When does plagiarism start?

[Ikagura Ikagura]

I often see people calling something a plagia simply because it follows a very similar chord progression (not the full melody) and when something is remixed a lot when does it becomes its own thing? Remember how many songs used samples (from other songs) to the point it became original.

And when a song enters public domain is this no longer plagiarism in a strictly legal sense?

By definition Doom 1&2 could've been forbidden games simply because of the heavy inspirations over actual rock and metal songs.

And then you got one of the most beloved music composer in video game History, Koji Kondo, who took a lot of existing songs for his music

And a more infamous exemple that has been known for quite a while on the Internet with Yuzo Koshiro's Streets of Rage

 

[Yousef]

As far as I’m aware, plagiarism is primarily a legal term, and not an artistic one. You could plagiarize non-artistic works, such an article, a documentary, a book, a research, etc. Naturally, it can be used outside of that in more extreme cases, but I believe in more gray instances, it’s up to qualified professionals to answer something like this. It’s quite easy to make uneducated observations based solely on intuition. I personally don’t really mind that Budokai 3’s ost is plagiarized because I still enjoy the OST, but legally that’s what it is so it’s safe to call it as such. Oh well, at least it helped uncover System of a Down and Stratovarious.

 

[Clippy]

In simple terms, plagiarism is when you take someone else's work and pretend you made it. I mostly know the term from academic setting, ie quoting someone's paper without proper citation/credit. Considering how many works have been created by this point I'm sure it's fairly common to make something that's similar to another piece by sheer accident. Even purposeful copying someone's work doesn't necessarily trigger the definition. There are many song covers out there and they're not plagiarism because you're open about playing someone else's song and putting your spin on it. Sampling is probably transformative enough that it dodges the question entirely.

How plausibly accidental a similarity between works can be probably varies from person to person but sometimes it's very obvious that you're dealing with a carbon copy. Dragon Ball Budokai games are another famous example of plagiarized music. It was so bad Bandai had to actually rerelease them with a different soundtrack to avoid a lawsuit.

Another thing is that certain amount of plagiarism tends to be permissible. Bobby Prince was a copyright lawyer so I'm sure he knew how much he could copy without getting in hot water.

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

As far as I’m aware, plagiarism is primarily a legal term, and not an artistic one. You could plagiarize non-artistic works, such an article, a documentary, a book, a research, etc. Naturally, it can be used outside of that in more extreme cases, but I believe in more gray instances, it’s up to qualified professionals to answer something like this. It’s quite easy to make uneducated observations based solely on intuition.

That's the major issue with the law. Either it's too lax and everyone could claim something to be theirs only because they've added a small difference (like how some could claim music videos just because they've sampled it) or too restricted which would be detrimental to artistic value.

Remember when the word "Edge" was copyrighted so that Mirror's Edge had issues with its name? Remember how Marcus Person had troubles with Bethesda because of his game Scrolls around the time Skyrim came out?

That's why someone's intellectual property should be protected but they shouldn't become tyranical like patent trolls or ridiculous claims like wanting to copyright the word "The".

Even more ironic when the person that claims a copyright is also one stealing from someone else. Like DeadMau5 getting troubles from Disney because of his mouse logo yet the later also used his music without having ever asked. Ditto with Nintendo vs Universal regarding King Kong and Donkey Kong.


Many people that don't know about music often confuse chord progression with the melody. Nobody should be able to own something as simple as a tritone.

 

[fake-kun]

With your mom.

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

With your mom.

Can we keep that kind of answer in high school? Thank you.

 

[Coon]

Plagiarism, in essence starts the moment someone presents another person's work or ideas as their own, without proper attribution. This can involve direct copying, paraphrasing without citation, or even using an idea without acknowledging its source. Regardless of whether it's intentional or accidental, failing to give credit where credit is due constitutes plagiarism.

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

Regardless of whether it's intentional or accidental, failing to give credit where credit is due constitutes plagiarism.

Now I'll still say that sometimes discoveries could be made at the same time in two entirely separate and unrelated regions of the world.

I forgot the name but it's often seen when technologies are similar in two places.

Could we accuse two things of plagiarism if it was merely from the Zeitgeist or that both took inspiration from the same third source?

I remembrer how people called Art of Fighting a Street Fighter II rip-off when in fact it was just because the game director was Street Fighter 1's (in a similar fashion with how Tekken was made by one of the guys behind Virtua Fighter).

I kinda dislike when someone claims that X is a plagiarism of Y when Y was made by the same people behind X like Mission Impossible : 2 being made by John Woo which was the director who inspired the Wachowski for The Matrix yet people called it a Matrix ripoff for the gun fights or even how Dune from 1984 was sometimes said to be too much inspired by Star Wars when the later took elements from the former's book.

I digress a lot sorry but that's probably why many people often accuse of plagiarism over the simplest coincidences.

Back to music I wouldn't call Castlevania's entire soundtrack a plagiarism of Bach's or 18th - 19th century Baroque music as a whole.

I still remember that funny quite which I don't fully agree but can see the implication: "good artists copy, great artists steal".

Maybe at the end of the day if you end up becoming more successful and popular you're more easily forgiven.

 

[myhosea]

 

[Yousef]

Ripoff name-calling doesn’t instantly equate to accusations of plagiarism. Something can still be legally-distinct while also recognized as being an artistic imitation, seems like you’re missing the forest for the trees.

 

[Waffles's iconWaffles]

Depends on nature, length and intent, I believe.

For example: I often find myself quoting people whose works have inspired and shaped my own craft, but I wouldn't want to be slapped with a plagiarism accusation because of it -- there's no intent to deceive and it's usually just a quote at a time, yet it accurately can be called not my own thinking.

Countless books, movies, TV shows and videogames have also been heavily inspired by others, so it's hard to tell where to draw the line, specially now that that's being seen as a selling point... Books, specially, are now heavily advertised as "For fans of X and X". I see that as an almost complete positive, however. The rare exemptions are those who just live in the shadow of a proven formula and don't try to do anything with it, like a certain work I read last year that was of such small quality that it never felt like it was designed to do that... And then I read someone else's pain-filled autobiography and it turned out that this other book had been an insulting, uncredited fictionalization of it.

So... Yeah. "Sounding similar" isn't gonna cut it, we have written way too many songs as a species for that to pass as intentional anymore.

 

[goregoregoregoregoregore]

I have too strong and extreme opinions about this topic and i'm too much into sampling culture, plunderphonics and dadaist shit, so in order to not create too heated discussions about this i will try to filter myself a bit.
I think at the moment a piece of art changes enough so that the messages and intentions of what the original tried to express is different then it has no reason to be called plagiarism.
Art should never be supposed to be treated as a commodity but simply as means to expression. People forget that art is based on nature, and is not a natural concept by itself, and not a single aspect of the concept of art itself exist without mimicking something already existing, as opposed to things like ''sound'', ''color'' or ''movement'' for example.

Also i agree with what @Yousef said. This is a topic not really related to art in itself at this point and more about law. Different artists with different backgrounds, ideologies, cultures and personalities will have totally different opinions about this and will treat a ''plagiarism'' situation very differently. Probably you won't see people into hardcore underground music care in any way about plagiarism as opposed to more mainstream or famous musicians for example

 

[fake-kun]

Can we keep that kind of answer in high school? Thank you.

 

[Cardboardtubeknight Cardboardtubeknight]

I saw something about how everything will be a reference soon, so get used to it

 

[Clippy]

 

[Adrastia]

Now I'll still say that sometimes discoveries could be made at the same time in two entirely separate and unrelated regions of the world.

It's not that strange when you look at certain things outside of music. So many cultures independently invented the bow and arrow for instance.

There are only so many ways to combine sounds. So eventually we are gonna hear some soundalikes. It's only a problem when someone blatantly steals. Led Zeppelin was the subject of a lawsuit because of plagiarism claims made by Taurus over Stairway to Heaven sounding too much like Spirt. Zeppelin won the suit. But some people feel the outcome was unfair. Willie Dixon also sued the band over A Whole Lotta Love. It was settled out of court. A lot of classic rock music is directly influenced by American blues and these artists weren't always properly credited. In the case of Willie Dixon, he was already ripped off by his publishing during his career and then Zeppelin goes and makes a frankensong based on two of Dixon's songs and doesn't even list his name on the album.

I'll also add (and I don't think it's direct plagiarism) that parts of Judgement in the Sixtieth Year - Fate of Sixty Years from the Touhou game Phantasmagoria of Flower View sounds very similar to Pigs (Three Different Ones) by Pink Floyd

I think it's just a coincidence on Zun's part. Unless he's a big Pink Floyd fan.

 

[Don Patch]

Where does it start?
With intent.


I'll leave it at that.

Edit: This is a interesting topic that has several legitimate and relevant answers that don't all sync up.

 

[diapered]

lol, thread makes me think of these triple-q mashups triple-q

For popular music (verse, chorus, verse, chorus...) structure, there are only so many chord progressions that work and then there are only so many scales/modes and note intervals that will sound good with those chords... idk, maybe hot take for those that are actual musicians, but for me, it has to be extremely blatant, like also copying lyrics in ADDITION to overall sound to consider legal action... But, I'm not a musician, just a garbage guitar player. I can't even read music >_<

It's not that strange when you look at certain things outside of music. So many cultures independently invented the bow and arrow for instance.

There are only so many ways to combine sounds. So eventually we are gonna hear some soundalikes. It's only a problem when someone blatantly steals. Led Zeppelin was the subject of a lawsuit because of plagiarism claims made by Taurus over Stairway to Heaven sounding too much like Spirt. Zeppelin won the suit. But some people feel the outcome was unfair. Willie Dixon also sued the band over A Whole Lotta Love. It was settled out of court. A lot of classic rock music is directly influenced by American blues and these artists weren't always properly credited. In the case of Willie Dixon, he was already ripped off by his publishing during his career and then Zeppelin goes and makes a frankensong based on two of Dixon's songs and doesn't even list his name on the album.

I'll also add (and I don't think it's direct plagiarism) that parts of Judgement in the Sixtieth Year - Fate of Sixty Years from the Touhou game Phantasmagoria of Flower View sounds very similar to Pigs (Three Different Ones) by Pink Floyd

I think it's just a coincidence on Zun's part. Unless he's a big Pink Floyd fan.

I would side with zeppelin for vs taurus, but that is damn close. Yea, they probably ripped them off as they opened for them so probably knew that composition, but idk. The scope, sonics and usage of it is different enough for me, but barely... But yea, Dixon was done dirty and it became blatant with also the lyrics... So that's good led payed up on that one.

pigs (never heard before) vs fate of sixty years (fucking love it!) is really interesting. Thanks for sharing that! I like floyd ok, but don't listen a lot, so also thanks for that because I like that song. Even assuming the worst and it was stolen/lifted (like you, I think it was accidental, it's a short enough and good sounding interval to find), the usage I think is different enough for those songs.