50 paying projects, all completely original (or as original as anyone), so I do have experience as a composer. This is just the first time I've ever been put in this position by a client. 

Poseur, sorry if this bugs you in some way. I'm seriously just trying to do the right thing here. There are people here that have WAY more experience than I do in matters compositional, legal, and otherwise. It's a forum for learning. This is a learning process. I can and have analyzed my piece and the original. Just because I have done it doesn't mean that I wouldn't take into consideration other people's opinions on the matter.


----------



## David Story (Apr 10, 2011)

Good job, you've learned a lot.

NOW WRITE THE AD. 

Start fresh.


----------



## rJames (Apr 10, 2011)

Maybe your production client doesn't even know how dangerous this is. Or maybe they are not worried because the venue is not public (its still illegal to infringe on copyright).

In my previous life as a graphic artist I was involved in in-house productions for giant multi-national corporations that didn't blink an eye when the Black Eyed Peas' music was used illegally in their productions.

You have to get caught and then someone has to have the will to prosecute.

This thread includes the info that Disney vigorously defends their copyrights and the national advertising is where this stuff goes to court.

But even 30 years ago I remember someone telling me that a $10,000 fine is not unusual even when copyright is infringed even for non-profit productions.

I'm pretty sure that Scott Smalley mentioned in his course that much of copying a temp track can be done just by orchestration. 

You seem to be using the original track as a template where you take away a note and replace it with another or change a harmony for a bar. 

Start with the same balance of instruments but looking for the feel and intent of the cue to create your own.


----------



## Guy Bacos (Apr 10, 2011)

The thing is, there are so many more ways to evoke Disney than this constant reference to "When You Wish Upon a Star". These are a few pitches I did a while back for a Disney style commercial, I think you could feel the Disney-esque style with very little reference to any Disney cliché songs. The programming is not so great, many years ago...

http://www.guybacos.com/audio/Disney%20Balloon.mp3

http://www.guybacos.com/audio/Disney%20Paper.mp3


----------



## José Herring (Apr 10, 2011)

Studio E @ Sun Apr 10 said:


> .......and a bit more revision.
> 
> 
> http://soundcloud.com/studio-e/ala-alt-2



Now start from here and make it totally your own. And you'll have it. 

But, imo you need to take the next step and make it totally your own composition. Kind of a "ok, I've got the tune down now, I see how they did it, now what can 'Studio E' do to make it better". You always got to beat the temp, imo. Right now you're still sort of copying.

Take a chance. Don't be afraid. If you fail and they never hire you again. So what?

Jose


----------



## poseur (Apr 10, 2011)

Studio E @ Sun Apr 10 said:


> Poseur, sorry if this bugs you in some way. I'm seriously just trying to do the right thing here.


well, i'm, sorry that it bugs me, too,
and apologised in advance for any stress my post may have caused, but.....
you're in a dangerous position, and your lack-of-confidence really makes it scary, to me.

that, and the fact that you needed to seek access to a chart of this tune,
in order to know what it was you'd be "trying to cop",
seemed to me that this was not your kind of job..... at this point.

in doing these kinds of things,
with someone like The Big "D" as as potential legal nemesis, well:
that seems too dangerous for a composer to be standing on "weak feet".
i mean nothing personally insulting by this;
we are not all suited to every kind of writing-job.
certainly, i am not, anyways.



Studio E @ Sun Apr 10 said:


> There are people here that have WAY more experience than I do in matters compositional, legal, and otherwise.



well, maybe i'm one of those people.
maybe not, but i certainly do have a fair wackload of experience scoring
both films & some more "commercial" content.

as someone who has settled rightful legal actions, from the other side
--- the "copied" side ---
i've accepted quite a few settlements, out-of-court;
even from my side, it was a drag: stressful & long-winded. not fun.

as the composer on a big (well, not so big, but: $40m) feature not so long ago,
i was asked vehemently to copy a temp-cue, verbatim;
i refused, though it almost came-to-blows with the extremely athletic director.
(i am not extremely athletic.)

recently, working on a relatively major ad campaign,
it happened that i was implored to directly copy a friend's successful band:
i did not do so.



Studio E @ Sun Apr 10 said:


> It's a forum for learning. This is a learning process. I can and have analyzed my piece and the original. Just because I have done it doesn't mean that I wouldn't take into consideration other people's opinions on the matter.



all true.
legally, though, you play a very dangerous game by showing your cards
--- your tune, itself, in addition to _*the original piece-in-question*_! ---
in public, here on the internets.
dude.
yeah: even here.

and, as i said:
you should not need to ask anyone if "it's too close";
as a composer, you should know where your version stands, in relation.....
..... which, to be fair to you, i believe you already did so,
but simply couldn't find a way to trust your own opinion.

still, in the long run:
i agree with some others, here, if, indeed, 
you feel that you really _*must*_ proceed w/this job:
go start over, start fresh,
knowing now what you do, in fact, know about the composition of the original piece-in-question:
start fresh, and from your very own POV:
more like:
_"my take on such a Big Deal piece that's controlled by The Big "D"_.
THEN compare them..... for yourself, before you submit.

d


----------

