# When is similar too similar?



## mcalis

*Full disclosure:* the original title of this thread was: "Blakus plagiarized (1st prize winner Oticons Faculty)" which I later changed to "Blakus plagiarized? (1st prize winner Oticons Faculty)". I've now changed it a last time because the wording of my OP and the title were not helping create the discussion I was hoping to have and causing drama.

Rory screenshotted my original post which you can find here: https://vi-control.net/community/th...nner-oticons-faculty-2020.106956/post-4783507

EDIT 17-03-2021:
I've now been in touch with the Oticons Faculty and Blakus has chipped in later in this thread. Now that I have information from all sides, it has become clear to me that the likeness between tracks was accidental. Please see my last post here: https://vi-control.net/community/threads/when-is-similar-too-similar.106956/post-4786202


----------



## gst98

wow that's not sublte


----------



## BenG

Honestly, it can go either way. I think all music borrows from all other music in large part and plagiarism can always be a 'grey-zone'. I've come to feel that intent is the real decider of whether something is a 'rip-off' or just in the same vein, with the same influences, etc.

In this case, I think the question is what was the composers intent and process. Did they arrive at a similar track by chance (very possible) or was there explicit copying going on. Either way, it's not for me to say and I would let the person defend themselves before making any serious claims or judgements.


----------



## Rory

Have you raised this with Blake Robinson or Oticons Faculty or Yakov Alexandrov, or did you just decide that it would be a good idea to launch a preemptive, public defamatory attack against Mr. Alexandrov?


----------



## Rory

mcalis said:


> I did DM blakus on here about this a while ago but got no response, which is fine, and honestly I've been on the fence about making this thread. I don't mean to drag him into anything or make a big stink.


Ahh, so you sent a message to Blake Robinson and he ignored it. Having been ignored by the person that you claim is a victim, you have now decided to indeed "make a big stink".

Leaving aside the ethics of your behaviour, let me tell you what else you are doing. You are opening up yourself, and anyone else who participates in your little lynching, to a lawsuit for both general and punitive damages for defamation. You know what else? Unless Mr. Robinson, who has ignored you, actively takes your "side", you are SOL. If Mr. Alexandrov hires a lawyer, which he should, you'll get to issue a public retraction and apology, and then write a cheque to Mr. Alexandrov for damages and his legal costs.


----------



## merlinhimself

Yikes, definitely a lot of hard similarities, but I agree with @Rory , Yakov Alexandrov doesn't need to be publicly shamed for it.


----------



## mcalis

Rory said:


> Have you raised this with Blake Robinson


Yes, and you would have known this if you had read the last paragraph. There could be all kinds of reasons he didn't reply, you're making assumptions. And frankly, it's not like I need his permission to point out the obvious.



Rory said:


> [Have you raised this with ...] Oticons Faculty


Yes.



Rory said:


> or did you just decide that it would be a good idea to launch a preemptive, public defamatory attack against Mr. Alexandrov?


Do you think it's a good idea for someone to win 1st prize in a public competition when the similarities are this obvious? Even if it's an accidental copy, I don't think it is.

I don't have a horse in this race, I haven't submitted to this competition ever, it's not my work that's being copied - I'm just calling it as I see it. If you think differently, by all means.



Rory said:


> Leaving aside the ethics of your behaviour, let me tell you what else you are doing. You are opening up yourself, and anyone else who participates in your little lynching, to a lawsuit for both general and punitive damages for defamation.



Hang on, how am I now the bad guy in this? I could have posted just the two tracks with no description and anyone with functioning ears would be able to tell what's going on. Also, note the composer's name is in the soundcloud track itself, I didn't make any extra effort to find the guy. I find it ironic to find myself being lectured on ethics in this situation.


----------



## Rory

mcalis said:


> Hang on, how am I now the bad guy in this?


What? You have made a serious allegation of plagiarism against a named artist. That is textbook defamation. There's no question about that. The only question, if Alexandrov hires a lawyer, is whether you have a defence. You can't defend your allegation without Blake Robinson's active assistance. He has ignored you. Absent his assistance, it's just a matter of how fast you apologise and how big a cheque you write. Same for anybody else who jumps on your little train.


----------



## Rory

You think this is funny. You have now changed your title and first post to try to make yourself sound innocent. Do you not realise that what you originally wrote doesn't just disappear?

This is a screen capture of what your first post said a few minutes ago. It included a blatant allegation of plagiarism, a word that you have now suddenly made disappear.

What do you suppose would happen if you wrote this about another member of this forum?


----------



## marclawsonmusic

You are funny, Rory. You clearly don't know how the legal system works.

Anyway, if I were Blakus, I would honestly feel honored that someone ripped me off. After all, imitation is the best kind of flattery.  

(Speaking of imitation, this music is very reminiscent of John Powell's HTTYD.)


----------



## Rory

marclawsonmusic said:


> You are funny, Rory. You clearly don't know how the legal system works.


I know it well enough to have argued cases at the Supreme Court level. You?

Yah figure that there might be a reason why @mcalis is now trying to scrub his text?


----------



## Kony

Rory said:


> I know it well enough to have argued cases at the Supreme Court level.


Prove it.


----------



## South Thames

> What? You have made a serious allegation of plagiarism against against an artist. You have committed the tort of defamation. There's no question about that. The only question, if Alexandrov hires a lawyer, is whether you have a defence. You can't defend your allegation without Blake Robinson's active assistance. He has ignored you. Absent his assistance, it's just a matter of how fast you apologise and how big a cheque you write. Same for anybody else who jumps on your little train


I have to say, this is one of the most ridiculous, preening responses I've ever read.



> Yah figure that there might be a reason why @mcalis is now trying to scrub his text?



Perhaps because some pro-bono keyboard jockey with a little legalese in his vocab has nothing better to do than throw his weight around.


----------



## iaink

Rory said:


> What? You have made a serious allegation of plagiarism against a named artist. That is textbook defamation. There's no question about that. The only question, if Alexandrov hires a lawyer, is whether you have a defence. You can't defend your allegation without Blake Robinson's active assistance. He has ignored you. Absent his assistance, it's just a matter of how fast you apologise and how big a cheque you write. Same for anybody else who jumps on your little train.


It's maybe impolite but it's hardly defamation.


----------



## kenose

Really odd.... the track structure and so much of the general orchestration is near identical down to the outro section...definitely more than a subtle similarity.


----------



## Rory

Kony said:


> Prove it.


The question isn't what I can prove, but as I have explained, what @mcalis can prove.

Now that he's busy laundering what he wrote, it looks like he's getting the message.

I'll bet you'd be just delighted if you were the target of his original allegation.


----------



## Rory

iaink said:


> It's maybe impolite but it's hardly defamation.


It certainly is, and the original title and post made blatant claims of plagiarism. If you think publicly accusing someone of plagiarism isn't defamation, just "impolite", I don't know what to say.

There are few allegations more destructive of an artist's reputation than plagiarism.


----------



## Rory

Anyway, I've said what I've got to say, and I have better ways to spend the rest of my evening.


----------



## ism

We don’t need any of this drama. It’s valid to point out similarities, valid to warn that it’s not cool to make overly sensationalist accusations. And no need for any of the drama. Because it’s all kind of mean.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

Rory said:


> I know it well enough to have argued cases at the Supreme Court level. You?


Really, you are an attorney? Hmmm... I figured you would understand the following: 

Mr. Alexandrov would need to pay for a retainer - at least $5K here in US - just to begin pursuing the matter.
Which jurisdiction would this 'slander' or 'defamation' case be tried in? Alexandrov is in... well his name sounds Russian or Eastern European to me? And McAlis is probably somewhere else. But the 'defamation' took place 'on the internet'. So which court are we talking about filing this case in? Whose jurisdiction?
If the case goes to trial, plaintiff would need to spend 10x or 20x of that retainer just to get through trial and _attempt _to get a verdict / judgment. (Kinda risky!)
Speaking of judgment, how does one value this particular 'defamation'? I mean, how much revenue has Mr. Alexandrov lost as a result of this 'defamation' on a composer's internet forum? Hmmm...
In order to collect on any judgment, Mr. McAlis would actually need to have funds to pay it. Not saying he doesn't, but there is that risk.
At the end of the day, ANY attorney worth his salt would say this is not worth pursuing. There is no case here. 

And if the case _did _go before a judge, I am sure they would immediately order the parties to mediation.

So, what in the actual fuck are you going on about?

PS - Now I remember why I had you on ignore.

PPS - I think I might have just been trolled. That's 10 minutes of my life I won't get back. LOL


----------



## mcalis

ism said:


> We don’t need any of this drama. It’s valid to point out similarities, valid to warn that it’s not cool to make overly sensationalist accusations. And no need for any of the drama. Because it’s all kind of mean.


Fair enough, and I've taken the point I could've started this differently. Honestly, at this point I am tempted to edit to make it extra clear I'm only stating my opinion based on what I am hearing. Trouble is, someone will probably get upset if I edit again, and I stand by the gist of what I said anyway: the similarities are, in my opinion, too close for comfort.


----------



## ism

mcalis said:


> Fair enough, and I've taken the point I could've started this differently. Honestly, at this point I am tempted to edit to make it extra clear I'm only stating my opinion based on what I am hearing. Trouble is, someone will probably get upset if I edit again, and I stand by the gist of what I said anyway: the similarities are, in my opinion, too close for comfort.


I'll add that it's totally valid to, upon reflection, edit you OP to tone it down a bit (including changing the title). I don't know why you would be criticized for doing this, it happens all the time and is usually praised. 

And of course, feeling strongly about possibly excessive similarities is also a valid thing to discuss here. 

So there's legitimate things to discuss here - including how to discuss such things without it descending in unhelpful drama.


----------



## merlinhimself

marclawsonmusic said:


> Really, you are an attorney? Hmmm... I figured you would understand the following:
> 
> Mr. Alexandrov would need to pay for a retainer - at least $5K here in US - just to begin pursuing the matter.
> Which jurisdiction would this 'slander' or 'defamation' case be tried in? Alexandrov is in... well his name sounds Russian or Eastern European to me? And McAlis is probably somewhere else. But the 'defamation' took place 'on the internet'. So which court are we talking about filing this case in? Whose jurisdiction?
> If the case goes to trial, plaintiff would need to spend 10x or 20x of that retainer just to get through trial and _attempt _to get a verdict / judgment. (Kinda risky!)
> Speaking of judgment, how does one value this particular 'defamation'? I mean, how much revenue has Mr. Alexandrov lost as a result of this 'defamation' on a composer's internet forum? Hmmm...
> In order to collect on any judgment, Mr. McAlis would actually need to have funds to pay it. Not saying he doesn't, but there is that risk.
> At the end of the day, ANY attorney worth his salt would say this is not worth pursuing. There is no case here.
> 
> And if the case _did _go before a judge, I am sure they would immediately order the parties to mediation.
> 
> So, what in the actual fuck are you going on about?
> 
> PS - Now I remember why I had you on ignore.
> 
> PPS - I think I might have just been trolled. That's 10 minutes of my life I won't get back. LOL


The thread should just be ended with this.


----------



## Rory

marclawsonmusic said:


> Really, you are an attorney? Hmmm... I figured you would understand the following:
> 
> Mr. Alexandrov would need to pay for a retainer - at least $5K here in US - just to begin pursuing the matter.
> Which jurisdiction would this 'slander' or 'defamation' case be tried in? Alexandrov is in... well his name sounds Russian or Eastern European to me? And McAlis is probably somewhere else. But the 'defamation' took place 'on the internet'. So which court are we talking about filing this case in? Whose jurisdiction?
> If the case goes to trial, plaintiff would need to spend 10x or 20x of that retainer just to get through trial and _attempt _to get a verdict / judgment. (Kinda risky!)
> Speaking of judgment, how does one value this particular 'defamation'? I mean, how much revenue has Mr. Alexandrov lost as a result of this 'defamation' on a composer's internet forum? Hmmm...
> In order to collect on any judgment, Mr. McAlis would actually need to have funds to pay it. Not saying he doesn't, but there is that risk.
> At the end of the day, ANY attorney worth his salt would say this is not worth pursuing. There is no case here.
> 
> And if the case _did _go before a judge, I am sure they would immediately order the parties to mediation.
> 
> So, what in the actual fuck are you going on about?
> 
> PS - Now I remember why I had you on ignore.
> 
> PPS - I think I might have just been trolled. That's 10 minutes of my life I won't get back. LOL


I'm going to answer these questions, and then I'm done.

There are lawyers, including me, who would take this on on a minimal fee, close to pro bono basis. There are a lot of us who have concerns about what's happening on the internet, and this thread, as originally worded, was outrageous. His statements are not much better now, but at least toned down a little. There is a growing attitude, evident in your own post, that people can get away with saying anything on the internet because nobody can do anything about it. Your own post essentially says that. A lot of lawyers think that this needs to change, especially when individuals are targeted, as happened here.

The complaint could be made from the U.S. or wherever @mcalis lives. In the U.S., defences when one is talking about public figures don't apply. I get the sense that some Americans here may not understand that.

The case wouldn't last long, let alone go to trial, because @mcalis can't defend his behaviour without the active support and evidence of Blake Robinson. What we know so far is that Robinson has ignored him. There would also be the matter of the owner of this site that would need to be addressed, including turning over the originals of the material that @mcalis has been busy "fixing". I fully expect that @mcalis would be writing a retraction and an apology within a couple of weeks.

In a defamation action, general damages are awarded and sometimes punitive damages. General damages are awarded for damage to reputation. There aren't a lot of more damaging things that one can do to an artist than publicly accuse him or her of plagiarism. Contrary to what you believe, general and punitive damages for defamation are not based on loss of income, although any loss of income would be included under the heading of what are known as special damages.

It seems obvious to me that if this attack had been made on a member of this forum, all hell would break loose. I find it incredible that people are defending this, apparently because the target is an outsider.

When I read this in its original form, I seriously considered contacting Mr. Alexandrov, and offering to represent him. The demand letter would go within 48 hours. I'm not kidding.

I gave you a serious, professional answer to your question. Whether you treat it seriously is your business.

Have a good evening.


----------



## davidanthony

General note: US attorneys are bound by rules of conduct (every jurisdiction is different), and most have language that strongly discourages attorneys from making statements about the actionability or likelihood of success of a specific claim to non-clients (you can start an attorney-client relationship this way, and be liable for everything that entails). So if you see someone saying something like "you have an X case" or "there's no X case" on an internet forum, it's highly likely they're not an attorney (or just not a very good one).

After a quick listen they both reminded me of the Pirates of the Caribbean score. To me, it's not at all out of the realm of possibility that they're independent creations with a common inspiration.

Ever since the Blurred Lines case I've completely given up on trying to predict where these things will go and focused my attention on making sure my insurance is current


----------



## fourier

The complete structure of the song, the theme, tempo and build-up are remarkably similar to me as a layman (you don't even need to transpose if you looped them together). My experiences are related to EDM and it's very rare to see anyone claim plagiarism there. However, I thought that the complexity in scoring this type of music is so vast that you see less happy coincidences and rather more nods towards what inspired the compositional choices? I have no clue about this competition, perhaps the format also lent itself to more similar compositions? 

I understand the damage it can do to someone's reputation to insinuate things, but it would be interesting to hear thoughts on this subject, in more broad terms as it is a fascinating topic in music in general.


----------



## Rory

davidanthony said:


> General note: US attorneys are bound by rules of conduct (every jurisdiction is different), and most have language that strongly discourages attorneys from making statements about the actionability or likelihood of success of a specific claim to non-clients (you can start an attorney-client relationship this way, and be liable for everything that entails). So if you see someone saying something like "you have an X case" or "there's no X case" on an internet forum, it's highly likely they're not an attorney (or just not a very good one).


There is no rule of conduct that prevents a lawyer from expressing a general view on the merits of a case before he's engaged. Furthermore, lawyers express views on the merits of legal positions on public fora all the time. If you don't know that, turn on cable news or read a newspaper.


----------



## Kony

Rory said:


> The question isn't what I can prove


The point was you claimed to have Supreme Court experience - prove it, was my point.


----------



## iaink

Listen to 45s in the first, 35s in the second. Pretty clear one drew influence directly from the other.

The whole track is very similar - for a few moments it rises to the level of being almost identical.

A composer entered his piece into a competition... scrutiny is fair.


----------



## chillbot

marclawsonmusic said:


> Anyway, if I were Blakus, I would honestly feel honored that someone ripped me off.


I listened to both, twice, before I read any comments here.

I think it's definitely true they ripped off his track in the blueprint and in that 6/8 feel and tempo, but that's about it. The second track is so bad and such a mess in production and orchestration compared to Blakus's track, my question is, how on earth did this win anything? @Blakus ?


----------



## markleake

I'm not a lawyer, so take with a grain of salt....

My understanding is defamation is harder to prosecute in the US than in Europe or other jurisdictions. This is because of guarantees provided by the US constitution, and the state constitutions, which give rights of speech.

Importantly, there are certain natural defences available in the US that make comments/posts like this one by @mcalis difficult to prosecute as libel. You need to prove that the statements made are not true, were not made as a simple review of the material, and were made with the intent to defame... I think on all counts this would fail. You need to get through all these hoops before it can even be considered as libel.

You'd also need to show jurisdiction... you can't just choose to prosecute someone in a US court because you feel like it. That's not how courts work. And as a lawyer you can't just choose to step in and help someone prosecute a case randomly, you are limited in what courts you can work in, who you can represent, etc. You could help *fund* the case I guess, but that's likely it.

Ironically, the most libelous statement in this thread seems to be the conclusory accusation of libel made by the lawyer person. 

The OP is just saying it sounds like one person copied the other. To my ears he is onto something. (Or at least these tracks are copied from a similar source.) So yeah, not cool, no.

But isn't this in a way what we all do to some degree? I'm sure most of us have thought "oh I like that, I'll store that away in my head as something I can use in future". Not to say we directly or consciously copy, but I think we all take various parts of rhythms, structures, orchestrations, etc. from other things we hear to some degree.


----------



## marius_dm

To me it sounds like the second track has very similar orchestration, arrangement, and rhythm. Similar chords and feel but the melody is different. Either they both copied the same track or one copied the other. Which is fine IMO, copying (or “getting inspired by”) other people is how music happened since time immemorial.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

Rory said:


> I'm going to answer these questions, and then I'm done.
> 
> There are lawyers, including me, who would take this on on a minimal fee, close to pro bono basis. There are a lot of us who have concerns about what's happening on the internet, and this thread, as originally worded, was outrageous. His statements are not much better now, but at least toned down a little. There is a growing attitude, evident in your own post, that people can get away with saying anything on the internet because nobody can do anything about it. Your own post essentially says that. A lot of lawyers think that this needs to change, especially when individuals are targeted, as happened here.
> 
> The complaint could be made from the U.S. or wherever @mcalis lives. In the U.S., defences when one is talking about public figures don't apply. I get the sense that some Americans here may not understand that.
> 
> The case wouldn't last long, let alone go to trial, because @mcalis can't defend his behaviour without the active support and evidence of Blake Robinson. What we know so far is that Robinson has ignored him. There would also be the matter of the owner of this site that would need to be addressed, including turning over the originals of the material that @mcalis has been busy "fixing". I fully expect that @mcalis would be writing a retraction and an apology within a couple of weeks.
> 
> In a defamation action, general damages are awarded and sometimes punitive damages. General damages are awarded for damage to reputation. There aren't a lot of more damaging things that one can do to an artist than publicly accuse him or her of plagiarism. Contrary to what you believe, general and punitive damages for defamation are not based on loss of income, although any loss of income would be included under the heading of what are known as special damages.
> 
> It seems obvious to me that if this attack had been made on a member of this forum, all hell would break loose. I find it incredible that people are defending this, apparently because the target is an outsider.
> 
> When I read this in its original form, I seriously considered contacting Mr. Alexandrov, and offering to represent him. The demand letter would go within 48 hours. I'm not kidding.
> 
> I gave you a serious, professional answer to your question. Whether you treat it seriously is your business.
> 
> Have a good evening.


Fair enough.

The only reason I think people can get away with whatever they want is because it's happened to me on multiple occasions, and I didn't have the money to fight it. I once had someone put their name on music I wrote but the attorney I contacted asked me if it was worth his retainer to fight it. He asked me, 'can you write more music?' Of course I can, so he suggested I just walk away.

I am not saying it's right, but I'm saying that the _reality _is if someone genuinely does injustice to you - and you have legal recourse - but don't have $$$, you are fucked. Just my personal experience and pretty much what I've seen from the 'justice' system.

If you want to take a case like this because you are one of the 'good' guys, how nice of you... but you are waiving the fee most normal folks would have to pay and it is certainly not reality.

You know what, I think you are being combative and are someone who is completely disconnected from reality. And you still haven't cited any evidence (hello, counsel?) of your involvement in a Supreme Court case. You sound like an ambulance chasing attorney who wants to fly a billboard telling people to lawyer up, but doesn't give a damn what it costs them. 'Better Call Saul!'

And all this justice-whoring doesn't matter once you get in front of a judge who will drop the gavel and demand you mediate the case and find a solution out of court. Lawyers like you just eat people's time on false hopes. Please go straight to hell and don't pass GO or collect $200.


----------



## Kony

markleake said:


> Ironically, the most libelous statement in this thread seems to be the conclusory accusation of libel made by the lawyer person.


The irony is that you appear to be making more legal sense than the lawyer person who's apparently had (yet to be proven) Supreme Court experience.


----------



## markleake

marius_dm said:


> Which is fine IMO, copying (or “getting inspired by”) other people is how music happened since time immemorial.


Agreed. But I'm not comfortable about doing this deliberately without saying/admitting it. Including if you submit it for some kind of competition and don't make that clear in your submission.


----------



## Macrawn

I'm all for influences, but that is one of the most blatant rip offs I've ever heard.


----------



## Kony

marclawsonmusic said:


> And you still haven't cited any evidence (hello, counsel?) of your involvement in a Supreme Court case.


I get the impression he's been watching too many episodes of Judge Judy.


----------



## Bman70

The second one seems to me to be an extremely generic tune, probably not copyrightable for its almost featureless mass of notes, except for a few generic suggestions of melody. The first one sounds more like an orchestration exercise than a fully developed composition. They do have a similar "vibe," but if you're in that time signature and tempo, playing around with minor scale fragments, it's hard not to. It doesn't really seem like an international crisis.


----------



## Blakus

I thought I had responded to your message @mcalis , sorry. I’ve been made aware of this a number of times since it was released.

It seems obvious that my cue was followed fairly closely, which I find flattering. But let’s be real, this is just something I created as a product demo, I was proud of it at the time, not so much now. It’s cool that someone else was seemingly inspired by it.

We all draw inspiration from others. I’m sure I was ripping off elements of Powell’s HTTYD or Bergersen’s ‘High C’s, which I was obsessed with at the time.

I appreciate people looking out and I understand and appreciate the positive intentions. The ethical line with this stuff can be a nightmare, but this certainly isn’t keeping me up at night.


----------



## davidanthony

markleake said:


> But isn't this in a way what we all do to some degree? I'm sure most of us have thought "oh I like that, I'll store that away in my head as something I can use in future". Not to say we directly or consciously copy, but I think we all take various parts of rhythms, structures, orchestrations, etc. from other things we hear to some degree.


To me, this is much more interesting than the legal discussion! 

Where and how do we draw the line between inspiration and copying? Outside of a newborn that has never been exposed to a single piece of music, can any human claim with 100% authority that a sound they're creating is _truly_ original?

Take a listen to the opening seconds of John Williams' Catch Me if you Can Soundtrack:



Now listen to Jerry Goldsmith's "The Games Are Over" from the Basic Instinct soundtrack, starting at around 15 seconds (video should be timestamped):



Identical? No. Similar? It depends. I played the two pieces for my wife, and she said they were completely different. But my brain _immediately_ made an association between the two pieces after listening to the Basic Instinct piece for the first time, and I hadn't heard the Catch Me If You Can piece in over five years.

So are those 4 notes enough to make someone legally liable? Normally I would have said "absolutely not", but five years ago there was a decision that effectively suggested that a hint of similarity, the possibility that the second composer heard the first piece, and a good musicologist could get you a "yes" finding: 









Damages And 'Blurred Lines' Copyright -- Court Says 'You Got To Give It Up'


Intellectual property law permits, and even encourages, individuals to learn from what people have written, invented or created before. The key is always knowing where to draw the line...




www.forbes.com





That case terrified me, because I can only guess as to how many pieces of music are floating around in my head and trickling out when I'm writing. There were a few high profile settlements for "subconscious copying" in the years that followed, but recently there have been some decisions that suggest findings of infringement will be limited going forward: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/24/arts/music/blurred-lines-led-zeppelin-copyright.html


----------



## Bman70

But, in case there is big money involved, I'd like to submit that I've been working on a piece that shares a similar vibe, and would like all my forthwith rights and monies protected under the global statues:


----------



## mcalis

Blakus said:


> I thought I had responded to your message @mcalis , sorry. I’ve been made aware of this a number of times since it was released.
> 
> It seems obvious that my cue was followed fairly closely, which I find flattering. But let’s be real, this is just something I created as a product demo, I was proud of it at the time, not so much now. It’s cool that someone else was seemingly inspired by it.
> 
> We all draw inspiration from others. I’m sure I was ripping off elements of Powell’s HTTYD or Bergersen’s ‘High C’s, which I was obsessed with at the time.
> 
> I appreciate people looking out and I understand and appreciate the positive intentions. The ethical line with this stuff can be a nightmare, but this certainly isn’t keeping me up at night.


Thanks for chipping in, and no worries about the DM. I figured you were busy or already aware.

For me, this pretty much concludes the situation. I recognize I could have been more considerate in how I worded my original post and will edit shortly to correct. Rory's screenshot can stay up as a document of the original post, I'll probably link to it from the OP, don't have anything to hide there. 

I do think there's still an interesting and genuine discussion to be had about situations like this without causing drama.


----------



## Blakus

mcalis said:


> Thanks for chipping in, and no worries about the DM. I figured you were busy or already aware.
> 
> For me, this pretty much concludes the situation. I recognize I could have been more considerate in how I worded my original post and will edit shortly to correct. Rory's screenshot can stay up as a document of the original post, I'll probably link to it from the OP, don't have anything to hide there.
> 
> I do think there's still an interesting and genuine discussion to be had about situations like this without causing drama.


I wouldn’t sweat it. There is room for discussion on this for sure, but there seems to be a concoction of overreactions here.


----------



## davidanthony

marclawsonmusic said:


> If you want to take a case like this because you are one of the 'good' guys, how nice of you... but you are waiving the fee most normal folks would have to pay and it is certainly not reality.


This is half true. If someone truly has a slam dunk case (clear infringement by a deep pocketed party AND the copyright was properly registered), then with a little bit of leg work it's likely you could find an attorney who would be happy to take it on contingency (you pay nothing, they get a portion of any settlement). 

The key is the registration, because that opens the door for the attorney to be awarded fees in the event of a win, even if the recovery is small.









Best Practices for Obtaining Attorney Fees in Copyright Litigation


Serve your clients better by evaluating both your own ability to recover fees and your adversaries’ possible recovery early in the case.




www.americanbar.org





Register your copyrights!


----------



## davidanthony

Rory said:


> There is no rule of conduct that prevents a lawyer from expressing a general view on the merits of a case before he's engaged. Furthermore, lawyers express views on the merits of legal positions on public fora all the time. If you don't know that, turn on cable news or read a newspaper.


You could argue that I'm being overly cautious, but I am an attorney myself and I generally consider it a "best practice" to operate in a manner that gives zero room for someone to argue that I gave actionable advice about an un-filed case or solicited representation online. I think a distinction can be made between those things and what attorneys say in the media, but agree to disagree on that one.

I do agree with your position that people should be accountable for what they say online. I must admit I find it a little hypocritical that you're refusing to provide evidence of your qualification of having argued at the "Supreme Court level." (State or SCOTUS?) If this is because you're concerned about your privacy, that's valid, but perhaps you could submit your credentials to @Mike Greene for private and independent verification, if he's up for it. 

Based on some of the posts I read this evening, I think VI-Control would benefit from a verified attorney thread where we can share pieces of information that we feel would be beneficial to the community at large. Mike, how do you feel about this? I'd be happy to send evidence of my license and start a thread if you think it would be a valuable resource for the members.


----------



## markleake

davidanthony said:


> Where and how do we draw the line between inspiration and copying?


It's a good question, but I think it's like the Ship of Theseus.

Do we call this conundrum the Song of Theseus? 
How much of the original piece of music needs to be there for it to no longer be original?

I'm not sure there really is an answer to this, and I don't know if it really matters that much. Sure for copyright purposes it matters, but as we've seen, even the legal system gets this very wrong.


----------



## chrisr

davidanthony said:


> Based on some of the posts I read this evening, I think VI-Control would benefit from a verified attorney thread where we can share pieces of information that we feel would be beneficial to the community at large.


Yes please! Fascinating thread.


----------



## gst98

marclawsonmusic said:


> PS - Now I remember why I had you on ignore.



I was literally thinking the same thing when I read this


----------



## Laddy

I thought this was a bit funny. Don't sue me, please.


----------



## jononotbono

The competition winner has the same feel and structure as Blakus but I must be deaf because they don’t sound alike at all 😂 

If we’re going to go mad about structure I hope every single piece of 12 Bar blues is taken to the courts and all those “plagiarists” are put in prison for the rest of time. 😂


----------



## davidson




----------



## marius_dm

jononotbono said:


> If we’re going to go mad about structure I hope every single piece of 12 Bar blues is taken to the courts and all those “plagiarists” are put in prison for the rest of time. 😂


I agree. I think the only way anyone would raise an eyebrow would be if someone would copy a very recognizable melody note for note for more than a few bars. But orchestration and arrangement, really? No one cares.


----------



## ojczeo

Just to remember:


Don't you feel that the level of similarities that have led WB to apologize is at the same level? This is only my opinion, but I think that's the same level of inspiration. What is too similar from my point of view?

* form
* tonation
* orchestration (of course, writing in the style of the other composer, is not a problem for me - that what's the style is - you can write original music in the style of John Williams, it's not plagiarism. For example: you can take the piano music from Chopin or Debussy and make an orchestral version using their orchestration style. And what is going on later? It's your personal orchestration of somebody other's work. What's the difference? You have to mention the author and title of the original work. But... when you put too much together of somebody's other music in your ORIGINAL work it's starting to be too close to ...)

I have to say that from my point of view similarities are too deep in comparison Alexandrov's piece to Blakus's piece. I am guessing that the original piece by Blakus is strongly inspired by John Powell's music for How to Train Your Dragon (I am not sure, just guessing). But it's only inspired - it sounds a little bit like Powell, but not a copy of his original music.

Blakus have done really good form for 1m piece - and I'm guessing that is good to be inspired by it, how to place the different musical ideas in 1m. What makes me sad is that the placement of orchestration gestures, general melody shapes, key, dynamic changes in the piece of Alexandrov - for me similarities are too close...

And of course, it's my opinion. I just want to describe the elements of composition which could make the music plagiarism.

Let's check for example the pieces Clash of Destiny and Battle of Heroes. I can feel and describe that the Clash of Destiny is inspired by Battle of Heroes. Similar orchestration, gestures, tonality, melody shape. But... the tempo is different, the form is different; the meter is different. So it's not plagiarism. Of course, the main melodic theme of Battle of Heroes is probably inspired by Dies Irae, I guess. But again... it is inspired, not copied. (Of course, there is no problem with borrowing melodies from Gregorian chants - it was more than usual in the history of music, but it's another topic)




Anyway, following Dies Irae theme, from classical music:



It's well known that Penderecki has been fascinated by Verdi's Requiem. What similarities I can hear?
Orchestration gestures, mood, dynamic changes. But the form is different, it's a different type of music, different harmony, orchestration in details (more dissonances etc.).

So what's making music too similar? When you imitate too much and too strong.
Remember that guys. That's the lesson for all of us. Cause we all stand on the shoulders of giants. And when we are going to copy them, we're starting to regress ourselves, music, and culture at all. Cause copy is always worse than original.


----------



## iaink

marius_dm said:


> I agree. I think the only way anyone would raise an eyebrow would be if someone would copy a very recognizable melody note for note for more than a few bars. But orchestration and arrangement, really? No one cares.


For generic library music, sure.

For the winning entry in what looks like a fairly prestigious competition? That's getting a bit silly:

View attachment AB.mp3


----------



## ojczeo

jononotbono said:


> The competition winner has the same feel and structure as Blakus but I must be deaf because they don’t sound alike at all 😂
> 
> If we’re going to go mad about structure I hope every single piece of 12 Bar blues is taken to the courts and all those “plagiarists” are put in prison for the rest of time. 😂


I think there is a very big difference between blues and classical/film music. Why? Cause blues is a very limited form. The number of bars, the scale that can be used, the rhythms etc. It forces the creator to be similar to others cause of genre characteristics.
Also - blues has been more like "ethnic" music, where the creator's name is not so much important.
In classical or film music the characteristics are different - the possibilities are much wider, so when you are using somebody other's ideas too much and too strong, it's going to be plagiarism.


----------



## SyMTiK

Blakus said:


> I’m sure I was ripping off elements of Powell’s HTTYD or Bergersen’s ‘High C’s, which I was obsessed with at the time.


I was about to comment, they both sound inspired by High C's!


jononotbono said:


> The competition winner has the same feel and structure as Blakus but I must be deaf because they don’t sound alike at all 😂
> 
> If we’re going to go mad about structure I hope every single piece of 12 Bar blues is taken to the courts and all those “plagiarists” are put in prison for the rest of time. 😂


Same here, I think it sounds as though the competition winner may have used Blakus' composition as a reference for form and orchestration, but to me it sounds more inspired by rather than totally plagiarized.

However, I do think for a composition competition, it is a weird situation to write something for it that is closer to a derivative work, rather than a representation of your original skill as a composer.


----------



## Joël Dollié

Too close for comfort.


----------



## Markrs

In answer the to the question:
When is similar too similar?​I don't think these are too similar for it to be copying. For me this is still just influenced by the Blakus track. I agree with others that preferred the Blakus track but for me the other track is still an original track, it just borrows heavily in style from the Blakus track.


----------



## pawelmorytko

Markrs said:


> In answer the to the question:
> When is similar too similar?​I don't think these are too similar for it to be copying. For me this is still just influenced by the Blakus track. I agree with others that preferred the Blakus track but for me the other track is still an original track, it just borrows heavily in style from the Blakus track.


It's a weird one because of how similar the structure is, usually similarities like that are random because subconsciously you are inspired by something, and will probably borrow a wee rhythm or melody here and there without even knowing it. I recently found three different composers using the same distinctive melody in 3 completely different projects, and I don't think they copied each other at all, who knows if they were even inspired by each other. I also don't think this example is copying it, the tonal/melodic elements seem different enough for them to be independent but the similarity in structure through the _entire_ track is what is pointing towards some, or maybe a lot of borrowing.


----------



## iaink

On the subject of the thread, does anyone recognize this comparison?

View attachment AB2.mp3


----------



## davidanthony

chrisr said:


> Yes please! Fascinating thread.


Noted! I just want Mike's blessing first -- there are a few reasons I could think of for not wanting to be associated with a thread like this (even though I have a vested interest in it not happening, both publishers and attorneys could potentially get annoyed by its existence, and those are two groups you don't want to piss off!)  

But if we just stuck to general questions like "What is the mechanical licensing collective?" and "Where can I learn more about Fair Use?" I think it could be helpful.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

davidanthony said:


> This is half true. If someone truly has a slam dunk case (clear infringement by a deep pocketed party AND the copyright was properly registered), then with a little bit of leg work it's likely you could find an attorney who would be happy to take it on contingency (you pay nothing, they get a portion of any settlement).
> 
> The key is the registration, because that opens the door for the attorney to be awarded fees in the event of a win, even if the recovery is small.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best Practices for Obtaining Attorney Fees in Copyright Litigation
> 
> 
> Serve your clients better by evaluating both your own ability to recover fees and your adversaries’ possible recovery early in the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.americanbar.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Register your copyrights!


I understand. I live in a state where attorneys on TV tell people they will take your case for free - you only pay if you get a settlement. But in my experience, that has not been the case - you generally need to pay a retainer.

My point is that I often hear folks on here say 'take them to court', but I don't think most people know what that actually means and how it works.

I like your suggestion to have a subforum where legal issues could be discussed - maybe with feedback from actual attorneys. +1 to that.


----------



## robgb

davidanthony said:


> That case terrified me, because I can only guess as to how many pieces of music are floating around in my head and trickling out when I'm writing.


Fuck that whole Blurred Lines case. I'm still angry about it. In my opinion, the case should never have been brought to trial. I've always understood that the only thing you can copyright in a piece of music is the melody. So now we have to worry that because our music "feels" like or "captures the spirit" of another piece of music we can get our asses sued. Every single musician alive and dead has built upon what came before and that case created an immediate danger to any composer who has ever been influenced by another. Which means ALL of us.


----------



## davidanthony

marclawsonmusic said:


> My point is that I often hear folks on here say 'take them to court', but I don't think most people know what that actually means and how it works.


Good point, many people fail to appreciate how big a gap there can be between the letter of the law and the reality of actually enforcing it!



marclawsonmusic said:


> I like your suggestion to have a subforum where legal issues could be discussed - maybe with feedback from actual attorneys. +1 to that.


This is going to sound super pedantic and I apologize but for professional reasons I need to be clear on this point. I'm not suggesting a venue for attorneys to give "feedback" on legal issues, because that effectively amounts to giving legal advice and for a bunch of technical reasons that's something most attorneys (myself included) will only do for clients that they have a formal relationship with (which in and of itself has a bunch of rules concerning how you meet and enter into it!)

Basically this boils down to law being a heavily regulated industry -- partly because lawyers are generally given a lot of responsibility, and partly because many lawyers have abused this responsibility in the past. So in order to protect both non-attorneys and attorneys alike, there are a bunch of rules concerning how to properly engage a client, offer them advice, get paid, etc. So giving advice to strangers online is asking for a headache at best and some kind of sanctions at worst, and most attorneys (myself included) just won't do it.

But while I would not feel comfortable answering a question "Is XYZ legal?" or "Should I do ABC?", I am comfortable providing unsolicited resources on general topics concerning the intersection of law and music, and explaining some of the more technical parts of how the law actually functions and gets applied, in the hopes that it inspires people to do their own research and informs discussions with their own legal counsel.



robgb said:


> Fuck that whole Blurred Lines case


Yeah, this was pretty much the take of every person involved outside of the Gaye estate and insurance agents! I'm trying to be an optimist and say that this case was necessary to build awareness of how broken the system is and spur eventual reform, and I'm still hopeful that there'll be a day when everyone feels like the rules are clear and well constructed and everything is working fairly. But the decision is also a tragic illustration of how the judicial system can completely fail to appreciate what's actually happening in an industry that it regulates, and genuinely damage people inside it as a result.


----------



## chillbot

I can't really talk about this for legal reason except in very vague terms but I've had occasion to consult with a musicologist who specializes in court to see if a piece of music was too similar to another piece.

It blew my mind and I'm not sure that he was correct but here is a case he presented to me.

The melody went (not exactly this but let's say): G - A - Bb in the key of G minor. Now he looks at my piece and says, ok you are in Eb minor and you have an Eb in measure one... now in measure four you have an F... and over here in measure seven you have a Gb... you can't do that that's a direct rip and I can prove it in court.

I look at measure four and say, what are you talking about there is no F... the melody is Ab. He says, no it's in the chord, you have a Db major chord and there is an F in the chord.

He was basically saying that if he could pick out the melody ANYWHERE in the piece including within internal voicings he could prove it was a rip, even if the melody was a completely different shape, different rhythm, different notes in between, the harmonies were completely different, different tempo and key.

It makes no sense to me but he said it doesn't have to make sense as long as you can convince a jury that knows nothing about music that it makes sense. Hmm.


----------



## marclawsonmusic

davidanthony said:


> This is going to sound super pedantic and I apologize but for professional reasons I need to be clear on this point. <...>


Makes sense. Thanks for your insight.


----------



## Polkasound

And first place for ORIGINAL COMPOSITION goes to:


----------



## rnb_2

chillbot said:


> I can't really talk about this for legal reason except in very vague terms but I've had occasion to consult with a musicologist who specializes in court to see if a piece of music was too similar to another piece.
> 
> It blew my mind and I'm not sure that he was correct but here is a case he presented to me.
> 
> The melody went (not exactly this but let's say): G - A - Bb in the key of G minor. Now he looks at my piece and says, ok you are in Eb minor and you have an Eb in measure one... now in measure four you have an F... and over here in measure seven you have a Gb... you can't do that that's a direct rip and I can prove it in court.
> 
> I look at measure four and say, what are you talking about there is no F... the melody is Ab. He says, no it's in the chord, you have a Db major chord and there is an F in the chord.
> 
> He was basically saying that if he could pick out the melody ANYWHERE in the piece including within internal voicings he could prove it was a rip, even if the melody was a completely different shape, different rhythm, different notes in between, the harmonies were completely different, different tempo and key.
> 
> It makes no sense to me but he said it doesn't have to make sense as long as you can convince a jury that knows nothing about music that it makes sense. Hmm.


Sounds like somebody found a way to turn the previously not-particularly-remunerative career of "musicologist" into MU$ICOLOGI$T.


----------



## brek

chillbot said:


> I can't really talk about this for legal reason except in very vague terms but I've had occasion to consult with a musicologist who specializes in court to see if a piece of music was too similar to another piece.
> 
> It blew my mind and I'm not sure that he was correct but here is a case he presented to me.
> 
> The melody went (not exactly this but let's say): G - A - Bb in the key of G minor. Now he looks at my piece and says, ok you are in Eb minor and you have an Eb in measure one... now in measure four you have an F... and over here in measure seven you have a Gb... you can't do that that's a direct rip and I can prove it in court.
> 
> I look at measure four and say, what are you talking about there is no F... the melody is Ab. He says, no it's in the chord, you have a Db major chord and there is an F in the chord.
> 
> He was basically saying that if he could pick out the melody ANYWHERE in the piece including within internal voicings he could prove it was a rip, even if the melody was a completely different shape, different rhythm, different notes in between, the harmonies were completely different, different tempo and key.
> 
> It makes no sense to me but he said it doesn't have to make sense as long as you can convince a jury that knows nothing about music that it makes sense. Hmm.



Long before Blurred Lines, our advice from the hired musicologist/lawyer was to not get sued in the first place. Despite lots of back and forth online about melodies vs chord progressions, etc, at the end of the day it comes down to convincing a non-muaical jury that someone referenced an existing piece of music. Yes, this is not what we understand the law to actually say and we basically rely on IP holders to NOT sue everyone (which is what made Blurred Lines so frightening).

The big thing to look out for there is if you have a client that tried, but failed, to license a song, but then asks you to use that as your reference material. Big Nope to that. 

In your case, I would think you could find those same notes from a piece of Mozart's and simply say it's impossible that you ripped off this other piece, because you were *intentionally* ripping off Mozart. 

In theory, it seems that could be a somewhat viable defense in many of these headline plagiarism cases... But I may be deep down the Dunning Kruger trench at this point.


----------



## chillbot

brek said:


> In your case, I would think you could find those same notes from a piece of Mozart's and simply say it's impossible that you ripped off this other piece, because you were *intentionally* ripping off Mozart.


Possible, I suppose. In the end I threw up my hands and said well if you can just randomly pick notes from anywhere it's impossible... it can't be done without you telling me I ripped off this piece. He said sure it can, just don't use an F then the melody won't be found anywhere in your piece. Absolutely ridiculous but in the end nowhere in my track did I use an F, not in the melody, not in a chord. No Db major chord, No Bb chords, no Fs. Absurd.


----------



## brek

chillbot said:


> Possible, I suppose. In the end I threw up my hands and said well if you can just randomly pick notes from anywhere it's impossible... it can't be done without you telling me I ripped off this piece. He said sure it can, just don't use an F then the melody won't be found anywhere in your piece. Absolutely ridiculous but in the end nowhere in my track did I use an F, not in the melody, not in a chord. No Db major chord, No Bb chords, no Fs. Absurd.



I should clarify... The advice from the actual musicologist was to do whatever is necessary to not get sued. The idea about using public domain as a defence if you were to be sued is 100% from someone who took a music business class 20 years ago.


----------



## Snarf

I'm a little suprised that no one has mentioned the fact that Blakus has a breakdown video for this exact track on his youtube channel (link).

Years ago I've actually made a mockup/variation of that piece myself. Just for learning & template testing purposes though, not to submit it to music competitions 

(for legal reasons, that last sentence was a joke - pls don't sue me!)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

mcalis said:


> Fair enough, and I've taken the point I could've started this differently.


Not at all.

The lesson is not to feed trolls, rather than to be afraid to call a spade an f-ing shovel!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

As to the original topic, this is a good example of how not to steal.

Good composers steal and hide that they've stolen it by making it their own.

(I"m only half kidding.)


----------



## Blakus

Snarf said:


> Years ago I've actually made a mockup/variation of that piece myself. Just for learning & template testing purposes though, not to submit it to music competitions
> 
> (for legal reasons, that last sentence was a joke - pls don't sue me!)


My lawyers will be in touch.


----------



## MauroPantin

Everybody takes "elements" from other people for their own composition, that's what score study is. You listen to something you like and go "How is that achieved?" and find out and incorporate it if it suits you... but it is over the line, IMO. It feels particularly wrong because it won a contest. Same orchestration colors, flourishes and structure. It's hard to argue that this is very, *very *heavily inspired by the Blakus piece. I mean no disrespect, though, this still takes a lot of skill to do, but to my ears it is taking too much from another piece to be considered an original achievement.


----------



## Polkasound

Does anyone remember when these two compositions were brought under the scrutiny of the VI-Control plagiarism police a few years ago?





When I listen to examples like the ones above and the ones posted in the beginning of this thread, I have to agree with Nick. If you're going to steal, at least try not to make it so obvious. Take ideas from lots of songs and combine them to make your own song. If you steal all your ideas from just _one_ song, all you're going to do is recreate that same song.


----------



## clisma

Here’s what really bothers me about this: if you’re obviously good enough to make a mock-up that complex, why would you take the risk? Especially in a competition! It would end up (as it is now) detracting from your efforts achievement as composer and orchestrator.

And yeah, that’s obviously too close for comfort.


----------



## Snarf

Blakus said:


> My lawyers will be in touch.


Oh no, haha!

Jokes aside - thank you so much for taking the time to make your YouTube videos. Your breakdowns and (especially) fly on the wall videos were (are) insanely insightful and they meant a lot to me! ❤️
I always urge aspiring composers to check out your channel.


----------



## Christoph Pawlowski

Even Hans Zimmer does it and gets awy with it. One does not simply touch a god, huh?


----------



## pawelmorytko

Here's one I found recently, 3 different composers - same little melody/motif (slightly different rhythm in AKD's one), but I highly doubt they were actually copying one another, just a weird coincidence I guess.

(0:47)


(3:08)


(1:11)


What I love the most about these though is how they all go in a completely different direction with it afterwards.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

MauroPantin said:


> Everybody takes "elements" from other people for their own composition


At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, I make a distinction between soundalikes (which are intentional), paraphrasing (everyone has done it, but the idea is to be able to get away from it so you don't sound like someone else unless you want to), and stealing elements that you incorporate.

One of my favorite crimes is stealing the form in great detail, only using my own music.

Another, suggested by Bob Chestnut, a great professor at Berklee, is writing a countermelody to an existing tune and using it as your tune. The context was not to sit there being stuck.


----------



## Polkasound

clisma said:


> if you’re obviously good enough to make a mock-up that complex, why would you take the risk? Especially in a competition! It would end up (as it is now) detracting from your efforts achievement as composer and orchestrator.


In my opinion, there is one big difference between creating mock-ups and creating originals. Both require skills, knowledge, and experience, but only one requires sheer creativity. I'm merely speculating here, but perhaps Alexandrov feels he is not as skilled at composing as he is at orchestrating, and knew his only chance of winning an original composition contest would be to recreate an existing composition. [That's just a thought, not an accusation.]

But you bring up a good point. If you mock up a derivation of someone else's composition and call it your own just once, and you get caught and called out on it, you risk people assuming you're a hack composer whose _entire_ library of works may be derivations of existing compositions. Talk about a potentially reputation-killing move.


----------



## BradHoyt

marclawsonmusic said:


> Really, you are an attorney? Hmmm... I figured you would understand the following:
> 
> Mr. Alexandrov would need to pay for a retainer - at least $5K here in US - just to begin pursuing the matter.
> Which jurisdiction would this 'slander' or 'defamation' case be tried in? Alexandrov is in... well his name sounds Russian or Eastern European to me? And McAlis is probably somewhere else. But the 'defamation' took place 'on the internet'. So which court are we talking about filing this case in? Whose jurisdiction?
> If the case goes to trial, plaintiff would need to spend 10x or 20x of that retainer just to get through trial and _attempt _to get a verdict / judgment. (Kinda risky!)
> Speaking of judgment, how does one value this particular 'defamation'? I mean, how much revenue has Mr. Alexandrov lost as a result of this 'defamation' on a composer's internet forum? Hmmm...
> In order to collect on any judgment, Mr. McAlis would actually need to have funds to pay it. Not saying he doesn't, but there is that risk.
> At the end of the day, ANY attorney worth his salt would say this is not worth pursuing. There is no case here.
> 
> And if the case _did _go before a judge, I am sure they would immediately order the parties to mediation.
> 
> So, what in the actual fuck are you going on about?
> 
> PS - Now I remember why I had you on ignore.
> 
> PPS - I think I might have just been trolled. That's 10 minutes of my life I won't get back. LOL


For what it's worth, I thoroughly enjoyed your response. So I guess it wasn't all for nothing.


----------



## BenG

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Another, suggested by Bob Chestnut, a great professor at Berklee, is writing a countermelody to an existing tune and using it as your tune. The context was not to sit there being stuck.


This is genius.


----------



## NoamL

This one has always made me laugh. I guess he reached an out-of-court settlement with himself? They're both great themes so why not...


----------



## markleake

Nick Batzdorf said:


> One of my favorite crimes is stealing the form in great detail, only using my own music.
> 
> Another, suggested by Bob Chestnut, a great professor at Berklee, is writing a countermelody to an existing tune and using it as your tune. The context was not to sit there being stuck.


Yes, these are things I've done also. In fact, I find it pretty inspiring sometimes to listen to a piece, or play along using countermelodies, and develop something from there. It's a very fast way of working out something new. And I don't think it's bad form at all to do this. Mind you, I'm just a hobbyist.


----------



## re-peat

Elgar's "Enigma Variations" started like that, or so the story goes. Its theme is, apparently, a counter-point to a well-known melody (which is never heard in the piece). Tons of literature about this enigma, and while there are many suggestions, there's no consensus about what the famous Hidden Melody could be.

_


----------



## jeremyr

iaink said:


> On the subject of the thread, does anyone recognize this comparison?
> 
> View attachment AB2.mp3


I recognize Safan's The Last Starfighter, don't know the other score though.


----------



## jeremyr

Sorry for the double post, but it took me a few minutes to confirm where I heard that Blakus melody before since it sounded familiar. It's similar to the Scherzo from Bruckner's 7th:


----------



## Mike Greene

Nick Batzdorf said:


> One of my favorite crimes is stealing the form in great detail, only using my own music.
> 
> Another, suggested by Bob Chestnut, a great professor at Berklee, is writing a countermelody to an existing tune and using it as your tune. The context was not to sit there being stuck.


I'm not a jazz historian, so hopefully Piet or someone else will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a lot of bebop was based on lifting chord progressions of existing songs. My memory is really hazy on this, but I think the term "changes" might even have come about because it's a word in some song title that was popular for doing this. But ... don't quote me on any of this.


----------



## Mike Greene

On a darker note ...



Rory said:


> When I read this in its original form, I seriously considered contacting Mr. Alexandrov, and offering to represent him. The demand letter would go within 48 hours. I'm not kidding.



Whoa. Threats like that are way, way, way out of bounds. I'm suspending Rory.


----------



## Polkasound

Mike Greene said:


> Whoa. Threats like that are way, way, way out of bounds. I'm suspending Rory.


Mr. Greene, I'll be representing Rory in his wrongful suspension lawsuit. Prepare yourself for a fight... I may not be a lawyer, but I am dieting and I'm extremely hangry. 

But in all seriousness, thank you for quelling the threat. If someone opines that one work is plagiarizing another, they should not be made afraid to express that opinion among their peers, nor should anyone else be made afraid to say they agree with that opinion. Fear mongering is not welcome here.


----------



## re-peat

Mike Greene said:


> I'm not a jazz historian, so hopefully Piet or someone else will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a lot of bebop was based on lifting chord progressions of existing songs. My memory is really hazy on this, but I think the term "changes" might even have come about because it's a word in some song title that was popular for doing this. But ... don't quote me on any of this.


Entirely true, Mike. What you're talking about is called the “Rhythm changes”, and it refers to a chord progression that’s based on, or derived from Gershwin’s “I’ve Got Rhythm”.
(A jazz musician is expected to know these changes inside-out, and in every key, if he or she hopes to last longer than 10 seconds in a jam session.)

Now, during the early years of bebop, musicians began to experiment with (increasingly sophisticated) chord substitutions for standard chord transitions which means that the source of the “Rhythm changes” — the original Gershwin chord progression — is not always instantly recognizeable on the surface, but it’s there alright in several dozens of jazz tunes.

Perhaps also worth mentioning that the use of "Rhythm changes" as a harmonic skeleton for a new jazz tune was already happening quite frequently _before_ bebop arrived (a.o. Ellington has a few compositions that use those changes).

To name just a handful "Rhythm changes" jazz tunes (but there are many, many more): Anthropology, Lester Leaps In, Oleo, Scrapple From The Apple, Steeplechase, Allen’s Alley, The Theme (M. Davis), Shaw ‘Nuff, Dexterity, …

There’s plenty of great YT-videos on the subject. Here’s the one by Rick Beato:






_


----------



## robgb

Polkasound said:


> Does anyone remember when these two compositions were brought under the scrutiny of the VI-Control plagiarism police a few years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I listen to examples like the ones above and the ones posted in the beginning of this thread, I have to agree with Nick. If you're going to steal, at least try not to make it so obvious. Take ideas from lots of songs and combine them to make your own song. If you steal all your ideas from just _one_ song, all you're going to do is recreate that same song.



These are similar, yes, but not really the same. What I suspect happened (though I'm only guessing) is that the first track was used as a temp track for the show, and the producers asked the composer for something similar. I think it's similar but not really the same, so accusations of plagiarism aren't really warranted.


----------



## Polkasound

robgb said:


> These are similar, yes, but not really the same. What I suspect happened (though I'm only guessing) is that the first track was used as a temp track for the show, and the producers asked the composer for something similar. I think it's similar but not really the same, so accusations of plagiarism aren't really warranted.


You could very well be right. If the composer was asked for a track that sounded like Secunda, then she came through with flying colors and delivered, a testament to her production skills.

I respect your opinion that as long as the melody is different, one song cannot plagiarize another. But there are two ways a song can be plagiarized... the composition and the audio recording. On paper, the two compositions are similar, but what makes these examples raise eyebrows is that the composer arranged and produced her composition to sound exactly like the other. When a similar composition _and_ a similar production come together in one recorded song, it's going to raise eyebrows.

I see melody as only _one_ (albeit important) component to a song. There are a lot of other components, and if most of your song's components closely match another song's components, in my book, you could still be a candidate for accusations of plagiarism.


----------



## Snarf

robgb said:


> These are similar, yes, but not really the same. What I suspect happened (though I'm only guessing) is that the first track was used as a temp track for the show, and the producers asked the composer for something similar. I think it's similar but not really the same, so accusations of plagiarism aren't really warranted.


Apparently it actually started as just a cover song.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Mike Greene said:


> I'm not a jazz historian, so hopefully Piet or someone else will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a lot of bebop was based on lifting chord progressions of existing songs. My memory is really hazy on this, but I think the term "changes" might even have come about because it's a word in some song title that was popular for doing this. But ... don't quote me on any of this.



Sorry to quote you, and I'm also not a jazz historian, but of course you're right! There are 50 billion tunes that use rhythm changes and 100 billion more that are just blues.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

And I see that Piet already talked about rhythm changes.


----------



## iaink

jeremyr said:


> I recognize Safan's The Last Starfighter, don't know the other score though.


The other is the winner from the _Score Relief_ competition just now.


----------



## brek

re-peat said:


> Entirely true, Mike. What you're talking about is called the “Rhythm changes”, and it refers to a chord progression that’s based on, or derived from Gershwin’s “I’ve Got Rhythm”.
> (A jazz musician is expected to know these changes inside-out, and in every key, if he or she hopes to last longer than 10 seconds in a jam session.)
> 
> Now, during the early years of bebop, musicians began to experiment with (increasingly sophisticated) chord substitutions for standard chord transitions which means that the source of the “Rhythm changes” — the original Gershwin chord progression — is not always instantly recognizeable on the surface, but it’s there alright in several dozens of jazz tunes.
> 
> Perhaps also worth mentioning that the use of "Rhythm changes" as a harmonic skeleton for a new jazz tune was already happening quite frequently _before_ bebop arrived (a.o. Ellington has a few compositions that use those changes).
> 
> To name just a handful "Rhythm changes" jazz tunes (but there are many, many more): Anthropology, Lester Leaps In, Oleo, Scrapple From The Apple, Steeplechase, Allen’s Alley, The Theme (M. Davis), Shaw ‘Nuff, Dexterity, …
> 
> _



May have missed it, but have to mention the Flintstones theme also uses Rhythm changes. 

Along those lines is the history of using blues progressions as a framework for composition.


----------



## brek

Nick Batzdorf said:


> And I see that Piet already talked about rhythm changes.


And I see that Nick already talked about blues.


----------



## davidanthony

robgb said:


> I think it's similar but not really the same


I know your take is much more nuanced than this but I couldn't help thinking of this classic while reading it:





Polkasound said:


> There are a lot of other components, and if most of your song's components closely match another song's components, in my book, you could still be a candidate for accusations of plagiarism.



Even though I think Rory was way out of line, I do think there is some validity to one of his points, which is that the word "plagiarism" describes an intentional act of theft/passing off of someone else's work as your own, which has pretty serious consequences.

So I think we should try to set the bar for "candidate(s) for accusations of plagiarism" higher than "most of your song's components closely match another song's components". 

For all we know, in this case Page had a formal agreement with Soules or otherwise acquired the rights. These arrangements happen all the time, and Netflix are certainly not known to be slouches when it comes to clearing music.

Totally valid to discuss similarities in music, but maybe a little benefit of the doubt before throwing out the "P" word?


----------



## proxima

davidanthony said:


> Totally valid to discuss similarities in music, but maybe a little benefit of the doubt before throwing out the "P" word?


This is an interesting take coming from a lawyer (I am not one). I would have thought that saying something is plagiarism is far fuzzier than making an accusation of copyright infringement? There's a venn diagram between them, and I don't take one as a subset of the other.

Part of the fuzziness is because plagiarism is somewhat context dependent; standards for classroom work might be different than standards acceptable in the industry. It has no particular meaning as a legal term, right?


----------



## lokotus

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Another, suggested by Bob Chestnut, a great professor at Berklee, is writing a countermelody to an existing tune and using it as your tune. The context was not to sit there being stuck.


So you could take the chord progression and form from Beatles song "yesterday" and compose your own melody without getting into copyright trouble?


----------



## ism

Yesterday has extremely distinctive key changes. But a great any other song prior to Yesterday (with perhaps exceptions like a Hard Day's Night) are going to be chord progressions used a million times before and since.


----------



## davidanthony

proxima said:


> This is an interesting take coming from a lawyer (I am not one). I would have thought that saying something is plagiarism is far fuzzier than making an accusation of copyright infringement?


I should have been more clear -- part of the issue I had with Rory's delivery is that he framed the discussion as one of _legal_ consequences, which is something a lot of attorneys do, particularly litigators (people who argue in court). But imo it's not appropriate for an attorney to say those things in a forum like this, from a professional standpoint, and it's just hostile from a perspective of encouraging conversation about similarities in music, which I think is interesting and important.

So when I use the word consequences, I'm not speaking as a lawyer, I'm just saying professionally. Most people hate plagiarists, because by definition "plagiarism" requires intent (a plagiarist acts knowingly -- you can't "accidentally" plagiarise something).



proxima said:


> There's a venn diagram between them, and I don't take one as a subset of the other.


Right. 

A plagiarist can commit copyright infringement as part of their act of plagiarism. This can happen if someone commits plagiarism of a work that was eligible for copyright protection, which is the majority of creative works out there, and infringes on the copyright in the process.

But some things are _not_ eligible for copyright protection, so someone could plagiarize those works, but not be a copyright infringer.

Copyright infringement can also be purely accidental, in which case that person would be a copyright infringer, but not a plagiarist, because they lacked intent -- they didn't knowingly try to copy the work and pass it off as their own. 



proxima said:


> Part of the fuzziness is because plagiarism is somewhat context dependent; standards for classroom work might be different than standards acceptable in the industry. It has no particular meaning as a legal term, right?



Right, no specific legal meaning, other than the intersections outlined above. 

But I think the general meaning of plagiarism and reception for someone who is known as a plagiarizer is the same in any context, and that is pretty poor. 

In some ways I'd argue it's "worse" from a professional standpoint than an accusation of copyright infringement, because at least with infringement there's the possibility it was an accident.

So I do think that discussions about similarities in songs and how similar is too similar and the like are totally valid and important. But I think to immediately go to plagiarism, and imply knowingness and intent, is inappropriate (not speaking legally, just as musicians looking out for other musicians).


----------



## MauroPantin

As far as taking "inspiration" from other songs, this happens all the time. Lady Madonna by the Beatles was inspired by Pretty Woman, by their own admission, after touring with Roy Orbinson and having him show the modulation that goes to the bridge. "Virtual Insanity" by Jamiroquai has the exact same rhythm and intervals (not pitch class, though, very smart) on the beginning of the first verse as "Stayin' Alive" by the Bee Gees. If you know what to look for, these things are there all the time. But there's some musical sleight of hand involved, which I think the starting example of this thread lacks, unfortunately.


----------



## Polkasound

davidanthony said:


> Copyright infringement can also be purely accidental, in which case that person would be a copyright infringer, but not a plagiarist, because they lacked intent -- they didn't knowingly try to copy the work and pass it off as their own.


This is a great point to bring up. I think the term plagiarism comes out in threads like these when it seems apparent that an accused composer must have continually referenced a copy of the original song in their DAW in order to get their "original" tracks as close as they did.



Snarf said:


> Apparently it actually started as just a cover song.


A few years ago, Nightfall was posted on Mimi's SoundCloud page as an original composition. That's what started the whole copyright infringement thread from a few years ago. Nightfall has since been deleted, but the song remains up as a cover of Secunda.



davidanthony said:


> For all we know, in this case Page had a formal agreement with Soules or otherwise acquired the rights.


You're absolutely right. We don't know what kind or if any special licensing was secured. To quote myself from the 2018 thread:

_"Although it's my opinion that Nightfall is clearly a derivation of Secunda, how she claims it as an original work, whether legally or illegally, is strictly her business. As a fellow musician and composer, all I can say is that I hope for the sake of everyone involved, she is somehow doing everything on the level."_


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

lokotus said:


> So you could take the chord progression and form from Beatles song "yesterday" and compose your own melody without getting into copyright trouble?


No, I left out that part. Brain fart, sorry about that

You need to reharmonize it too.

But the point is that you use technique rather than just sitting there and freaking out because the clouds haven't parted to strike you with a thunderbolt of inspiration.

So you take a countermelody, reharmonize it, and you have music. It doesn't have to be great, it has to be finished, in other words.


----------



## re-peat

lokotus said:


> So you could take the chord progression and form from Beatles song "yesterday" and compose your own melody without getting into copyright trouble?


I think you can, yes. (With what level of opportunistic frenzy the musicologist-assisted lawyers will react, is another matter though.) 
But in polite disagreement with what Ism said earlier on, “Yesterday” doesn’t have distinctive chord changes _at all_. It’s one the many, many songs that use the rather common I-(vii7)-III7-vi-(I7)-V-… progression. “Still Crazy After All These Years” (P. Simon), “Georgia On My Mind” (H. Carmichael), "Les Champs-Elysees" (J. Dassin) are three other well-known examples. Things don't necessarily always proceed, chords-wise, in the exact same fashion in all these songs, but the main harmonic movement is nonetheless the same.
Those chord changes (or some variation there of) are also a harmonic staple of much blues and gospel music, and a list of all the occurrences in jazz and/or classical music would make a long list indeed.

Would be a good challenge for a contest: write a new tune on the Yesterday-changes.

__


----------



## Markrs

re-peat said:


> I think you can, yes. (With what level of opportunistic frenzy the musicologist-assisted lawyers will react, is another matter though.) But in polite disagreement with was Ism said earlier on, “Yesterday” doesn’t have distinctive chord changes _at all_. It’s one the many, many songs that use the rather common I-(vii7)-III7-vi-(I7)-V-… progression. “Still Crazy After All These Years” and “Georgia On My Mind” are two other well-known examples. Things don't necessarily always proceed, chords-wise, in the exact same fashion in all these songs, but the harmonic movement is nonetheless the same.
> Those chord changes (or some variation there of) are also a harmonic staple of much blues and gospel music, and a list of all the occurrences in jazz and/or classical music would make a long list indeed.
> 
> Would be a good challenge for a contest: write a new tune on the Yesterday-changes.
> 
> __


My understanding is you can't copyright chord progressions, as there are only so many chords and progressions and every progression has almost certainly been done by someone else where the music is in the public domain.

Now chord progression plus rhythm or progression plus melody and it is almost certainly a different matter.


----------



## GNP

The legal way to determine plagiarism (first 4 notes etc) only stands for certain cases, but definitely not all. It's quite limiting. There are countless ways to maneuver around that. Ultimately, it's alot more complicated to steal an *essence* of a piece, rather than just its notes or chords. That is beyond what any law can determine.

I know this because I have tapped into essences of other music and made it mine lol


----------



## fourier

MauroPantin said:


> As far as taking "inspiration" from other songs, this happens all the time. Lady Madonna by the Beatles was inspired by Pretty Woman, by their own admission, after touring with Roy Orbinson and having him show the modulation that goes to the bridge. "Virtual Insanity" by Jamiroquai has the exact same rhythm and intervals (not pitch class, though, very smart) on the beginning of the first verse as "Stayin' Alive" by the Bee Gees. If you know what to look for, these things are there all the time. But there's some musical sleight of hand involved, which I think the starting example of this thread lacks, unfortunately.


I second this. 

In my mind, inspiration and respect goes hand in hand with artistic integrity. If you are inspired by someone, and perhaps even wants to emulate that type of sound, your integrity would also be that inner voice demanding that you use your own creativity and musical talent to ensure a piece of music that where you can proudly and loudly say "I was inspired by <artist>", and still feel comfortable with it being your own creative work. 

I won't go into the whole plagiarism-debate, perhaps such choices and thoughts are simply more personality-based - it's hard to objectify and therein I suppose the problem lies. Personally however, if I used this Blakus-piece as inspiration I couldn't imagine myself accepting that this is my own creation, and I'm quite certain I'd also properly underline whatever I drew inspiration from - the same way I see Blakus did in this thread when talking about his piece. 

Sidenote; I do find it very fascinating that where I see remarkable similarities there are others here that doesn't see any. It takes me back to the days of wanting to write a master thesis related to psychoacoustics (I ended up writing about improving methods for calculating indoor sound levels, instead - not as fascinating..)


----------



## AudioLoco

There are two ways to copy:
- Accidentally or knowingly come up with something similar, in some aspects, to something else. It could be a similar melody, chord progression, just overall vibe.
- Totally use another track as a reference. Put it in your DAW, copy "scientifically" the groove, structure, and melody and chords, and change a couple of things just to try be on the safe side.

The first case is part of the "real artist steal" universe and is part of the basis of our whole culture, something is inspired by something + creativity, which is inspired by something + creativity etc etc... that is called "culture", or musical culture. It evolves based on what has been done before.

The second case sometimes is in the realm of "soundalike" and is usually done for commercial reasons (client/director wants a piece but can't pay the licensing for example) or to study something (without releasing it though). It is up to the composer to do enough for the new track to sound similar, without being the same and, even if morally questionable, it requires a certain level of skill to create something legit that is not a total court case.
Sometimes it is artists with no writing talent, ideas or no moral code just coping, period. Loading the original track in the DAW and squeezing out every bit of idea they will never have.

I have met personally a lot of DJs and "beat" artist that use an almost full track as a "sample", extract everything they can, put a couple of 808 and raspy synths, an autotuned vocal on top, and call it a day. Years ago I used to do a lot of "sample recreation" work. I was commissioned to re-record samples that haven't been cleared and that have been used as a basis of a track and they cannot get rid of, as the track would collapse. (fun job by the way, I got to explore some intresting techniques and sounds from various eras) If that is not coping .... 


There are a lot of contrasting opinions here, but I kind of believe that is what happened with "Blurred Rape Lines". They started with the sample and then just recreated it so they don't have to use the original files (It is an hypothesis, but for my experience, very possible).


----------



## lokotus

re-peat said:


> I think you can, yes. (With what level of opportunistic frenzy the musicologist-assisted lawyers will react, is another matter though.)
> But in polite disagreement with what Ism said earlier on, “Yesterday” doesn’t have distinctive chord changes _at all_. It’s one the many, many songs that use the rather common I-(vii7)-III7-vi-(I7)-V-… progression. “Still Crazy After All These Years” (P. Simon), “Georgia On My Mind” (H. Carmichael), "Les Champs-Elysees" (J. Dassin) are three other well-known examples. Things don't necessarily always proceed, chords-wise, in the exact same fashion in all these songs, but the main harmonic movement is nonetheless the same.
> Those chord changes (or some variation there of) are also a harmonic staple of much blues and gospel music, and a list of all the occurrences in jazz and/or classical music would make a long list indeed.
> 
> Would be a good challenge for a contest: write a new tune on the Yesterday-changes.
> 
> __


Yes, you may be right about using chord changes. But I think you could really get into trouble even after replacing the melody, if you copy the exact same structure / Rhythm of the chord changes.
The lawyer would probably argue that your "new" piece must be stolen, because the chord changes, structure and rhythm of the underlying chord changes are exactly the same (the probability of accidentally composing this in the exact same manner is extremely low).
Or would the defender lawyer actually be winning by saying: The melody is the only factor that matters in recognising a tune. And since the chord structure and form of the tune is the same but the melody is completely new, you are not supposed to call this song a copyright infringement... ?!?


----------



## davidanthony

lokotus said:


> The lawyer would probably argue that your "new" piece must be stolen, because the chord changes, structure and rhythm of the underlying chord changes are exactly the same (the probability of accidentally composing this in the exact same manner is extremely low).
> Or would the defender lawyer actually be winning by saying: The melody is the only factor that matters in recognising a tune. And since the chord structure and form of the tune is the same but the melody is completely new, you are not supposed to call this song a copyright infringement... ?!?


?!? Is right. The outcome of the above hypothetical hinges on almost every fact you referenced -- the specific changes, the skill of the two attorneys (and the expert witnesses), and even the specific court that the case is being argued in (different courts in different jurisdictions apply different standards, and sometimes even reject their previous reasoning in subsequent cases -- for example, part of the law that decided the "Blurred Lines" case was no longer considered applicable by the same court just a few years later).

Regardless of the above, what the plaintiff needs to demonstrate is that there is a "substantial similarity" between the two works. The defendant will argue the opposite -- that any similarities were "de minimis", or too trivial to really consider. Can read more here if you're interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity


----------



## lokotus

davidanthony said:


> ?!? Is right. The outcome of the above hypothetical hinges on almost every fact you referenced -- the specific changes, the skill of the two attorneys (and the expert witnesses), and even the specific court that the case is being argued in (different courts in different jurisdictions apply different standards, and sometimes even reject their previous reasoning in subsequent cases -- for example, part of the law that decided the "Blurred Lines" case was no longer considered applicable by the same court just a few years later).
> 
> Regardless of the above, what the plaintiff needs to demonstrate is that there is a "substantial similarity" between the two works. The defendant will argue the opposite -- that any similarities were "de minimis", or too trivial to really consider. Can read more here if you're interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity


thanks, will have a look...


----------



## davidanthony

lokotus said:


> thanks, will have a look...


And if you're really interested, this is a good (albeit technical, and a little outdated -- some of the positions the author argues against are no longer applicable) summary of the history and why it makes less sense to apply the test to musical works vs. other copyrighted works:



https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1403&context=jipl


----------



## Bollen

re-peat said:


> Would be a good challenge for a contest: write a new tune on the Yesterday-changes.


That sounds like a great idea, I'm in!


----------



## FlyingAndi

So, I just stumbled upon this:

It's a very well done Video with lots of interesting information about Koji Kondo. It's kind of related to this topic.


----------



## mcalis

Slight update. I got a reply from Oticons themselves and they were made aware of the issue with this track long after the winners had been announced. As a result they have excluded the track from the Oticons Faculty 2020 Soundtrack Album on which it would otherwise have been included.

They also note that this is the only case they've had like this in the 8 years of running the competition. There were other submissions in the past where intentional rip-off was noticed (i.e. note-to-note musical phrases) and they instantly disqualified the participants. They also noted that the Winners are voted for their overall performance for 4 submitted Assignments not just one. So Yakov Alexandrov was not awarded for that one track, but for four in total. I was also informed that, prior to their contest, Yakov Alexandrov also won a concert music competition with this work: 

All in all, their response was polite and extensive. They do take it seriously and I feel they took an appropriate and sufficiently measured step when they were made aware.

For me, this completely concludes the original reason I made this thread (isn't it nice to have actual closure in a thread for once?).

- The competition runners have indicated they take it seriously and have given a more than adequate response. So, if anyone ever had any doubt about the integrity of the competition, that doubt is no longer justified. They acted as soon as they were made aware, you can't really ask for more.
- Blakus himself has given his own statement in this thread which I also think is a very measured response. 
- Personally, I've taken a little more gracious stance about the case: now that I have the information from all sides I have to conclude that the likeness between the tracks was accidental, not intentional.

There have been a few other discussions that have started from this thread which I don't mean to stand in the way of. That said, my primary concern was with the case I originally posted and with that matter resolved I will, at least for the time being, bow out of this thread.


----------



## Markrs

This has been a worthwhile discussion and glad to see it has some type of resolution. I think where the line is between being influenced and copying is very fuzzy, especially for those scoring based on a temp track. In the end, even where it looks like someone has crossed that line, I doubt most would ever go to court unless there is a potential for a large payout.

I think some of the ideas in this thread about how you can get inspiration from other tracks has been very good and useful advice.


----------



## FrankieD

I haven't read the thread but want to chime in with something my teacher taught me. He was doing a TV series that was a spoof. He was asked to spoof John Williams a fair amount. Even then, usually a spoof or satire is excluded from copy write infringement, even then, they ran everything by a lawyer and they decided what was copying and what was not.


----------



## MikeK

mcalis said:


> now that I have the information from all sides I have to conclude that the likeness between the tracks was accidental, not intentional.


Forgive me as I thought I had followed this thread more closely, but I can’t recall now if Yakov Alexandrov had responded to this in any way either publicly or privately to you. If he did, what did he have to say?


----------

