Plagiarism in the Music Industry

[Jac]

Plagiarism is a hot top topic at moment concerning the music industry.

a very well known  multi millionaire Artist is being highlighted for her years of doing this and getting away with it.

it's not new, it always gone on, but research is showing it's getting much, much worse.

Research say because its so much easy to do now.

The artist  above is also known for taking other artists  choreography, art work, fashion copying etc ...the list goes on.

l was shocked how much they were doing it and getting away with it. Now the Artist is being called out and is called  a 'soul less thief' !!

 

Any opinions ?

 

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Jac

[john]

Sadly, many artists don’t feel empowered to pursue a legal case. It’s one reason I am in the Musician’s Union. If anything goes on I get free legal advice and advocacy. Registering the copyright is essential if you release music and make it available in the USA.

 

That aside, beyond plagiarism, there is the acquiring of songwriting credits by stars adding a syllable or word to a song they do a deal to release, the deal being “I’ll record your song and get a full songwriting credit with a minor credit and minimal royalty or fee (because of the interest in the writer it potentially might bring, a toe in the door of the industry of music), if not sole writer and the actual writer as a ghost writer, in exchange for a small set fee.

 

All all that “song appropriation” is overlooked and treated as legitimate. All that before simple plagiarism. No wonder it is easy to feel isolated and vulnerable.

 

The answer is knowledge, and experience, because they are empowering. Gain them in lessons, courses, forums and songwriter groups where they can learn from their peers.

 

Songwriters, producers, artists have to protect themselves  and their work in whatever way they can. They should keep evidence of the development of their work. Give thought to where and how you share it. Forums timestamp your posts, keep threaded conversations and they have many, many, many advantages for creatives creating over most forms of communication and social platforms on which to communicate.

 

I never understand how someone can steal like that. It is deeply sad. I get that it is greed or even jealousy. Still, it’s a gamble that might not always get the faker financially, but it can sorely ruin their reputation at zero cost to the original songwriter… if they have evidence and knowledge… and that can bring opportunity. Believe me, if people know you write good songs, especially songs that chart well… it can bring you opportunity.

[Glammerocity]

Do people really only add a syllable then demand 50% royalties? I find that hard to believe. Making some minor changes certainly deserves some kind of credit, which often wouldn't be credited, because the songwriter/s in the band had the power. "Shut up, Ringo!" Some might argue that the likes of Aerosmith and Bon Jovi benefitted greatly from the co-writing work of Desmond Child. But sure, there are probably a few, like the unnamed multi-mllionaire, who have unscrupulously learned how to make more money from the business end. It's a different time to when artists didn't know anything about the business end, which suited major labels, the people who were really ripping off musicians.

 

https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/

[john]

5 minutes ago, Glammerocity said:

Do people really only add a syllable then demand 50% royalties? I find that hard to believe. Making some minor changes certainly deserves some kind of credit, which often wouldn't be credited, because the songwriter/s in the band had the power.

 

It happens in the pop industry, where non-songwriting (or terrible songwriting) pop-cheesecake-stars are wanting songwriting credits and hard nosed managers push to buy songs or for large percentages for almost zero input. It’s a small percentage of large sales and possible exposure, with your name associated with a star… traded for unearned percentages. Not hugely common, as you would imagine, but it keeps happening with a certain type of pop star. I always wondered if that was at the root of Natalie Imbruglia claiming she wrote “Torn”. It was relatively common practice with those factory stars of the 80s and 90s, to try to intimidate writers out of percentages.

 

I believe it’s common on big talent shows for large amounts of economic rights to be transferred that differs from moral rights. Gesturing to a wall of compilation CDs with decades of chart hits “We have plenty hit songs top choose from that we know appeal to the public. Why would we take a chance on an unknown song, written by an unknown writer, performed by an unknown artist?”. It makes for an effective lever on some writers.

 

Of course, what people try is different from what people agree to. That’s why they also almost always say that your song is “one of a few we are considering”, intoning that you might lose out and they aren’t that bothered (true or not), giving the impression of walk away power in negotiations.

 

Many music industry bean counters are a breed apart. They don’t seem to have any shame.

[Glammerocity]

7 hours ago, john said:

 

It happens in the pop industry, where non-songwriting (or terrible songwriting) pop-cheesecake-stars are wanting songwriting credits and hard nosed managers push to buy songs or for large percentages for almost zero input. It’s a small percentage of large sales and possible exposure, with your name associated with a star… traded for unearned percentages. Not hugely common, as you would imagine, but it keeps happening with a certain type of pop star. I always wondered if that was at the root of Natalie Imbruglia claiming she wrote “Torn”. It was relatively common practice with those factory stars of the 80s and 90s, to try to intimidate writers out of percentages.

 

I believe it’s common on big talent shows for large amounts of economic rights to be transferred that differs from moral rights. Gesturing to a wall of compilation CDs with decades of chart hits “We have plenty hit songs top choose from that we know appeal to the public. Why would we take a chance on an unknown song, written by an unknown writer, performed by an unknown artist?”. It makes for an effective lever on some writers.

 

Of course, what people try is different from what people agree to. That’s why they also almost always say that your song is “one of a few we are considering”, intoning that you might lose out and they aren’t that bothered (true or not), giving the impression of walk away power in negotiations.

 

Many music industry bean counters are a breed apart. They don’t seem to have any shame.

 

It doesn't just happen in the pop industry, wherever the perceived dividing line for that is.

 

Led Zeppelin were pulled up on legal grounds a number of times and had to change accredition. There's no shortage of their fans ready to claim it's ok because "they transformed them, " "they made them better," or "stop trying to apply modern rules to an old tradition." Bollocks.
 

The Stones started ther careers ripping off blues musicians wholesale, with no credit or royalties. Jagger and Rchards claimed 100% of the royalties for The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony, despite it only having a cut up sample of an orchestral arrangement of one of their songs, so not their melody and not their recording but they got all the money, because they had the lawyer power. It was only recently that they gave Richard Ashcroft his song back. Pth, millionaire stars, eh?

 

I didn't imagine it was hugely common, because it's not hugely common for an unknown songwriter to have their song presented to an established artist without a publisher doing the presenting and dealing with the negotiations. I've seen the lists record companies send to publishers outlining what type of song/s they're looking for and for whom.  The publisher might argue that the songwriter should concede some ground to get themselves established, though that also costs the publisher, so it's not really in their interest unless they've already found it's good business practice.

 

I used to have that rock thing in puberty, where you stop listening to pop, because it's for little kids, and now you're taking music seriously. You didn't listen just to like it, you had to appreciate. Disco sucked and Abba was for your mum. I got over that attitude quickly, because I started trying to write songs and realised writing good hooks isn't nearly as easy as it looks. TBH I always found rock to be easier to make, because you can be self-indulgent and call it art (with a small a), whereas with pop you better have a good hook.

 

Of course rock also relies on hooks to sell. There's a reason XTC's Mayor of Simpleton has far more YouTube views than Travels in Nihilon, their rant against the music business: it's got hooks. They tried to be purely credible artists in the 80s and had to return to their old hooky rock style in the 90s, because fans weren't buying.

 

Yes, some business people don't seem to have the shame. It was ever so. I have to admit I find it a shame that old tropes about pop music and supposed credibility are on a songwriters' forum. I expect it elsewhere but not here. Pop has given a great number of songwriters whose faces didn't fit a nice living. And I've heard plenty of terrible songwriting in rock. There's also great songwriting in pop (start at A with the aforementioned Abba) but for some reason if you like good pop you're supposed to call it a guilty pleasure. I feel no guilt. I like XTC and CLC.

[john]

3 hours ago, Glammerocity said:

 

It doesn't just happen in the pop industry, wherever the perceived dividing line for that is.

 

Led Zeppelin were pulled up on legal grounds a number of times and had to change accredition. There's no shortage of their fans ready to claim it's ok because "they transformed them, " "they made them better," or "stop trying to apply modern rules to an old tradition." Bollocks.
 

The Stones started ther careers ripping off blues musicians wholesale, with no credit or royalties. Jagger and Rchards claimed 100% of the royalties for The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony, despite it only having a cut up sample of an orchestral arrangement of one of their songs, so not their melody and not their recording but they got all the money, because they had the lawyer power. It was only recently that they gave Richard Ashcroft his song back. Pth, millionaire stars, eh?

 

I didn't imagine it was hugely common, because it's not hugely common for an unknown songwriter to have their song presented to an established artist without a publisher doing the presenting and dealing with the negotiations. I've seen the lists record companies send to publishers outlining what type of song/s they're looking for and for whom.  The publisher might argue that the songwriter should concede some ground to get themselves established, though that also costs the publisher, so it's not really in their interest unless they've already found it's good business practice.

 

I used to have that rock thing in puberty, where you stop listening to pop, because it's for little kids, and now you're taking music seriously. You didn't listen just to like it, you had to appreciate. Disco sucked and Abba was for your mum. I got over that attitude quickly, because I started trying to write songs and realised writing good hooks isn't nearly as easy as it looks. TBH I always found rock to be easier to make, because you can be self-indulgent and call it art (with a small a), whereas with pop you better have a good hook.

 

Of course rock also relies on hooks to sell. There's a reason XTC's Mayor of Simpleton has far more YouTube views than Travels in Nihilon, their rant against the music business: it's got hooks. They tried to be purely credible artists in the 80s and had to return to their old hooky rock style in the 90s, because fans weren't buying.

 

Yes, some business people don't seem to have the shame. It was ever so. I have to admit I find it a shame that old tropes about pop music and supposed credibility are on a songwriters' forum. I expect it elsewhere but not here. Pop has given a great number of songwriters whose faces didn't fit a nice living. And I've heard plenty of terrible songwriting in rock. There's also great songwriting in pop (start at A with the aforementioned Abba) but for some reason if you like good pop you're supposed to call it a guilty pleasure. I feel no guilt. I like XTC and CLC.

 

Do you believe that such things do not happen?

 

Far from thinking it is limited to pop, I think it happens in most if not all genres. I don’t think it’s the majority of cases, or even a large minority, but nor is it unheard of. The fact that there is any kind of dark side of music shouldn’t see us shying away from it. We shouldn’t be donning rose tinted spectacles, or grey for that matter. Surely we should be shining a light on poor practice? Yes, we should absolutely be celebrating the successes, the support given to unknowns for example. Look at the amount of people nurtured under the wing of Elton John. There may be a dark side to that, but I don’t know of one. Yet, just as there are people like Elton John out there, there are also not so nice characters. While we may know of these stories, surely we have a duty to let less experienced songwriters and artists know of both sides of the coin?

[john]

Out of interest, I’ve always been a massive Zep fan. Well, at least as long as I can remember. I still remember when I first heard Bert Jansch’s Blackwaterside. I did a double take, instantly recognising it as Black Mountain Side from Led 1. After some research I understood it was a traditional Irish song, “Down by Blackwaterside” that Bert Jansch had arranged, and that Jimmy’s version was very, very close to Bert’s but with zero accreditation. I was crestfallen. My hero tarnished. Not for the last time.