Michael - The Great Album Debate

[Korgnex]

The definition you have provided seems to apply for dissertations etc. I simply showed you how "Ghosts" / "Is It Scary" or "Stranger In Moscow" / "Beautiful Girl" / "(I Am A) Loser" would come within this definition if it was applicable which it isn't.

Bumper, why don't you ask the legal expert that is just looking into this thread whenever the ugly Korgnex is posting? I'm just a little idiot who knows nothing, you know. You have experts in your camp, ask them.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

The definition you have provided seems to apply for dissertations etc. I simply showed you how "Ghosts" and "Is It Scary" would come within this definition if it was applicable which it isn't.

Korgenx, I am sorry, but here you clearly show a subjective and selective plagiarism. Dissertations, thesis, music, songs, texts, you name it, plagiarism apply to all.

But you confused inspiration, fair use and plagiarism and gave examples of SIM/Beautiful Girl/ I am a loser etc, which have nothing to do with copy-pastes.

Let me rephrase it for you:

-Invincible was officially released
-Cascio songs were officially released

-Cascio songs do not need legal credit if they were inspired from other songs, but the portions that are exact the same as in the Invincible must be credited, be it the text, the music, the vocals, you name it.
In our case, we have on those Cascio songs parts of the words that have been used/copy-pasted/borrowed/fairly used from Invincible, you name it, but the issue is not the fact that they have been used, but the fact that they have not been credited.

Now, you are telling me that legally it is not necessaty to credit soimething you copy-paste from previous work? This is new to me, so I am asking you where did you read that you don't need to give credit when you copy paste things from previously released material and then re-use it on a new material? How did you come to the conclusion that it is not a legal obligation?

 

[Korgnex]

Korgenx, I am sorry, but here you clearly show a subjective and selective plagiarism. Dissertations, thesis, music, songs, texts, you name it, plagiarism apply to all.

You're not getting the point. Plagiarism applies to all, I haven't said anything else. The definition you have provided is not applicable to music works.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

You're not getting the point. Plagiarism applies to all, I haven't said anything else. The definition you have provided is not applicable to music works.

Ok, and tell me where can I get the same information you got? Where did you read that?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

The definition you have provided seems to apply for dissertations etc. I simply showed you how "Ghosts" / "Is It Scary" or "Stranger In Moscow" / "Beautiful Girl" / "(I Am A) Loser" would come within this definition if it was applicable which it isn't.

My definition is clear: uncredited copy-pastes are plagiarism. SIM/Beautiful Girl/ Ghosts/Is it scary, etc. are not copy-pastes, so I don't know how they are related to "my" definition of plagiarism.

Bumper, why don't you ask the legal expert that is just looking into this thread whenever the ugly Korgnex is posting? I'm just a little idiot who knows nothing, you know. You have experts in your camp, ask them.

I don't want to be involved in a conflict between members. I don't have other camp than MJ's camp. All I did was asking questions to those who would know the answer with sources. For the moment you just answered that legally there is no obligation to credit the copy-pastes from Invincible to create a sentence in the Cascio song, but I am still waiting for you to provide me the source where you have read that or at least an explanation how you came up with that conclusion? By reading which legal document specifying that credits can be exempted when copy-pasted on a new material?

 

[Chamife]

because they come within your own definition of "self-plagiarism":



@Chamife: That's professional music jargon which can be misinterpreted (as can be seen by your posting). "vocal tracks" are what you would call "songs" and "music" can be everything: vocals, instruments, sounds etc.
Your understanding however seems to be that "vocal tracks" would mean "just vocals" and "music" would mean "no vocals but instruments etc."

Indeed.. Thanks for explaining. Didn't understand that the term 'music' automatically also can include vocals. I took it literally.

 

[StellaJackson]

I'm more concerned about the fact that 12 songs that are credited as Michael Jackson only feature him on pasted ad libs and words on some tracks, while the lead vocals belong to those of another uncredited individual. I believe that's called fraud.

 

[Korgnex]

Here, Bumper, for the last time, I'm talking about this very definition here that you have provided:

When you publicly release something that wouldn't have been possible without previouysly released work, even if you are the author of the initial work, it is considered as (self-)plagiarism if you don't credit the parts that allowed you to create new parts

Apart from the fact that "without previously released work" would have to be substituted with "without previously created work"* this definition is clearly not limited to "copy-paste jobs", it applies to everything that is based on something that has been created earlier (conditio-sine-qua-non formula).

*This is necessary because otherwise you could do plagiarism by simply creating new things based on things not available to the public (=released).

 

[love is magical]

@Chamife: That's professional music jargon which can be misinterpreted (as can be seen by your posting). "vocal tracks" are what you would call "songs" and "music" can be everything: vocals, instruments, sounds etc.Your understanding however seems to be that "vocal tracks" would mean "just vocals" and "music" would mean "no vocals but instruments etc."

I'm not a musician, so I don't know any musician jargon. Are you telling me musicians refer instrumental sound as "vocal?" To be honest, it doesn't make much sense. Linguistically, vocal means voice. Sound from instrument, such as drum sound, horn sound, is not voice, but sound. So, I have a hard time comprehending instrumental being referred to as vocals. For instance, would people say "let's record some violin vocals?" Music, on the other hand, has a much broader definition. Again, I'm not a musician. So, I can be wrong.Edit: Nevermind. I re-read Korgnex's' post. Confusion is now cleared.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I'm more concerned about the fact that 12 songs that are credited as Michael Jackson only feature him on pasted ad libs and words on some tracks, while the lead vocals belong to those of another uncredited individual. I believe that's called fraud.

The difference between what you say and the point that I raised is that the lead vocalist is credited as MJ and it's impossible to legally prove it one way or another for the moment, whereas the copy-pastes from Invincible inserted in the middle of the sentences in the Casco songs to create new sentences without being credited can be proven. And the question is why didn't they credit those parts?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Here, Bumper, for the last time, I'm talking about this very definition here that you have provided:


Apart from the fact that "without previously released work" would have to be substituted with "without previously created work" this definition is clearly not limited to "copy-paste jobs", it applies to everything that is based on something that has been created earlier (conditio-sine-qua-non formula).

The work must be released in order to be plagiarised. If you create work without releasing it you have to prove that you had created it before someone else plagiarized your work.

I didn't limit plagiarism to a copy paste only, I was specifically pointing out the copy-paste on the Cascio songs from the Invincible, which is inevitabely plagiarism because it hasn't been credited.

And for the last time, it is not "my" definition, I was merely paraphrasing and summerizing the official definition that you can easily find on any legal web site.

However, your claim that there is no legal obligation for crediting those parts. And I have been asking you at least five times to explain how did you come up with that conclusion, where did you get that info from?

 

[StellaJackson]

The difference between what you say and the point that I raised is that the lead vocalist is credited as MJ and it's impossible to legally prove it one way or another for the moment, whereas the copy-pastes from Invincible inserted in the middle of the sentences in the Casco songs to create new sentences without being credited can be proven. And the question is why didn't they credit those parts?

Another important question is why are the words only pasted in to Monster and Breaking News? Words from sentences I mean, not adlibs. Is it a coincidence that they are on two of the three songs that Riley worked on? Maybe he was trying to "Michael" them up? We know from Taryll's info that he wasn't confident in them which is why he passed on KYHU. Burn 2Nite doesn't have any pasted words though, which was Riley's third song. So the question is are those words on the pre Teddy mixes of BN and Monster...

Someone took the time to meticulously insert words into the middle of sentences in those songs. Chances are that it was the same person that meticulously inserted adlibs and breaths in them, especially when one considers that the source for nearly all the adlibs is Invincible (song and album). The adlibs are on the pre Teddy versions after all, so more than likely the words are too.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Here is a definition of self-plagiarism that doesn't come from me, so I won't be accused of inventing definitions:

Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing
Miguel Roig, Ph.D.


SELF-PLAGIARISM

When plagiarism is conceptualized as theft, the notion of self-plagiarism may seem impossible. After all, one might ask: Is it possible to steal from oneself? As Hexam (1999) points out, it is possible to steal from oneself as when one engages in embezzlement or insurance fraud. In writing, self-plagiarism occurs when authors reuse their own previously written work or data in a ‘new’ written product without letting the reader know that this material has appeared elsewhere. According to Hexam, “… the essence of self-plagiarism is [that] the author attempts to deceive the reader”.


source: http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/self plagiarism.html

 

[Chamife]

I'm not a musician, so I don't know any musician jargon. Are you telling me musicians refer instrumental sound as "vocal?" To be honest, it doesn't make much sense. Linguistically, vocal means voice. Sound from instrument, such as drum sound, horn sound, is not voice, but sound. So, I have a hard time comprehending instrumental being referred to as vocals. For instance, would people say "let's record some violin vocals?" Music, on the other hand, has a much broader definition. Again, I'm not a musician. So, I can be wrong.Edit: Nevermind. I re-read Korgnex's' post. Confusion is now cleared.

The statement in the booklet also makes a distinction in the two lines. First line the booklet mentions vocal tracks performed by Michael (Michael didn't play any instruments on the songs, so they have to mean his voice), the second line they mention what music they used and newly created. The producers only created music (sounds, instruments, not voices...).
So first they give information about the singing, and in the second line they give information about the music. That's how I interpreted it.

But like you I'm also not very familiar with musician jargon, so not sure...

*confusion*

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

Well, this is how I see the things:

If I was to write a PhD thesis for example. Imagine that in order to write it, some parts of my thesis are based on my previous research that had been previously published either in some articles or in my previous thesis. Needless to say that those parts would be essential to my new thesis.

So in order to avoid self-plagiarism, I normally should give reference, hence credit these essential parts of my previous parts of the thesis and research even if I was the initial author.

If the university asks me for copyright authorization to use my research by others, despite having copyright authorization, they ought to give credit if they use essential parts of my research.

Assuming some people had read my thesis (including myself of course), and they/I didn't quote me/myself, or they/I just paraphrased me/myself in order to prove a different point of view than what had been written in the thesis, then it wouldn't have been considered as (self-)plagiarism, but probably as "fair use". However, in the credits, they/I would have been supposed to duly credit me/myself despite the copyright authorization.

In the music scenario case, if I am not mistaken, it is similar. Despite copyright owner's authorization, it is illegal to use/re-use previous parts of officially published work without credits, even if there's "fair use", as in many hip hop songs for example.

My main concern is that MJ's previous parts of songs have been used to create a new one. It is true that in the case of "Take Me Away", its creator didn't have the copyright authorization, but that was not the only issue. The issue is that if he had had the copyright authorization, he would have been obliged to credit all the essential parts that allowed the song to be created. So it's a credit related issue too.

Hence, this leads me to the fact that we have clearly identified copy-pastes from Invincible in the middle of the sentences on the Cascio songs in order to fabricate a new sentence. I am not questioning whether the copyright authorization is given or not, as I assume it probably is, since the songs are officially released and labeled. I am questioning whether Branca was aware of the sentences fabrication with copy-pastes in the middle of the sentences (not ad-libs), because they haven't been credited at all, yet at the same time those copy-pasted bits of sentences from Invincible are so essential that the new sentence on the Cascio songs wouldn't have existed.

To me this case is similar to including in my thesis essential bits from my previously copyrighted and officially published work without which my new thesis wouldn't be possible, yet without crediting it. Which means that it would be considered as self-plagiarism. Regarding (self-)plagiarism in general, there is no minimal number of words, notes, etc. as long as it is clearly established what comes from where and when it is not duly credited.

IMO, a seriously done work should be duly credited not only for legal reasons, which is obviously understandable and as a matter of fact an obligation, but also for the ethics out of respect for the initial work without which the new one wouldn't be possible, and also, why not, for the sake of transparency.

So, either Branca is unaware of this, because it's been hidden to him (as to us since not credited), or he was aware and thought nobody would notice it. But if this latter was the case, why taking such a risk?

If they had to credit everything they did they forgot a lot on Behind The Mask.

"Behind The Mask
Written by Michael Jackson, Chris Mosdell, Ryuichi Sakamoto / Published by Mijac Music (BMI) All rights administered by Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp. (BMI) & by Alfa Music, Inc. (JASRAC) All Rights Administered by Sony/ATV Tunes LLC (ASCAP) / Produced by Michael Jackson, John McClain & Jon Nettlesbey / 'Behind The Mask' contains a sample of the recording "Behind The Mask" as performed by Yellow Magic Orchestra. (P) 1979 Alfa Music, Inc. Licensed by Alfa Music, Inc. All Rights Reserved. / Mixed by Jon Nettlesbey, Khaliq Glover / Lead & Background Vocals: Michael Jackson / Additional Background Vocals: Shanice Wilson, Alphonso Jones / Background Vocals Arranged by Leon F. Sylvers III / Engineered by Jon Nettlesbey, Allen Sides, Khaliq Glover / Saxophone and Saxophonic Percussion: Mike Phillips courtesy of Hidden Beach Recordings / Keyboards & Drum Programming: Big Jim Wright / Additional Keyboards: Greg Phillinganes / Bass: Alex Al / Percussion: Paulino Da Costa / Additional Keyboards, Drum Programming, Sequencing & Digital Editing: Jon Nettlesbey"

Since the intro if from the Dangerous tour DVD.


@Stella It would be fraud if it was proven "Fake" which after 1 year no one can prove it.

And I know what your gonna say here I'll write it for you "No one can prove it real either" well 2 forensic musicologists have and that is what is legal in a court of law not just someone saying "It's not him because I don't hear him".

 

[Korgnex]

In writingl

Exactly, "in writing". Even though we can say a song is "written" (which is not limited to lyrics only) that very definition is not applicable to music publications.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Exactly, "in writing". Even though we can say a song is "written" (which is not limited to lyrics only) that very definition is not applicable to music publications.

It's the same law: copyrighted texts, music, paintings, films, using someone's voice etc. All that has already been created and credited once, must be credited when re-used in newly created and credited material. It is illegal to make people think that something is "new" when it clearly isn't and especially when something is copy-pasted to make that new what it is.

"In writing" is just an example of (self)plagiarism, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to other fields. The author chose to give an example of self-plafiarism, so he stated "in writing..."

Now, you still haven't provided a single document stipulating that:

a copy-paste from a previously copyrighted and officially released work can be used on the newly released work which is copyrighted as "new" without clearly informing the public that the parts have been used from the previous copyrighted material. How can that be legal? Again what are your sources?

Fabrication of a sentence with copirighted and credited material from previous work and not crediting those copyrighted material that has been used has one purpose in this case: to deceive public by misleading them to think that MJ recorded that sentence as a new one. It wouldn't be an issue if those copyrighted and credited (on Invincible) parts were duly credited on the Cascio songs in which those sentences were brought to completeion and without which those sentences would not have existed at all. That's what make them (self)plagiarized. If you don't understand this, then you clearly don't seem to be familiar with what plagiarism is, unless you show me a written legal document stipulating that for reason A or reason B such credits are exempted.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

If they had to credit everything they did they forgot a lot on Behind The Mask.

"Behind The Mask
Written by Michael Jackson, Chris Mosdell, Ryuichi Sakamoto / Published by Mijac Music (BMI) All rights administered by Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp. (BMI) & by Alfa Music, Inc. (JASRAC) All Rights Administered by Sony/ATV Tunes LLC (ASCAP) / Produced by Michael Jackson, John McClain & Jon Nettlesbey / 'Behind The Mask' contains a sample of the recording "Behind The Mask" as performed by Yellow Magic Orchestra. (P) 1979 Alfa Music, Inc. Licensed by Alfa Music, Inc. All Rights Reserved. / Mixed by Jon Nettlesbey, Khaliq Glover / Lead & Background Vocals: Michael Jackson / Additional Background Vocals: Shanice Wilson, Alphonso Jones / Background Vocals Arranged by Leon F. Sylvers III / Engineered by Jon Nettlesbey, Allen Sides, Khaliq Glover / Saxophone and Saxophonic Percussion: Mike Phillips courtesy of Hidden Beach Recordings / Keyboards & Drum Programming: Big Jim Wright / Additional Keyboards: Greg Phillinganes / Bass: Alex Al / Percussion: Paulino Da Costa / Additional Keyboards, Drum Programming, Sequencing & Digital Editing: Jon Nettlesbey"

Since the intro if from the Dangerous tour DVD.


@Stella It would be fraud if it was proven "Fake" which after 1 year no one can prove it.

And I know what your gonna say here I'll write it for you "No one can prove it real either" well 2 forensic musicologists have and that is what is legal in a court of law not just someone saying "It's not him because I don't hear him".

You are mixing up ad-libs from previous work and a fabrication of a new sentence and misleading to believe that Michael recorded the sentence as such when it clearly is not the case.

I have not been talking about ad-libs, there are many and it is probably credited one way or another. I personally haven't checked each credit.

What bothers me is the fabrication of a sentence by inserting copy-pasted material in the middle of it in order to create a new sentence and make believe the public that Michael recorded it that way. When you do such things, legally you should credit it, or else it is considered as plagiarism since not credited.

In case of Dangerous Live ad-lib on Behind the Mask, you see that SONY/ATV is credited. I don't know if you will have the same credit on other songs, I havn't checked other songs as they don't have the same kind of sentence structures.
But what I see is that MJ's Invincible is not credited on the Cascio songs. The songs are presented to the public as if they were recorded as such. Not creditting is illegal.


p.s. I know my English sucks, I just woke up.

 

[dam2040]

But, self-plagarism is what you posted Bumper, re-use of material to trick the audience. This is self-plagarism because the ad-libs were re-used so us, the fans believe the tracks are Michael because of the 'hoo' or other famous Michael sounds. It isn't credited anywhere in the booklet and on that I feel cheated, if I buy something I want to know EXACTLY what it features. If they did it on a REAL MJ song, I'd still want to know where the re-used adlibs are.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

But, self-plagarism is what you posted Bumper, re-use of material to trick the audience. This is self-plagarism because the ad-libs were re-used so us, the fans believe the tracks are Michael because of the 'hoo' or other famous Michael sounds. It isn't credited anywhere in the booklet and on that I feel cheated, if I buy something I want to know EXACTLY what it features. If they did it on a REAL MJ song, I'd still want to know where the re-used adlibs are.

Well, to me mentioning Sony/ATV indicates that the ad-libs have been credited on Behind the Mask, even if it hasn't been clearly stated where. So it can't be considered as plagiarism, but as fair use.

But the issue with the Cascio copy-pastes, there is nowhere any mention that parts from Invincible have been used, and that is illegal.

Let's imagine I record a song. And I ask the permission from the Estate/SONY to use the copyrighted material from Dangerous Live as ad-libs for the "fair use" sake. In the credits I mention SONY/ATV among other credits, so that way I at least inform that I have used something from previously released and copyrighted material.

Now, if in the same song, I embezzle a part of MJ's Invincible song and insert it in the middle of my own sentence and I don't mention it in the credits, that would be considered as plagiarizing previously released and credited work, not because I embezzled it and copied it (since I would have the copyright authorisation for fair use), but because I omitted to credit that that part was used from another previosuly credited song.

For example, both, respectively in their timeframe, MJ and Rihanna were sued by the same creator of "mamasemomamasamomakusa" part because he wasn't credited.

If you read or watch the interview of the author of that part of the song, the creator was surprised to hear on a MJ album (Thriller) his "mamasemomamasamomakosa". And as far as I remember this author did not intend to sue MJ for it, because he at least expected to see his part of creation credited on Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'. But, as a matter of fact, he wasn't. So he sued MJ and they reached an agreement.

Rihanna made the same mistake. She didn't ask for permission nor did she credit the author of "mamasemomamasamomakusa" part, so she got sued. But, luckily for her, if I remember correctly the author lost the case because the court estimated that he was waiting too long (in other words, he was waiting for Rihanna to collect success, hence collect money) before he decided to sue her.

All in all, the due credit legally must be mentioned. It is purely illegal to fabricate things from previous work and make believe public that it was created as such, even if you are the author of both creations/fabrications. It's considered as deceiving the public.

Hence my surprise, was Brance even aware of this, because the inserted copy-pasted words are quite subtle.

 

[Korgnex]

Now Bumper, you're talking like some other doubters. You don't know if it's illegal, so please don't act like you would be a legal expert on this very issue. You have just accused Sony / The Michael Jackson Estate to have committed a crime. I'll just repeat: it isn't illegal...

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Now Bumper, you're talking like some other doubters. You don't know if it's illegal, so please don't act like you would be a legal expert on this very issue. You have just accused Sony / The Michael Jackson Estate to have committed a crime. I'll just repeat: it isn't illegal...

According to whom it isn't illegal?

You keep repeating that it isn't illegal without mentioning a single source for your claim.

But ok, fine, I am not going to repeat it any more, since for you copy-pasting previous material without crediting it is perfectly legal.


p.s.

Copyright and Plagiarism

• Copyright
• Plagiarism

Copyright

Copyright laws (title 17, U. S. Code) provide protection to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. For complete copyright information, see the United States Copyright Office's web page.
Under copyright law, if you don't own the copyright to a work, you cannot do the following without permission from the copyright holder:

• Reproduce copies of the work
• Create derivitave works based on the work
• Distribute copies of the work
• Perform the work publicly
• Display the work publicly

However, under certain circumstances, using parts of copyrighted works is considered “fair use,” and is allowable under the law. Courts consider these four factors in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

• the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
• the nature of the copyrighted work;
  amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Information on fair use from the U.S. Copyright Office.
Educational uses of copyrighted works, such as class presentations, often fall into the “fair use” category. Find out more about what copyright means to you as a student in UCLA's tutorial on Intellectual Property.
Many authors, musicians, and other creators have begun using Creative Commons licenses, which allow others to use their work in certain ways without asking permission. For more information about Creative Commons, watch this flash movie.
Copyright-Fair Use

Are you starting a new research paper, a video, or other project that involves using and citing sources? This guide presents the basics of copyright, fair use, and citing materials. Links to great library resources for digital media projects are also shared. Download the new Copyright-Fair Use brochure.



Plagiarism


When you use information in a paper or presentation for a class, you're following the “fair use” doctrine, and you don't need to get permission from the copyright holder. You do, however, need to properly cite the source for any text, images, or other media you use in a class project in order to avoid plagiarism.
Using someone else's thoughts or ideas as your own without properly giving credit is plagiarism. It is your responsibility to understand what plagiarism is and know how to avoid it. The following resources offer some information and guidance.

• Plagiarism & You - University Libraries/Library Learning Services
  This interactive tutorial will show you how to use information correctly without plagiarizing. You will learn how to recognize plagiarism, and how to tell the difference between plagiarism and appropriate use of information in research papers.
• Plagiarism Handout (PDF, 129KB)
• Plagiarism Prevention Resources from Penn State Teaching and Learning with Technology

source: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/psul/lls/students/using_information.html

p.p.s. @Ivy, I hope Korgnex will believe you if you try to explain to him what (self-)plagiarism is.


p.p.p.s.

Now Bumper, you're talking like some other doubters.

Meaning? Intellectually inferior?

By the way I never claimed I wasd a legal expert, but I do know what (self-)plagiarism is. No need to be expert for that. I am still waiting for your sources though, because you sound as someone who knwos about it without citing a single source.

 

[ivy]

For example, both, respectively in their timeframe, MJ and Rihanna were sued by the same creator of "mamasemomamasamomakusa" part because he wasn't credited.

If you read or watch the interview of the author of that part of the song, the creator was surprised to hear on a MJ album (Thriller) his "mamasemomamasamomakosa".

actually if the author is "surprised" to hear it , it basically show that they hadn't asked his authorization as a copyright owner. So that's a copyright issue that they didn't ask for a permission.

(there could be many reasons for it : as it was too short - hence okay under fair use or that they changed it and it wasn't exact and so on)

As Michael is the copyright owner of his old songs, there's no copyright or permission issues here.

I feel like you are mixing up two issues - permissions from copyright owners versus credits on an album

But the issue with the Cascio copy-pastes, there is nowhere any mention that parts from Invincible have been used, and that is illegal.

Rules for credit are a lot more relax and subject to interpretation and unless you show a law about it , it can't be classified as "illegal".

p.p.s. @Ivy, I hope Korgnex will believe you if you try to explain to him what (self-)plagiarism is.

I understand it in a writing format but I'm not sure if it applies to music or not. I need to research it, but on the other hand I heard musicians to "recycle" and "reuse" what they have done before and I haven't seen a credit for it.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

actually if the author is "surprised" to hear it , it basically show that they hadn't asked his authorization as a copyright owner. So that's a copyright issue that they didn't ask for a permission.

(there could be many reasons for it : as it was too short - hence okay under fair use or that they changed it and it wasn't exact and so on)

As Michael is the copyright owner of his old songs, there's no copyright or permission issues here.

I feel like you are mixing up two issues - permissions from copyright owners versus credits on an album

Please Ivy re-read all my posts, I have clearly mentioned the difference between copyright permission and uncredited issues.

I am not going to repeat everything but basically I said that you can have copyright permission, but it doesn't mean that because you have copy-right permission that you are not obliged to cite it when yhou use it.

The length of plagiarism isn't the issue, but the lack of credits even if it is one single note.

Rules for credit are a lot more relax and subject to interpretation and unless you show a law about it , it can't be classified as "illegal".

Source?

I understand it in a writing format but I'm not sure if it applies to music or not. I need to research it, but on the other hand I heard musicians to "recycle" and "reuse" what they have done before and I haven't seen a credit for it.

Again, it's the same law, written or audio or any other format. If some musicians do it, it doesn't make it legal.

By the way, a simple question:

do you consider legal to:

copy-paste a word from previously released and credited song insert it in the middle of the sentence of a new song without crediting the copy-paste to make believe the listener that the sentence was recorded as such? Are you saying that that would be legal? If so, I need the source. To me the law is clear, be it for re-using the written texts or audio formats.

And as I said, the issue itself is not the copy-paste, but the inexistence of the credit.

 

[Korgnex]

According to whom it isn't illegal?

You keep repeating that it isn't illegal without mentioning a single source for your claim.

Dear, Bumper, according to international law it isn't illegal. I cannot give you a source because the lawmaker rarely declares what is NOT illegal but rather what IS illegal.

A trivial example:
Your nickname is "Bumper Snippet". Assuming you asked me, if it was illegal to name your nickname that way, I'm unable to "mention a single source" for my claim that it isn't illegal. Why? Because the lawmaker has not written a single word about this. Why should he? The lawmaker declares what's illegal. He only makes declarations whether something is legal when he's restricting something (=exceptions/barriers).


I think ivy is right. You're messing up credits with copyright registrations. Sony / The Michael Jackson Estate have internal documents as to what source material they have used for finishing these songs. It's all fine if they don't release proper credits.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Dear, Bumper, according to international law it isn't illegal. I cannot give you a source because the lawmaker rarely declares what is NOT illegal but rather what IS illegal.

A trivial example:
Your nickname is "Bumper Snippet". Assuming you asked me, if it was illegal to name your nickname that way, I'm unable to "mention a single source" for my claim that it isn't illegal. Why? Because the lawmaker has not written a single word about this. Why should he? The lawmaker declares what's illegal. He only makes declarations whether something is legal when he's restricting something (=exceptions/barriers).


I think ivy is right. You're messing up credits with copyright registrations. Sony / The Michael Jackson Estate have internal documents as to what source material they have used for finishing these songs. It's all fine if they don't release proper credits.

I just can't believe this.

I NEVER mixed up plagiarism vs copyright vs credits. Read what I posted two posts ago providing you the legal sources. There is a definition for each case. Read them, it's not according to me, but according to the law.

Your example of Bumper Snippet is completely irrelevant. I am not plagiarizing anyone's name for commerical use. What kind of logic is this?

 

[Korgnex]

Your example of Bumper Snippet is completely irrelevant. I am not plagiarizing anyone's name for commerical use. What kind of logic is this?

Where did I say sth about plagiarism? You clearly have problems to understand how the law works. This was a trivial example that should have demonstrated you that the lawmaker does not declare everything that is legal. Unless you cannot subsume something under a legal prerequisite for something that the lawmaker has declared as illegal, it's not illegal (argumentum e contrario).

And you're messing up copyright issues (plagiarism) and pre-contractual duty of utmost good faith (proper credits). You can't accept that there is NO legal obligation!

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Where did I say sth about plagiarism? You clearly have problems to understand how the law works. This was a trivial example that should have demonstrated you that the lawmaker does not declare everything that is legal.

And you're messing up copyright issues (plagiarism) and pre-contractual duty of utmost good faith (proper credits). You can't accept that there is NO legal obligation!

Unbelievable! Here's what I paraphrased:

Are copyright infringement and plagiarism
the same thing?
Copyright infringement and plagiarism are di?erent
concepts entirely.

Plagiarism is claiming that you
are the author of someone else's work.

Copyright
infringement is using someone else's work
without their permission (and outside the
boundaries of fair use).

Citing your sources:
If you are using information created by others in your
work, it's essential that you properly cite your sources.

source: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/content/dam/psul/up/lls/documents/Copyright-Fair_Use_brochure.pdf



p.s. I clearly said that the copy-pastes on the Cascio songs are plagiarism, not copyright infringment. I said that the copyright permission was given, but not cited and that's why it is considered as plagiarism.

I don't know in which language to say it. It is clear though.

 

[Korgnex]

I said that the copyright permission was given, but not cited and that's why it is considered as plagiarism.

I clearly said "copyright issues", NOT "copyright infringement" vs "plagiarism" (both are copyright issues).

I repeat: Unless you cannot subsume something under a legal prerequisite for something that the lawmaker has declared as illegal, it's not illegal (argumentum e contrario).

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I clearly said "copyright issues", NOT "copyright infringement" vs "plagiarism" (both are copyright issues).

I repeat: Unless you cannot subsume something under a legal prerequisite for something that the lawmaker has declared as illegal, it's not illegal (argumentum e contrario).

So according to you, without citing any legal source, you can copy paste copyrighted material on a new material without crediting it for what it is and make people believe that it is a new thing?