# With so many similar film compositions, how much is copyright infringement an issue?



## AKR (Oct 24, 2013)

Hi, this is my first post, and I'm just starting to get into studying film scores. It seems that a lot of film scoring is fairly minimalistic in chord structure, chord changes, etc. Of course, you have the main themes, which are generally all out productions and tend to be more unique, but there's a lot of background scores that are just a couple of instruments, playing one or two notes throughout a scene. As often as this occurs, I'm assuming people aren't suing each other left and right, even though many films/shows are going to have incredibly similar scores. 

As someone coming from a pop songwriting background, it's generally really easy for me to know when I'm copying a famous song, and I know it can get me in big trouble, but with film scoring, I'm guessing there's some lenience when it comes to the more generic note or chord changes? Thanks for any input.


----------



## korgscrew (Oct 24, 2013)

You can't copyright a style or a chord progression. But you may be labeled a hack. Every composer is a hack, except the 1st ever composer. There's a point, who is the 1st ever composer?!


----------



## rJames (Oct 24, 2013)

korgscrew @ Thu Oct 24 said:


> You can't copyright a style or a chord progression. But you may be labeled a hack. Every composer is a hack, except the 1st ever composer. There's a point, who is the 1st ever composer?!



Blegch Gsagh. Somewhat of a Neanderthal if I recall correctly. Played a mean stick. Remember, "Stick and Growl?" crazy tune.


----------



## ProtectedRights (Oct 24, 2013)

Lolzes


----------



## korgscrew (Oct 24, 2013)

Stick and growl. Tubular bells springs to mind


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 24, 2013)

I think it is not the style or a chord progression, what lets so many tracks sound like the same... .

I think it is the result because so many composers use the same libraries, the same synth patches e.t.c. . 

A wide field! But I do not want to start another fight here about this.... .


----------



## Walid F. (Oct 24, 2013)

korgscrew @ Thu Oct 24 said:


> who is the 1st ever composer?!



Technically, by the made up definition by me of a composer being someone writing down his music rather than having it in his head, it would be Seikilos. Good composition too!

Hodon zes phai nou... mmmhmm hmmhmm....


----------



## korgscrew (Oct 24, 2013)

germancomponist @ Fri Oct 25 said:


> I think it is not the style or a chord progression, what lets so many tracks sound like the same... .
> 
> I think it is the result because so many composers use the same libraries, the same synth patches e.t.c. . .



GC, I'm not fighting here, just my opinion. 

I personally think that it's more cliche than presets etc. 

Intimate scene - fragile violins 
Action scene - 16th note percussion and cello staccato. 
Sad scene - soaring minor strings
Happy scene - major progression with woodwind. 
Scare - dissonance. 

Lao to be fair to the composers who you think are copying. They need to eat, so they do as the director wants!


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 24, 2013)

korgscrew @ Thu Oct 24 said:


> Lao to be fair to the composers who you think are copying. They need to eat, so they do as the director wants!



I know and I also know that I sometimes wrote "a little bit too hard comments" about this theme.

These cowards among the directors, who are really the true evils!


----------



## guitarman1960 (Oct 25, 2013)

I think its not only film music which is becoming more and more the same. All genres of music seem to be going the same way. Many many people copying a successful formula, and very few people doing new things.
A lot of people these days are chasing money so copying seems the fastest route to that. Art can wait till they get rich, LOL!

On the other hand, economic times are very tough for lots of people though, so if you want to make a living doing music, it's highly unlikely you are going to do that by being experimental and arty.

Also many films are becoming more and more the same too, not just the music.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 25, 2013)

The *money* dictates it all ... . :-(


----------



## ProtectedRights (Oct 25, 2013)

korgscrew @ Thu Oct 24 said:


> I personally think that it's more cliche than presets etc.
> Intimate scene - fragile violins
> Action scene - 16th note percussion and cello staccato.
> Sad scene - soaring minor strings
> ...



Hehe, this is going to be fun! :D 

I'll add:

cheap intimate scene -> 80ies sensual saxophone

actions scene -> as stated by korgscrew, plus every ethnic drums/percussions that you can find

and for the TV commercial range:

good mood in general, like for cream cheese etc. -> happy ukulele

astounding new technology gadgets like iphone -> awestruck solemn piano pling pling

household stuff that just works -> good temper pop music

cars -> friggin dubstep or rock

internet services like Google -> rhythmic banging on any everyday object


----------



## TSU (Oct 25, 2013)

All this happens because it is guaranteed to work.
No one want's to risk their money.
Music is like investment in the project.
So those who don't have money - more brave 
All this tells me - if one want originality - try looking at indie world. Do some good but free of charge projects.
But I don't want to say that all we must do banal things for commercial projects.
They just have a more hard restrictions.
It is not impossible to do someting original within this restrictions but very hard especially when the time is limited.


----------



## rJames (Oct 25, 2013)

The thing that becomes more and more apparent to me is that one of the most important skill sets of a composer is NOT originality but being able to tap into the historical context of music whether that is genetic or environmental.

Doesn't matter whether a sax is sensual because it has been used in that context millions of times or that it has that throaty, bendy ability. It is what the audience understands as sensual that matters. Same with ukeleles, minor, major, fragile violins, 16th note cellos.

Film music and advertising is playing to the interpretation of the audience's brains. It is also art when composers find new ways to stoke old (common) perceptions.


----------



## jaredcowing (Oct 25, 2013)

Composers have always stolen from each other and built off of what is familiar to audiences- I think what makes a composer great *and* successful is being able to write "safely" but also always playing with expectations, adding little touches of originality and craft that are subtle but there for anyone who's looking for them... it's the difference between doing the job, and going above and beyond. I understand that budgets and time are tight, but even so composers should always strive ask themselves if they're doing "good enough" music because they're short on time, or because they don't have the technical chops to do anything else. If you had twice as much time to do the piece, would it sound different? What would be different about it? That's something you can always think about even in a time crunch, so that you are always aware of what could be better and how to get there.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 27, 2013)

The answer to the original question is: It's an issue.

Pick up and read some music law books.


----------



## Markus S (Oct 27, 2013)

It also happens automatically if you are really good in a style. I have this thing with horror films and horror scores and I can sometimes hear motives in film scores from Christopher Young or Marco Beltrami I have written years before the release of the film. Did they stole it from me? Did they even hear it beforehand in my mini video game soundtrack? It's highly probable that they just came up with something very similar on their own.

A certain style dictates certain "rules" so inside these rule there are often unintentional similarities. Should I trash a motive I have written (and not published), because an year later someone publishes something super similar?

On the other hand, I have been long enough around to know that ripping off intentionally is daily practice on all levels in this business. Intentionally, I guess, it is a lot safer bet, because you can change that little bit, that makes you untouchable.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 27, 2013)

Many of the film scoring cliches are such because they work. Originality is great but, IMHO, it is a fool who ignores 80+ years of previous experiments.


----------



## Studio E (Oct 27, 2013)

rJames @ Fri Oct 25 said:


> The thing that becomes more and more apparent to me is that one of the most important skill sets of a composer is NOT originality but being able to tap into the historical context of music whether that is genetic or environmental.
> 
> Doesn't matter whether a sax is sensual because it has been used in that context millions of times or that it has that throaty, bendy ability. It is what the audience understands as sensual that matters. Same with ukeleles, minor, major, fragile violins, 16th note cellos.
> 
> Film music and advertising is playing to the interpretation of the audience's brains. It is also art when composers find new ways to stoke old (common) perceptions.



I have to completely agree with this. If you are writing for film, tv, commercials, etc, you already have a very conditioned audience and they want their new shiny this and that delivered with a light-hearted uke/banjo/human whistle. I give all credit to anyone who goes outside the box and still reaches or creates a new audience. To that effect, I do feel that regardless of what style I am emulating, it is still me. I can live with that and still sleep at night just fine. Maybe that will change eventually but for now, I'm still just thrilled to be able to figure out what someone else has done and recreate the necessary aspects of it.


----------



## Musicologo (Oct 27, 2013)

It will be a serious issue specially for lawmakers given the amount of newly registered scores and dumping practices (someone registering 1 000 000 scores for instance).

The amount of TONAL music, with let's say, 3 minutes, that makes sense (pitch wise and context wise) is limited and finite. Regarding symbolic notation (scores), there are very few combinations possible and they are getting close to be exhausted.

At least, the clichés, are getting close to be exhausted given the amount of composers and music being done in the past 100 years... and I'm sure entire sequences of 5 or 10 seconds, motivs, etc, are overlapping right now in many scores.


----------



## midi_controller (Oct 27, 2013)

Musicologo @ Sun Oct 27 said:


> The amount of TONAL music, with let's say, 3 minutes, that makes sense (pitch wise and context wise) is limited and finite.



Not really, at least not to the extent that you are making it out to be. People have been writing for the Piano for hundreds of years, and somehow we can still do it and have it be something unique. We are talking about 88 keys, over the duration of 3 minutes, in any possible combination, with different rhythmic possibilities going down to milliseconds. I'm not even going to try and calculate it, but I'm sure the possible pieces of music are astronomically high.

And that is _just_ the Piano. Then we have to start looking at the orchestra, which is going to take that number probably well beyond the range of pieces that human beings are ever going to be able to exhaust. Then we can start adding in ethnic instruments, folk instruments, not even mentioning the instruments that haven't been invented yet. And finally, the real killer, synthesis, which would probably end up making that number of possible pieces of music pretty much infinite.

Then, since we are talking about film music, we get to talk about context, which opens all kinds of new doors! There are countless ways to score any given scene, and no two composers will do exactly the same thing, although they might be close because of the already mentioned fact that some methods are proven to work (and we have deadlines). But even then, it's been shown time and time again that there is more than one thing that works for different scenes, and that number continues to grow all the time as people branch out and try new things. Even if a majority of the cues play it safe in a film, there can still be one or two that are a little off the beaten path.

If you study music history, you can see that music goes through trends. Some of them last longer than others but typically within any given time period you are going to have composers, songwriters and musicians writing somewhat similar music. There is nothing wrong with it, it's just what clicks with audiences at the time. Then things change and evolve and before you know it something else is in fashion. Just get used to the ride and don't worry about it.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 28, 2013)

(o::o) 

Excellent reply! ^


----------



## Musicologo (Oct 28, 2013)

That was not the point I was addressing. 
From a legal point of view the sound is not the most relevant parameter to evaluate an original tune. We are talking about musical scores. And with a musical score I register melody or melody + chords. At least, that is what I do with my PRO.

I register symbols. So, in fact I'm reducing the possibilities enormously. Because I register "C D C D C D E", and If you play that same combination in any instrumentation or whatsoever I will just say you ripped of mine. It's just a different "arrangement" or "orchestration" but that is irrelevant legal wise. It's "the same tune". 

As long, as when it is played, someone can recognize "the same tune" then one is doomed. And that happens as long as the melody is roughly the same (contour and rhythm mostly). All other parameters may be different, that is irrelevant for the recognition.

We hear that all the time - people being accused of plagiarism even if they use different instrumentation or sounds, or even in different keys.

Then, again, there is a small number of combinations that work well in the contexts we're used to - it is a vast combination regarding the number, but it is a small percentage of the universe of possibilities regarding melodies. I'd say, from all the note sequences possible, the same 1% is used all the time, because the others make "no sense" in our "historical context". So, again, in the context of monophonic melodic lines (the ones recognizable and that you can legally register with a PRO), the combinations are not that much that 500 hundreds of history and millions of composers did not help to overlap here and there.

Now, to thicken up things:
The day someone registers with a pro 999999999 melodies, then you'll have a problem. A computer can exhaust those combinations in few hours, one can print out all those pdfs and just register them and claim them as owner and a very prolific composer. 

I hope it is more clear now, the hypothetical but not so unrealistic scenario I'm posing in mid term.

(Edited to be more clear and trim)


----------



## midi_controller (Oct 28, 2013)

I have a hard time believing that it would hold up in court if you tried to sue someone for using the same notes as you, regardless of the register, orchestration, harmony, context, or hundreds of other factors that make up a piece of music. Would John Williams sue everyone who uses the phrase "E F"? Would Hans Zimmer sue everyone that uses a minor third interval?

If someone could register that many melodies and get away with it, don't you think they would have by now? Even if not, how much you want to bet any lawsuit would get thrown out of court almost instantly?

I think it is probably fairly difficult to prove that two musical works are similar enough to warrant legal action, otherwise those kinds of lawsuits would be happening constantly.


----------



## Musicologo (Oct 28, 2013)

Well, I refer to the question of the OP.
I believe, theoretically, the issue is increasingly important, and it is a bucreacratic issue and not a musical one.

You are already seeing that issue happening with patents and an enormous amount of mambo-jambo going on backstage just because of ridiculous patents about anything.

I'm a creative and I'm worried about making music I like and not law, but given the possiblilites and frailties of the legal system I'm not surprised it will become a business like any other: exploitation of the possibilities to make money.

It is not easy to register 99999999999 scores because it is not easy to actually produce and print them right now. But algorithmic composition is becoming more and more sophisticated as david cope has proven so. So it will become feasible in mid term.

And from what I've read in another threads in legal suit what counts is a group of random people to "recognize" the same tune aurally - and that is easily done with the melody. The same countour and approximate rhythm - those are the only factors that determine recognition of a melody by a random group of people, so you just have to register a fairly number of tunes.

One thing is certain: most pop songs and film music rely on riffs, hooks and motivs of 8 bars or less. If you have a way to claim a vast number of relevant tunes of that size you can make a case like "he stole the refrain of my song 923657385732 and he uses it as its hook on his song "in the beach with my girlfriend" which is a hit, even though the verse is quite different". 

We have lawsuits over samples c'mon... I believe legally someone, somewhere will exploit the system under these terms...

Adenda: it is also statistically more relevant - the more time passes more and more look-alike music is produced and registered, something that was not happening 50-100 years ago (the amount of composers registering and tracing music is increasing due to technology). So, in 20 years a LOT more music will be legally binded and a lot more fights will happen in court unless something about the system as it is is bound to change. And I believe that will be also a consequence, like it is already happening with "technological patents".


----------



## midi_controller (Oct 28, 2013)

I see what you are saying. I agree, this is strictly a problem with our legal system and there probably should be restrictions put in place to prevent the same kind of things that are happening with patent trolls. It's not really an issue yet, but as you say, it might be sometime in the future. For the average composer, I don't think it's something to worry about.


----------



## germancomponist (Oct 28, 2013)

Yeah, when you read some patents, you can only shake your head and wonder how anyone could manage it to get the patent. 

These are criminals who have got enough money to do it.


----------

