Copyright

[Creativemind]

Hi!

Is it true that the actual song file on your computer (as it's dated) copyrights your song? Whether that be Reason, Logic, Pro Tools, FL Studio or what have you.

Would this stand up in court?

Thanks!

[normen]

Not really, go to a notary and keep a copy of your song there (on CD or as sheet music), that'll definitely stand up in court.

[Kenni]

Technically, yes.

Technically, as soon as you start composing, you're writing copyrighted material.

In practice, no. Not only take normen's advice, but register your song at a institution that caretakes your copyright interests. They usually have a 1-time member fee, and will aid you in any sort of dispute.

[selig]

What are the statistics on this? How many times has someone who did not register a song get screwed?

[Kenni]

Good question.

I got screwed twice actually. 1st time, there were nothing I could do. 2nd time around, the "world" got to know. The ripped off track is still in circulation though.

[Benedict]

If it comes to court of law then if you can prove you wrote it 10 mins before the other guy - and he copied/stole your unique idea - then you are sorted. Simple as that, provided there is enough money to go to court. Sure I have had my ideas nicked a few times but the results don't play like I would have. Move on.

Of course chances of anyone doing that are slim. Unless your are sitting next to Pharell or Mr Ice . Even then note they only used famous songs.

Interesting thing. In the late 80's I was working on an idea on my Casio of synthesizing Gregorian Chants to put with drum machine rhythms. Some years later there was this Enigma thing. Sometimes there are just a few people working the same seam.

[selig]

Good question.

I got screwed twice actually. 1st time, there were nothing I could do. 2nd time around, the "world" got to know. The ripped off track is still in circulation though.

And just to be sure, you're asserting that if you had registered your music you would have been totally safe from being screwed? Was it someone you knew, or can you share the two tracks for comparison?

I mention this because in my 30+ years working in one of the songwriting capitols of the world I've not heard of this happening to anyone, registered or not. In fact, when I wrote for Warner/Chappel, one of the largest music publishers in the world, works were NOT registered until they were 'cut', as the registration process is done to allow the accurate collection royalties, not to protect intellectual property. I would assume a big publishing company would have an interesting in protecting their property!

I'm still trying to learn about the different aspects of the copyright side of music!

[Kenni]

Case 1

This became quite a debated case within the scene, because the ripoff had their CD sealed the old fashion way. Mine was a song done in a tracker, uploaded to a site called Trax In Space a year prior to the release of the ripoff, which was even used as a theme song for the first danish Big Brother. Server log files weren't a thing for the courts back then.

Original: Go to 1:09 (this is from 2000, I was 16 back then)

http://andruszkow.dk/sadstory.mp3

Copy: Go to 0:30 (this is from 2001)

Case 2

This was registered all the correct ways, but the "business" just moves on.

Original: Go to 3:43

Copy: Go to 2:20

[eusti]

Sorry to hear, Kenni!

D.

[selig]

Case 1

This became quite a debated case within the scene, because the ripoff had their CD sealed the old fashion way. Mine was a song done in a tracker, uploaded to a site called Trax In Space a year prior to the release of the ripoff, which was even used as a theme song for the first danish Big Brother. Server log files weren't a thing for the courts back then.

Original: Go to 1:09 (this is from 2000, I was 16 back then)

http://andruszkow.dk/sadstory.mp3

Copy: Go to 0:30 (this is from 2001)

Case 2

This was registered all the correct ways, but the "business" just moves on.

Original: Go to 3:43

Copy: Go to 2:20

Sorry to hear this too - but my initial point was made, sadly. "Registering" properly didn't protect you in any way (right?) and you were still ripped off and there was apparently nothing you could do about it.

So you can register it all you want, but how will that actually protect you? My question was poorly worded, but was intended to be about whether the process has ever actually protected anyone or not, not whether anyone has ever been ripped off.

While it totally sucks for you, these are VERY nice melodies/tracks you've created here, and I can see why some less talented assholes wanted to rip you off!

[Kenni]

Sorry to hear this too - but my initial point was made, sadly. "Registering" properly didn't protect you in any way (right?) and you were still ripped off and there was apparently nothing you could do about it.

So you can register it all you want, but how will that actually protect you? My question was poorly worded, but was intended to be about whether the process has ever actually protected anyone or not, not whether anyone has ever been ripped off.

While it totally sucks for you, these are VERY nice melodies/tracks you've created here, and I can see why some less talented assholes wanted to rip you off!

Haha thanks.

The first case was a bit of a no-brainer. Firstly, I was to young to register with one of those copyright unions, and didn't really know that much about it back then. Secondly, I didn't know the "Send a CD via snailmail to yourself, and let the stamp date be the evidence" trick. That's what they expected, so they had the "evidence" of writing an original. And in the end, server logs that proved that I was the owner of that track were not regarded as trusted evidence back then.

The second case, I didn't want to put too much energy into persuing it. We made some noise on the internet for a short while, and in that part of the scene (Trance, and general EDM), your name is ruined quickly, which was enough for me

He did start releasing music a few years later as Jorn Van Deynhoven though.

[selig]

Sorry to hear this too - but my initial point was made, sadly. "Registering" properly didn't protect you in any way (right?) and you were still ripped off and there was apparently nothing you could do about it.

So you can register it all you want, but how will that actually protect you? My question was poorly worded, but was intended to be about whether the process has ever actually protected anyone or not, not whether anyone has ever been ripped off.

While it totally sucks for you, these are VERY nice melodies/tracks you've created here, and I can see why some less talented assholes wanted to rip you off!

Haha thanks.

The first case was a bit of a no-brainer. Firstly, I was to young to register with one of those copyright unions, and didn't really know that much about it back then. Secondly, I didn't know the "Send a CD via snailmail to yourself, and let the stamp date be the evidence" trick. That's what they expected, so they had the "evidence" of writing an original. And in the end, server logs that proved that I was the owner of that track were not regarded as trusted evidence back then.

The "poor man's copyright". Though it's not the last word on the subject, here are some pretty smart folks discussing how they feel this is a myth:
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/08 ... copyright/
http://www.alankorn.com/article-reg-copyright.html

While you may as well take the "poor man's copyright" approach if it makes you feel better, it would be far more effective to actually register any song that you place in the public sphere if you feel there may be any risk of infringement.
Disclaimer: I am not a copyright lawyer and am simply repeating what I've been told over the years.

[platzangst]

Registering one's copyright (in the US at least) is, as I understand it, one of those things that serves you well only if you're going to actually take the step to take someone to court over them using your work. That is, it's a legal formality that ought to be in place before a lawsuit proceeds. (Standard disclaimer: not a lawyer, etc. etc.) If you don't, it limits the damages you can claim, either by type or amount (or both, I don't exactly recall).

But as been pointed out, having a legal copyright of any sort does not necessarily protect one in a practical sense. Even if you have all the proof that you created the copied material, do you have the time, money and legal assistance to pursue any action? Perhaps if you're linked to a major label, but if you're an indie artist, the odds aren't likely. "Standing up in court" becomes irrelevant if you can't even spend the money needed to get to court...

[normen]

Registering one's copyright (in the US at least) is, as I understand it, one of those things that serves you well only if you're going to actually take the step to take someone to court over them using your work. That is, it's a legal formality that ought to be in place before a lawsuit proceeds. (Standard disclaimer: not a lawyer, etc. etc.) If you don't, it limits the damages you can claim, either by type or amount (or both, I don't exactly recall).

But as been pointed out, having a legal copyright of any sort does not necessarily protect one in a practical sense. Even if you have all the proof that you created the copied material, do you have the time, money and legal assistance to pursue any action? Perhaps if you're linked to a major label, but if you're an indie artist, the odds aren't likely. "Standing up in court" becomes irrelevant if you can't even spend the money needed to get to court...

I know at least of one case where a simple letter from the notary keeping the sheet music was enough to convince the composer of a video games music to share the time equivalent of the income generated with the music (it was one piece in a compilation for the game). But of course you'll have to judge if the actual volume of the "financial damage" is worth going all out.

[platzangst]

I know at least of one case where a simple letter from the notary keeping the sheet music was enough to convince the composer of a video games music to share the time equivalent of the income generated with the music (it was one piece in a compilation for the game). But of course you'll have to judge if the actual volume of the "financial damage" is worth going all out.

Well, yes. If it was a large game company and a well-selling game, then the money involved might be worth the trouble of a lawsuit. If you're suing "ilovecats45" over his YouTube video where he puts your music in the background, there might not be enough money involved to justify the expense and trouble.

(And in the latter case, what you'd do first is contact YouTube directly and try to have them take action, though you can't always count on them.)

[Emerton]

I know at least of one case where a simple letter from the notary keeping the sheet music was enough to convince the composer of a video games music to share the time equivalent of the income generated with the music (it was one piece in a compilation for the game). But of course you'll have to judge if the actual volume of the "financial damage" is worth going all out.

Well, yes. If it was a large game company and a well-selling game, then the money involved might be worth the trouble of a lawsuit. If you're suing "ilovecats45" over his YouTube video where he puts your music in the background, there might not be enough money involved to justify the expense and trouble.

(And in the latter case, what you'd do first is contact YouTube directly and try to have them take action, though you can't always count on them.)

ilovecats45 using your music in their video is very different to ilovecats45 writing & releasing a song that rips yours off though.
The former just requires a takedown via Youtube. No money or lawyer needed. The second is a very different story as per the stories above.

[Emerton]

As far as I'm aware it's not just enough to show that you wrote the song first, you have to show a potential or actual line of contact with the offending party. That very reason is why so many record companies & managers don't accept unsolicited demos. They just throw them in the trash to avoid lawsuits.

[normen]

As far as I'm aware it's not just enough to show that you wrote the song first, you have to show a potential or actual line of contact with the offending party. That very reason is why so many record companies & managers don't accept unsolicited demos. They just throw them in the trash to avoid lawsuits.

No it most definitely is enough. You write something you have the copyright, if you can prove it (like a notary having your stuff) the other party has to have definite proof it wrote the stuff first. Has nothing to do whatsoever with being published or not or being in contact or not.

[forensickbeats]

Is there any way to check whether your melodies have already been created before... like what if a person rips of someone accidentally...

[Emerton]

Is there any way to check whether your melodies have already been created before... like what if a person rips of someone accidentally...

If you're really concerned, you could hire a musicologist? http://getinmedia.com/careers/musicologist

You can do more than teach with an education in musicology. The academic study of the art of music is an immensely useful pursuit that can lead to a career in music publishing, music supervision, and numerous other positions in the entertainment field.

Duties
Musicologists are often consultants who work on a freelance basis. These individuals are hired to provide assistance to record labels, music publishers, film and television production companies, and media advertising agencies, among others. Typically, the musicologist’s tasks are research, analysis, and opinion. On behalf of clients, the musicologist may participate as an expert forensic witness in copyright-infringement or sound-alike lawsuits. Other services may include consulting on matters of original music clearance, sample analysis, copyright valuation, licensing research, and verification of originality.

Permanent or full-time employment is available with companies that create audio identification software (like Shazam), and with organizations that may need a musicologist’s expertise in mapping and cataloging songs according to specific qualities (for instance, Pandora or Gracenote). Under these circumstances, the musicologist analyzes a song to identify specific characteristics like tempo, melody, and tone, and records those findings to aid programmers in writing code that selects songs for software users based on similarities of style and genre. Additional employment opportunities include consulting with directors and music supervisors on historical and stylistic accuracy of music for films and television shows or with sound design studios that specialize in the production of original music for movies, TV, commercials, and other media.

Skills & Education
A bachelor’s degree in music, ethnomusicology, musicianship, composition, or music history is expected, and should be accompanied by a master’s degree in musicology or a closely related program with a concentration in the study of music. Familiarity with multiple genres is required, and a musicologist should be as familiar with a song’s genesis as he or she is with the technical notation of the tune. Training as a musician in at least one instrument is valuable, but not required. You should be able to sight-read sheet music and instantly spot the subtle distinction between an Afro-Cuban clave and a Bo Diddley beat. Equally important is a thorough understanding of the evolution and continuing innovation of musical instruments and electronic devices used in the production and performance of recorded and live sound. Courses in copyright law, licensing, and music business are encouraged.

What to Expect
A career as a musicologist is a lifetime devoted to the study and understanding of music, applied to serve the varied needs of multiple clients. Before you cultivate a successful career as an expert for hire, you will have to gain relevant professional experience in the music and entertainment industries. Any job in a music-related company is useful, so there really is no wrong place to start. Work at a record label, music publisher, or performing rights organization is invaluable. Most important is that you clearly define for yourself where you want your career to take you. If you are interested in business and law, seek out employment in the areas of copyright, licensing, and administration. If working with songwriters and artists is more your thing, hang around the A&R department, recording studios, and scoring stages. Those interested in pursuing a career as a musicologist must be willing to engineer their own opportunities with a bit of creativity and gumption.

- See more at: http://getinmedia.com/careers/musicolog ... wnpOB.dpuf

[Emerton]

As far as I'm aware it's not just enough to show that you wrote the song first, you have to show a potential or actual line of contact with the offending party. That very reason is why so many record companies & managers don't accept unsolicited demos. They just throw them in the trash to avoid lawsuits.

No it most definitely is enough. You write something you have the copyright, if you can prove it (like a notary having your stuff) the other party has to have definite proof it wrote the stuff first. Has nothing to do whatsoever with being published or not or being in contact or not.

It depends on what the infringement is, and how close the rip off is. There have been recent cases where a party has had to show some sort of contact with the offending party. If there's demonstrable contact, you have a stronger case.
There's also a financial difference between subconscious and intentional plagiarism in terms of damages awarded.
http://wtop.com/entertainment/2015/03/b ... s/slide/1/

http://www.breathecast.com/articles/jay ... ong-21818/

Jay-Z, Kanye West and Frank Ocean are being sued for allegedly stealing a song from Joel McDonald, who was selling his CDs outside their hotel, TMZ reported.

McDonald claims that he was selling his CDs outside the Mercer Hotel in SoHo several years ago at the same time that the trio had rented rooms at the hotel and were recording part of Jay-Z's Watch the Throne album.

He filed a lawsuit against the trio, claimed that a man named Mike Dean approached him to buy one of his CDs. A few months later, one of his songs, "Made in America," appeared on Jay-Z's album, which identified the same Mike Dean as one of the producers.

McDonald initially filed a case at the New York State court a few months ago before deciding to file a federal lawsuit, demanding that the trio cut him a part of the profits.

McDonald was part of the rap group Undefeated Three under Tuff City Records, and was able to record several songs with the band before they split up, according to Liberty Voice.

He wrote the song "Made in America" in 2009, and was surprised when a song of the same title appeared in Jay-Z and West's collaborative album, to which Ocean added and sang a melodic hook. The song explored themes such as the American dream, family life and triumph over adversity.

McDonald is now seeking $3 million in damages, claiming the trio stole his song and put it in the 2011 What The Throne EP.

Neither Jay-Z nor West have commented publicly on the lawsuit, but West was seen getting fired up after he was asked about the claims, as seen in an exclusive video by x17.

In the video, West could be seen shouting at the videographer, who tried to defend himself by saying "We just want to know your side of the story, especially since this case is all over the news today."

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1541811,00.html

Beyoncé Knowles is in the clear after a Houston federal judge threw out a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against her by a Minneapolis singer-songwriter.

Claiming that the R&B star's 2003 hit song "Baby Boy," from Knowles' Grammy-winning album Dangerously in Love, took lyrics from her own song, "Got a Little Bit of Love For You," Jennifer Armour sued Knowles last year, reports the Associated Press,

Armour claimed her former manager provided demo recordings of her work to Columbia Records and Atlantic Recording Corporations, the record labels for Knowles and Sean Paul, who is also featured in "Baby Boy."

However, after comparing the two songs side by side, the court found that the songs in question were "substantially dissimilar."

"It's unfortunate that lawsuits such as this one occur, but I am grateful and relieved to have this behind me and I am eager to move on," Knowles, a Houston native, said in a statement issued by her father's music management company, Music World Entertainment.

AP could not reach Armour for comment.

http://hiphopwired.com/2010/01/27/black ... ringement/

A copyright infringement lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court by Plaintiffs Ebony Latrice Batts, a/k/a Phoenix Phenom, and Manfred Mohr, against Will.I.Am (William Adams Jr.), Fergie (Stacy Ann Ferguson), Apl.De.Ap (Alan Pineada Lindo), and Taboo (Jaime Gomez), all individually and collectively as the music group the Black Eyed Peas.
Also named in the lawsuit were the Universal Music Group, Inc.; Interscope Records; EMI April Music, Inc.; Headphone Junkie Publishing, LLC; and Will.I.Am Music, Inc.
The Complaint alleges that sometime between January and March of 2009, the Black Eyed Peas intentionally and willfully copied “Boom Dynamite” when they co-wrote and recorded “Boom Boom Pow.”
As a result, “Boom Boom Pow, “as a whole, is substantially similar to “Boom Dynamite,” and the “hook” portions of both songs are strikingly similar. The Complaint also alleges that approximately one year after the plaintiffs submitted “Boom Dynamite” to Interscope and one year after “Boom Dynamite” was released, the Black Eyed Peas released the song “Boom Boom Pow” as the first single off the group’s fifth studio album, entitled The E.N.D.
“Boom Boom Pow” became the first US number single on the Billboard Hot 100 chart for Black Eyed Peas and is currently nominated for a Grammy for Best Dance Recording. The Complaint also refers to other claims of copyright infringement made against the Black Eyed Peas, and seeks unspecified damages, disgorgement of profits, and punitive damages.
Ira Gould, the attorney for Batts and Mohr, released a statement concerning the case:
“My clients submitted their copyrighted song “Boom Dynamite” to Interscope Records after Interscope had shown interest in some of their music, and the Black Eyed Peas later copied the song when they wrote “Boom Boom Pow.” A simple listening of the two songs will tell you that the songs are substantially similar, and that the hooks of the two songs are virtually identical in rhythm and lyrics.”
Peep the two versions below. It does look like somebody got jacked. Nah… more like raped. But we’ll let the courts decide.

- See more at: http://hiphopwired.com/2010/01/27/black ... hQy0k.dpuf

[normen]

It depends on what the infringement is, and how close the rip off is. There have been recent cases where a party has had to show some sort of contact with the offending party. If there's demonstrable contact, you have a stronger case.
There's also a financial difference between subconscious and intentional plagiarism in terms of damages awarded.

Well yeah, if you're talking about a "beat" or a three-chord riff or a platitude lyric or three notes of a melody that might be. I am talking about an actual musical opus and an actual case of intellectual theft. If you don't manage to get money off your simple rock&roll riff but others can they clearly deserve the money and you don't

[Emerton]

It depends on what the infringement is, and how close the rip off is. There have been recent cases where a party has had to show some sort of contact with the offending party. If there's demonstrable contact, you have a stronger case.
There's also a financial difference between subconscious and intentional plagiarism in terms of damages awarded.

Well yeah, if you're talking about a "beat" or a three-chord riff or a platitude lyric or three notes of a melody that might be. I am talking about an actual musical opus and an actual case of intellectual theft. If you don't manage to get money off your simple rock&roll riff but others can they clearly deserve the money and you don't

How about this case?

Everyone who knows rock 'n' roll knows the opening riff to Led Zeppelin's 1971 hit "Stairway to Heaven." Play it side-by-side with the 1968 song "Taurus" by the band Spirit, and they sound almost the same.

The songs were released more than four decades ago, but just this week, a judge in Pennsylvania allowed a lawsuit about the issue to move forward.

LISTEN: Opening riff, Led Zeppelin's 'Stairway To Heaven'
Playlist
Download
Embed
"Taurus" was written by Randy California, the founding member of the band Spirit. He died in 1997, but his heirs want compensation for plagiarism and a songwriting credit. They filed suit against the members of Led Zeppelin and their music publishers.

"The judge will basically hear both songs, both sides will bring forth musicologists, and they'll debate whether the songs are really similar," Eriq Gardner of The Hollywood Reporter tells NPR's Arun Rath.

Gardner says in this case, the judge could have no musical knowledge whatsoever.

LISTEN: Opening riff, Spirit's 'Taurus'
Playlist
Download
Embed
"That adds the wild-card factor to this," he says. "No one knows what a judge in Pennsylvania is going to say. I mean, [in] Pennsylvania, there's very few cases that have examined copyright infringement in songcraft."

The plaintiff's lawsuit emphasized having a Pennsylvania judge oversee this case. Gardner says he's not certain why, but it may have something to do with the lawyer.

"The only thing that I can really think of is that the lawyer for the plaintiff is based in Pennsylvania," Gardner says.

"If the plaintiffs wanted to have a tactical advantage, they probably would've sued in Nashville — the songwriter capital of the world," Gardner says. "And if they wanted this to be convenient for the parties, they would've sued in California, where a lot of the plaintiffs and witnesses are, as well as a lot of the music defendants."

Rock aficionados will tell you that Led Zeppelin stealing "Stairway to Heaven" is old news. After all, it's been 43 years since the band released the song.

"[Randy California's] heirs start thinking that they may have a claim," Gardner says. "A lot of rock historians have suspected at least the opening notes to 'Stairway to Heaven' were lifted from the song 'Taurus,' and a lawyer comes forward, willing to work on contingency, and voila: a lawsuit."

This isn't the first time Led Zeppelin has been accused of plagiarism. Just listen to the band's recording of "Dazed and Confused" and compare it with folk singer Jake Holmes' "Dazed and Confused," recorded two years earlier. It's practically the same song.

Holmes filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Led Zeppelin in 2010.

"This sort of thing happens a lot in music," Gardner says. "There's only so many notes in the music vocabulary."

But sometimes, he notes, the similarities are just unmistakable.

[normen]

How about this case?

/yawn... The closure of Pages version is better ^^

[Emerton]

How about this case?

/yawn... The closure of Pages version is better ^^

So... what are you saying? If someone's plagiarism is subjectively a better work that makes it ok to steal the idea uncredited?