|
Label/Producer using a rejected track you once sent them as their own (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Theran |
Well, I'm feeling sorry for the boy, but I don't agree with him.
They look similar, but over the years, it's possible that you have two tracks using the same chords. They are not exactly the same as he says (tiësto's sounds better ;) ). And BTW, I can also create a track now, that looks a lot like traffic and saying Tiësto stole my song.
We don't know if he sended the track to black hole after all. We have to little facts to really conclude if thise is plagiarism or not.
Personally I'm a big fan of Tiësto, and everybody knows that Tiësto hasn't produced every track of his own, but hey, DJ Jean doesn't produce at all. All his tracks are made by the former G-Spott a.k.a. Richard Durand.
Lately Tiësto is producing his own track (luckely), see the remix of the Cary Brothers - Ride. It's a typical Tiësto sound.
And btw with a track called 'Swiwal', you probably won't get it released anywhere ;). |
|
|
| derail |
In most modern trance songs, there's nothing, compositionally, that you can copyright about it. A chord progression can't be copyrighted. Try telling anyone playing blues that they can't use a 12 bar blues progression. Or anyone in trance using generic trance progression #3 that they can't use that progression. If all you add over the top of it is some arpeggio sequence, or some lead notes which don't constitute a distinctive melody, then there's nothing stopping someone using exactly the same progression and arpeggio sequence and calling it their own song. You could turn to any legal system in the world and they won't help you out.
If you use words, you can copyright the words in your song.
If you come up with a distinctive melody (maybe 5-10% of trance songs these days (if that) would have a strong enough melody to be considered as such), you can copyright the melody.
People can't steal your actual version, but there's nothing stopping them from creating their own version and calling it their song. It's totally legal, and very standard practice for a lot of styles.
Listening to the original version in this video, it contains no melody. It contains a "lead sequence" of notes, which forms part of the chord progression, but it's nowhere near strong and distinctive enough to stand up in any court as an "original melody". Most modern trance is in the same boat. Tiesto would have much more of a case, since he's added a much more distinctive melodic idea. The chord progression seems identical, which is absolutely fine. As I said before, chord progressions can't be copyrighted.
Do I think Tiesto used his track as a basis for his own? Very probably. Not definitely, but probably. Is there a problem with that? Not at all. If you don't want someone to steal your idea, make sure there's an idea to steal. Write a good melody. If someone ripped off the melody to '9pm (Til I come)' or 'The Theme' or a similar track, then they're in big trouble. If they rip off the progression and lead sequence from most modern trance songs, they're fine. There's no court in the world which will convict them of doing something wrong.
Take my songs/remixes in my signature below for example - my latest song, Dawn Flight, has a copyrightable melody. Most people absolutely hate it, but it's distinctive enough to copyright. Universal Movement I would argue has no melody as such, just an arpeggio sequence of notes. I doubt very much I could do anything if someone wanted to grab the chord progression and lead sequence of that song and do their own version. Day One's melody is distinctive enough, Sun Haze's melody is distinctive enough. But most modern trance songs don't contain strong enough melodies to protect themselves. I listened to the first CD of Trancemaster 61 today, one of the eleven songs contained a real actual melody. (Sterilis, if you're reading - good work on that song!) |
|
|
| wesleysnipez |
| Have to agree with Derail and even ask buddy who stopped by who is lawyer and agrees with Derail to because it sound close but not enough to win royalties and sue in court. |
|
|
| Storyteller |
| Timbaland is even worse. He samples melodies and uses them 1 on 1. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by wesleysnipez
Have to agree with Derail and even ask buddy who stopped by who is lawyer and agrees with Derail to because it sound close but not enough to win royalties and sue in court. |
Depends where you are. Laws are different.
I agree though, sadly there's not much you can do. |
|
|
| G-Con |
| quote: | Originally posted by farris
Traffic = Psykofuk - Psykofuk
Suburban Train = Kid Vicious - Re-form
Lethal Industry = Alec Empire - Suicide EP
Nyana = Subtle By Design - Sirius
If you look harder, I'm sure you'll find even more. |
Kid Vicious co-wrote Suburban train with Tiesto so that one doesn't really count.
I had heard that Traffic sampled something from another tune. Don't know if this counts as ripping something off. Daft Punks tunes are all built around sampling other tracks.
I'm interested in the Nyana and Lethal industry ones, will check them out.
One track that Tiesto did blatantly copy was Airbase's pole positon. Tiestos Olympic Flame has the same structure, type of synth sounds, similar sort of melody.
And he used to hammer Pole position so he was very familiar with it |
|
|
| derail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
Depends where you are. Laws are different.
I agree though, sadly there's not much you can do. |
The way I learned it in my music course, it seemed like this was pretty universal (words and melodies are copyrightable, chord progressions aren't). It certainly seemed to cover Australia, US and Europe. Do you know some examples of countries with different laws regarding what aspects of music can be copyrighted? |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by derail
The way I learned it in my music course, it seemed like this was pretty universal (words and melodies are copyrightable, chord progressions aren't). It certainly seemed to cover Australia, US and Europe. Do you know some examples of countries with different laws regarding what aspects of music can be copyrighted? |
Yea the laws are generally similar on the surface but local lawyers usually seem to find loopholes in a countries legal constitution or anything else they can. Hence why no one really likes lawyers :p |
|
|
| Theran |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
Hence why no one really likes lawyers :p |
OW... to bad I'm studying to become one ;) |
|
|
| Fledz |
| Well at least you'll be rich :gsmile: |
|
|
| cybernetica |
| quote: | Originally posted by derail
In most modern trance songs, there's nothing, compositionally, that you can copyright about it. A chord progression can't be copyrighted. Try telling anyone playing blues that they can't use a 12 bar blues progression. Or anyone in trance using generic trance progression #3 that they can't use that progression. If all you add over the top of it is some arpeggio sequence, or some lead notes which don't constitute a distinctive melody, then there's nothing stopping someone using exactly the same progression and arpeggio sequence and calling it their own song. You could turn to any legal system in the world and they won't help you out.
|
I absolutely agree with you.
Maybe Tiesto has heard that rejected track and thought "hey, Im gonna copy that melody", maybe he just came up with the same note progression on coincidence. Probably its something in between, but this melody is definitely not that unique... like most tracks in trance have no distinctive melodies, as derail pointed out.
Thing is, who is gonna prove it? If you never heard the original song but compose a song with the exact same chord progression, are you a thief?
I dont know what laws are like in the US, but at least in Germany its very diffuse. Definition says that plagiarism is when "a part of the song thats characteristic for the song" is stolen. That can be either "a melody, a certain harmony, a complex rythm, or single sounds, etc." , and its usually "decided individually by a commitee of experts" (I translated this myself because its not available in english).
Every now and then plagiarism accusations come up. Didnt the infamous Metallica try to sue other artists for stealing their melodies a few years ago? I would love to see the outcome of this, but I cant find anything.
As much as I respect protection of artistic "values", my point is that this whole thing can turn into some kind of witch hunt. There are no definite limits to plagiarism, at least over here. And while I am definitely not an expert with law, I think this could turn into a major problem. Where will artistic freedom go if anyone who has made a track with a similar melody can sue you for stealing?
Same goes for sampling. I recommend you watch this video. That guy is Johannes Kreidler, who made a 33 second piece, that contains 70200 samples. By definition of law, no matter how short the snippet is you used in your track, you need to fill out a form and send it to the GEMA (Not sure, but I think its something like the RIAA in the US).
He tries to show the absurdity of that rule and claims that in digital age "creative media use must be legal"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG1Zn_6wDRo |
|
|
| Rusty O'Hara |
| quote: | Originally posted by cybernetica
Where will artistic freedom go if anyone who has made a track with a similar melody can sue you for stealing? |
The way of the US Patent system? |
|
|
|
|
