Michael - The Great Album Debate

[ivy]

Bumper,

I still think copyright and credit as well as unethical and illegal is being mixed up here.

First of all illegal is not determined on what we call "illegal" but it's determined as what is called illegal in the law. So any determination of illegal requires that we need to look to "album credit laws" and plagiarism laws.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think album credits are governed by a specific law and that it's a lot relax in nature. Plagiarism - using someone else's work - is illegal.

However in USA self-plagiarism is not illegal. It's an ethical issue. It seems to be more important in academic circles and even then it's not clearly defined.

So self-plagiarism - which is by definition " reuse of significant, identical, or nearly identical portions of one's own work without acknowledging that one is doing so or without citing the original work" is not illegal. It's an ethical argument.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Bumper,

I still think copyright and credit as well as unethical and illegal is being mixed up here.

No, I am not mixing up copyright and credit. I know very well the difference since I myself had to go trough this kind of stuff when I was writing my thesis. I needed the copyright permission of an American professor at the university who was the author of several books. I translated two chapters of his book into French and I needed his permission for that, which he/the university granted it.

I duly credited the author of the book, and myself as the translator. I clearly know the difference between the two (copyright and credit), and you know very well when you write a thesis how careful one must be in order not to plagiarize someone. You know very well that even unintentional plagiarism isn't allowed, and it happens very often.

Now it is true that in this case I am talking about writing a thesis.

My point is that, it is almost impossible to talk about plagiarism without mentioning distinct terms such as copyrighted material, plagiarism, fair use and credits which are defined by the law. And the law clealry stipulates that not only texts, but also other forms can be plagiarized. The law clearly indicates that plagiarism is not legal, which means that if someone does it he or she risks to be sued in court. In short, it is not legal to 'steal' (plagiarize) someone's work and make believe it belongs to the newlyy created work. If it is authorized, all I am asking is to know where does the law authorize it?

First of all illegal is not determined on what we call "illegal" but it's determined as what is called illegal in the law. So any determination of illegal requires that we need to look to "album credit laws" and plagiarism laws.

I never said the contrary. What I am having trouble with, is that the law on copyright, plagiarism and fair use are clear i.e. the work has to be duly credited, because if it is not credited it cannot be considered as fair use, but as plagiarism.

So, my question all along was this: Michael himself never copied his own words from Invincible onto the Cascio song. So whoever did that without informing (crediting) cannot be considered as fair use, since the law stipulates that the fair use must be credited. S, my question is, if it is not fair use, and if it is not plagiarism, what is it then? They are copy-pastes from previous material, aren't they? So there must be a legal term for those copy-pasted parts in the Cascio songs. We can't just copy-paste whatever we want and whgerever we want without crediting and make people believe to hear a new song.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think album credits are governed by a specific law and that it's a lot relax in nature. Plagiarism - using someone else's work - is illegal.

The specific law stipulates that any creation such as texts, music, paintings, films etc. belong to the one who created them. They don't have to be released as the copyright is automatically attributed to the creator of the work. Hence, the creator is automatically credited. That's what the law says.

However, the law in force protects the creator/author of his work. It means that if someone tries to 'kidnap' (plagiarize) parts or entierty of the work, it becomes illegal and the author/creator has the right to sue the 'kidnapper'.

As you know, the law is also flexible and permits others to use parts of copyrighted material (fair use) without considering it as plagiarism under the sole condition to credit the author/creator. It means that in some cases the law permits the use of copyrighted material without asking for any kind of permission as long as it is duly credited. Because, if it the re-used material is not credited it becomes automatically plagiarism.

However in USA self-plagiarism is not illegal. It's an ethical issue. It seems to be more important in academic circles and even then it's not clearly defined.

In some cases it is an ethical issue I agree. For example if you re-use some parts of your own songs and you create a new one thanks to the previous parts. Sure, it happens and of course the artist is not going to sue himself for that.

However, there's always a 'however', in the case of the Cascio songs we do not have a clue who did what there and we don't even know if Branca/Estate are aware of this.
I don't know if we can even qualify this as self-plagiarism, because Michael Jackson himself did not copy-pasted himself on his own track. Someone else did it.
So, if self-plagiarism is used to develop further ideas, music etc, then ethically speaking there is nothing wrong with that. But if selfplagiarism is used to cheat in order to make people believe that it is a new material when it clearly isn't, then it clearly is unethical.

Furthermore, if MJ himself did it, we would be debating about it whether it is ethical or not as it would have been considered as self-plagiarism (since not credited), but we have heree a completely different issue:

someone (who?) authorized himself to copy paste Michael's voice from Invincible and insert it in the Cascio songs without any credits. The question is, if those parts are not credited, should I assume that those copy-pasted parts legally belong to the Cascio songs or to Invincible? The subquestion is, how can, legally speaking, one part of the song be copyrighted as Invincible, and that exactly same part (blatant copy-paste not done by MJ himself) be copyrighted as Breaking News or Monster?

Don't see any confusion between credit and copyright here. Let me explain. If there is absence of credits (from Invincible) on Breaking News and Monster, then those two songs are in their entierty considered as new songs and credited as such.

In other words, imagine I want to use the same part from Invincible on another song of mine as a fair use, what credit should I give to the part I used: "Invincible" or "Monster" since the very same part has been equally credited and copyrighted as belonging to two separate songs?

So self-plagiarism - which is by definition " reuse of significant, identical, or nearly identical portions of one's own work without acknowledging that one is doing so or without citing the original work" is not illegal. It's an ethical argument.

As I said, it could be considered as one or the other depending on the gravity of teh case I suppose. But, again, I don't know if we can call the Cascio songs parts as self-plagiarism case, since MJ didn't do it himself, someone did it for him and tried to mislead the public by omitting to inform the public.

 

[love is magical]

Fascinating discussion! Bumper, thank you for bringing it to the table. This thread hasn't been this interesting for a long time.

Amazed to see how people keep saying Bumper is mixing up copyright and credit even he has already provided the generally accepted definitions a million times. To top it, no one was able to answer the question he asked in the very first post. Yet, Bumper is being accused as being a self-proclaimed legal expert? Wow. Just wow.

Yes, I know I talk like some other doubters. I guess that means I'm intellectually inferior than the believers.

So, (self-) plagiarism is not illegal in the U.S. because there is no current intellectual property law that specifies on this matter. Okay, i can understand and accept such fact. However, laws are not constant. Laws, as a matter of fact, are ever changing. Thomas Jeffeson said the Constitution should be revised every 19 years. He recognized the evolving nature of societies and cultures. Racial segregation was not illegal in the U.S. prior to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Polygamy was not illegal in Hong Kong until 1971. It's not adequate to just conider what is legal, it's also important, or even more imperativ to consider ethics. If not, this world would have been a very differen place. Slavery might as well be an acceptable practice if people just consider the laws, not ethics.

Exactly why are we keeping ethical issue out of this discussion? In my opinion, it's totally unethical to omit proper credits in an attempt to fool people into believing Michael Jackson recorded 12 new songs in a basement. Of course, the producers are reluctant to give proper credits to Invincible, as that would literally tell people the songs are not fit to be released commercially in their existing conditions. Isn't the lack of transparency an issue? We still have not a single idea on how the songs are created and in what capacity Michael was involved. All we know is how Eddie pushed some buttons in a basement.

It is baffling for me to see fans accepting unethical practice as long as there is nothing illegal going on. Oh yeah, that's right, ethical standard is a subjective matter. Hmmm...

 

[ivy]

@Bumper

All the example you write are about "someone else's work" plagiarism. Yes even if I took a second from someone else's work it might require a credit or cause legal issues.

Also legally Michael Jackson Estate is Michael Jackson. so there's not a "someone else" here. They are one and the same.

So you are left with self - plagiarism which is not illegal at USA and it's an ethical issue.

I'll quote some stuff below. Pay attention to a known name.

--------------------------------------

When Robert Barbato of the E. Philip Saunders College of Business at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) heard he was being accused of plagiarizing his own work, he was a bit surprised. "I can't plagiarize myself -- those are my own words," he said.

And he is not alone in his views. Some scientists and publishers argue that it's "unavoidable" for scientists to re-use portions of their own text (not images or data, of course) from previous papers, and doing so may even be good practice. But others disagree, including many journals -- who have retracted papers in response.

"There are many ways you can say the same thing even when it comes to very technical language," said Miguel Roig of St. John's University, who has written extensively about plagiarism in academic literature. "It's a matter of what some have labeled poor scholarly etiquette."

In Barbato's case, the institutional committee formed to review the case unanimously decided to dismiss it. While the authors had reused some text in the introduction and methodology sections in two papers they had submitted simultaneously on gender differences in entrepreneurial business endeavors, the data were different and the papers reached vastly different conclusions. "Nobody saw anything wrong with this really," recalled Patrick Scanlon of RIT's department of communication, who served on the committee.

"Sometimes [text reuse] is just unavoidable," agreed Catriona Fennell, director of journal services at Elsevier. "Really, how many different ways can you say the same thing?" Because scientists tend to study the same topic over many years or even their entire careers, some aspects of their research papers, particularly the literature review and methodology, will be repeated. Once they've figured out how to word it succinctly and accurately, some argue, it's best left unchanged. "You're laying the groundwork for an ongoing discussion [so] making changes might actually be a bad idea," Scanlon said. "It would muddy the waters."

Indeed, even editors that tend to be on the strict side when it comes to text recycling make exceptions. Anesthesia & Analgesia recently pulled a paper due to the offense, as reported on the Retraction Watch blog, but the journal's Editor-in-Chief Steven Shafer said that the publication does not retract papers that only reuse text in the methodology section. "This is a very difficult area," admitted Shafer. While the recently retracted paper contained "multiple areas of duplicated verbatim or nearly verbatim text throughout," he said, not all cases are so straightforward, and each one "must be a judgment call."

With evidence that duplicate publications are on the rise, and estimates of more than 200,000 duplicates already archived in Medline, the scientific community is in dire need of better guidelines as to where to draw the line with respect to self-plagiarism -- and a better way of catching those that cross it.

"It's unfortunately a very gray area," said Jonathan Bailey, a copyright and plagiarism consultant and a writer for the website Plagiarism Today. "[When people] come to me asking what the lines are, I always have to say the same thing: 'You're going to have to talk to the publication you're submitting to.'"

The problem is that most publications don't have "hard and fast rules," Fennell said of Elsevier's journals. The most comprehensive guidelines with respect to self-plagiarism come from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), but these guidelines refer only to truly "redundant publication," in which authors are attempting to pawn off old research as fresh and new. They contain no advice about scientists re-using their own text.

"There's nothing that says you can't have over 30 percent of your introduction being highly similar," said Harold "Skip" Garner, executive director of the Virginia Bioinformatics Institute, who has published several articles on plagiarism in scientific publishing. "There's nothing like that because it's impossible to calculate."

(Omitted the rest)

Read more: When is self-plagiarism ok? - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57676/#ixzz1lrGZMDBA

 

[qbee]

I realise everyone is very passionate about thier view on this topic. But This is a debate - Please dont try to turn this discussion into a personal argument. Ivy and Bumber are doing just fine holding their own without all that. They are use to each others style and personality by now and they both know how to support thier view. Just becuase members may support one view over the other its not right to insult either one of them with back handed comments. They both have good points to make to defend thier view. Dont make this personal - IT's a debate - and just becuase you leave names out of your posts it doesnt mean you are not doing it.

Everyone Feel free to debate and discuss your view but Please Lets all try and be more considerate and respectful to everyone who posts in this thread> There is no reason to have an attitude or make insults toward each other regardless of which view you hold. I am not a believer and Im not addressing this as a mod at the moment. Im just concerned .. But I will if it continues.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

@Bumper

All the example you write are about "someone else's work" plagiarism. Yes even if I took a second from someone else's work it might require a credit or cause legal issues.

Yes, because the law forbids plagiarism. So I had to give legal examples of plagiarism. Now, the issue is that selfplagiarism is a form of plagiarism too. Which means that it doesn't make the issue less grave. It is still 'kidnapping' issue in order to make believe people that they hear a new thing. It is true, the law doesn't specifically use the term "self"plagiarism, but despite the absence of the word "self" it doesn't mean that you can't prove it as being as matter of fact "plagiarism", because Michael Jackson himself was absolutely not involved.

When we read articles about selfplagiarism, we can clearly see that there are two forms of selfplagiarism. One is necessary to make things evolve, like scientific papers, research and so on, and the other form is when you deliberately copy-paste your own work and mislead the public by making them believe that you produced something completely new. We can't deny that in this latter case, which is related to the Cascio situation, is "theft" of previous work and forgery of 'new' sentences, when in reality this new sentence entirely depend on that copy-pasted copyrighted material which had already been credited on Invincible album.

Also legally Michael Jackson Estate is Michael Jackson. so there's not a "someone else" here. They are one and the same.

So you are left with self - plagiarism which is not illegal at USA and it's an ethical issue.

I fully agree that MJ = Estate legally speaking. That is also why I asked in my very first post about this matter, should the issue be considered as plagiarism (since MJ's previous work was used without MJ himself doing it when he was alive) or selfplagiarism since the Estate legally represent MJ. That is question number one.

Question number two, if you remember I asked whether the Estate was even aware of this? So, my problem is that we don't even know who did it. If the Estate did it, then yes it is selfplagiarism, which means that we will have to debate whether the level of ethics makes it legal or illegal. Normally the law goes in favor of the protection of the initial work and against deception of the public.

Question number three, what if Eddie did it and the Estate wasn't aware of it? Then it's worse than plagiarism, it would be considered as forgery.

So, what do we know actually? Nothing, and we know why we know nothing, because it hasn't been credited, yet we detected it. This is not that usual situation, especially because it was done behind MJ's back.

Yes, I know that if the Estate represents MJ it isn't considered as doing it behind MJ's back. But as I said it earlier, it is not the copy-paste itself that is problematic, but the question why they did not give due credit? And that very fact, the lack of crediting MJ's Invincible on the Cascio song makes it doing business behind MJ's back and messing up with his initial work.

Now going back to legal terminology. If in this case we have copy-pasted material that has been copyrighted and credited as Invincible back in the past, and if we take a part of that copyrighted and credited material and re-use it in the Cascio songs, I would like to know how do we call that legally speaking:

selfplagiarism? (But did the Estate know this?)
plagiarism? (In case the Estate did not know it?)
fair use? (Impossible, because not credited)
forgery? (because the sentence wouldn't have existed without trafficking the sound)

All in all, I am trying to say, even though we have rights, we also have obligations. We can't just copy-paste whatever we want and wherever we want, try to hide it (by not giving credit) and label it as "new" or as "unreleased" when in reality it had already been released. There is clearly an attempt to deceive the public. And the attempt to deceive the public flirts in the moody water between selfplagiarism and plagiarism, or even forgery. I don't see how can it be legal.

Anyway, when it comes to unethical issue, I also wonder, why Branca --if he was aware of this and who acted as a lawyer-- allowed this, when it is commonly advised from the early years at school to avoid such things?

I'll quote some stuff below. Pay attention to a known name.

--------------------------------------

When Robert Barbato of the E. Philip Saunders College of Business at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) heard he was being accused of plagiarizing his own work, he was a bit surprised. "I can't plagiarize myself -- those are my own words," he said.

And he is not alone in his views. Some scientists and publishers argue that it's "unavoidable" for scientists to re-use portions of their own text (not images or data, of course) from previous papers, and doing so may even be good practice. But others disagree, including many journals -- who have retracted papers in response.

"There are many ways you can say the same thing even when it comes to very technical language," said Miguel Roig of St. John's University, who has written extensively about plagiarism in academic literature. "It's a matter of what some have labeled poor scholarly etiquette."

In Barbato's case, the institutional committee formed to review the case unanimously decided to dismiss it. While the authors had reused some text in the introduction and methodology sections in two papers they had submitted simultaneously on gender differences in entrepreneurial business endeavors, the data were different and the papers reached vastly different conclusions. "Nobody saw anything wrong with this really," recalled Patrick Scanlon of RIT's department of communication, who served on the committee.

"Sometimes [text reuse] is just unavoidable," agreed Catriona Fennell, director of journal services at Elsevier. "Really, how many different ways can you say the same thing?" Because scientists tend to study the same topic over many years or even their entire careers, some aspects of their research papers, particularly the literature review and methodology, will be repeated. Once they've figured out how to word it succinctly and accurately, some argue, it's best left unchanged. "You're laying the groundwork for an ongoing discussion [so] making changes might actually be a bad idea," Scanlon said. "It would muddy the waters."

Indeed, even editors that tend to be on the strict side when it comes to text recycling make exceptions. Anesthesia & Analgesia recently pulled a paper due to the offense, as reported on the Retraction Watch blog, but the journal's Editor-in-Chief Steven Shafer said that the publication does not retract papers that only reuse text in the methodology section. "This is a very difficult area," admitted Shafer. While the recently retracted paper contained "multiple areas of duplicated verbatim or nearly verbatim text throughout," he said, not all cases are so straightforward, and each one "must be a judgment call."

With evidence that duplicate publications are on the rise, and estimates of more than 200,000 duplicates already archived in Medline, the scientific community is in dire need of better guidelines as to where to draw the line with respect to self-plagiarism -- and a better way of catching those that cross it.

"It's unfortunately a very gray area," said Jonathan Bailey, a copyright and plagiarism consultant and a writer for the website Plagiarism Today. "[When people] come to me asking what the lines are, I always have to say the same thing: 'You're going to have to talk to the publication you're submitting to.'"

The problem is that most publications don't have "hard and fast rules," Fennell said of Elsevier's journals. The most comprehensive guidelines with respect to self-plagiarism come from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), but these guidelines refer only to truly "redundant publication," in which authors are attempting to pawn off old research as fresh and new. They contain no advice about scientists re-using their own text.

"There's nothing that says you can't have over 30 percent of your introduction being highly similar," said Harold "Skip" Garner, executive director of the Virginia Bioinformatics Institute, who has published several articles on plagiarism in scientific publishing. "There's nothing like that because it's impossible to calculate."

(Omitted the rest)

Read more: When is self-plagiarism ok? - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57676/#ixzz1lrGZMDBA

Believe me I read exactly the same articles yesterday. So I see that we're both researching the maximum we can in order to clarify things.

Basically you've probably noticed that selfplagiarism especially occurs in the scientific field. It is indeed unavoidable for the simple reason that the scientists base their research on their previous research and on further observation. So they don't feel the need to each time quote themselves or their publications, which is frankly speaking understandable and absolutely ethical.

But, if a scientist intentionally re-use his previous research and intentionally mislead the public by making them believe that he/she wrote a "new" article when in reality he just copy-pasted his previous work without informing the public (i.e. crediting his previous work) then it is completely unethical, because he 'kidnapped' his own work, fabricated a "new" one in an attempt to deceive the public.

There are clearly two different selfplagiarism forms: one ethical, and one unethical flirting with the boundaries of what is legal. Indeed the law explicitely forbids 'theft' (plagiarism), but it doesn't mention who can steal from whom or whether oneself can steal from him/herself. Furthermore, it is not because we steal from ourselves that it is not considered as theft when used for commercial use and profit making by deceiving the public. Hence, imo, selfplagiarism could to some extent be considered purely as plagiarism (hence illegal) because of the financial profit that is gained from the deceived public.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Let me ask the same question from a different angle using this hypothetical example:

If the "producer" of "Take Me Away" had the copyright authorization from the Estate and simply credited Michael Jackson for "Take Me Away" (without any other details regarding the fabrication of the sentences), wouldn't he be obliged to credit the parts that he used which allowed him to fabricate the song? Could the Estate legally sell that song without --duly crediting-- informing the public that the song has been fabricated from previous material rather than deceive and mislead (misinform) the public into believeing that it is a new song (which clearly is not) made of "new" sentences?

Now, if the answer is "no", be it an entire song or a small part of it, what makes it different from fabricating a sentence in the Cascio song which is also used from previously copyrighted and, hence, credited material (Invincible) and which isn't credited on the Cascio song, yet wrapped as a new product with intention to sell it and gain financial profit? Are we really facing (un)ethical issue or are we confronted with (il)legal issue?

[youtube]pgqDwNKqaxY[/youtube]

p.s. Note that "Take me away" does not plagiarize Michael Jackson's music/melody, but his vocals. So the music/melody plagiarism isn't the issue. We have the same situation with the Cascio song, melody/music plagiarism isn't the issue as it is credited. In both cases we have "forgery" of sentences without due credits. And, just to add, the quantity of sentences does not play a role here legally speaking. One single fabricated sentence without credit is enough to consider the work (well the part of it) plagiarism (because of the absence of the due credit) or forgery (because of sound trafficking).

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Fascinating discussion! Bumper, thank you for bringing it to the table. This thread hasn't been this interesting for a long time.

Amazed to see how people keep saying Bumper is mixing up copyright and credit even he has already provided the generally accepted definitions a million times. To top it, no one was able to answer the question he asked in the very first post. Yet, Bumper is being accused as being a self-proclaimed legal expert? Wow. Just wow.

Yes, I know I talk like some other doubters. I guess that means I'm intellectually inferior than the believers.

So, (self-) plagiarism is not illegal in the U.S. because there is no current intellectual property law that specifies on this matter. Okay, i can understand and accept such fact. However, laws are not constant. Laws, as a matter of fact, are ever changing. Thomas Jeffeson said the Constitution should be revised every 19 years. He recognized the evolving nature of societies and cultures. Racial segregation was not illegal in the U.S. prior to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Polygamy was not illegal in Hong Kong until 1971. It's not adequate to just conider what is legal, it's also important, or even more imperativ to consider ethics. If not, this world would have been a very differen place. Slavery might as well be an acceptable practice if people just consider the laws, not ethics.

Exactly why are we keeping ethical issue out of this discussion? In my opinion, it's totally unethical to omit proper credits in an attempt to fool people into believing Michael Jackson recorded 12 new songs in a basement. Of course, the producers are reluctant to give proper credits to Invincible, as that would literally tell people the songs are not fit to be released commercially in their existing conditions. Isn't the lack of transparency an issue? We still have not a single idea on how the songs are created and in what capacity Michael was involved. All we know is how Eddie pushed some buttons in a basement.

It is baffling for me to see fans accepting unethical practice as long as there is nothing illegal going on. Oh yeah, that's right, ethical standard is a subjective matter. Hmmm...

Thank you for acknowledging and noticing that I haven't mixed up the two and for understanding what I was trying to explain by explicitely separating the definitions, which aren't mine, but which I quoted with provided sources. I was myself confronted with those kind of things when I had to write my thesis of roughly 200 pages and use copyrighted material with over 400 pages in the annexes, which I duly credited. So, no I am not a legal expert, but I know at least a little bit what I am talking about when it comes to copyright, plagiarism, fair use and credits.

I realise everyone is very passionate about thier view on this topic. But This is a debate - Please dont try to turn this discussion into a personal argument. Ivy and Bumber are doing just fine holding their own without all that. They are use to each others style and personality by now and they both know how to support thier view. Just becuase members may support one view over the other its not right to insult either one of them with back handed comments. They both have good points to make to defend thier view. Dont make this personal - IT's a debate - and just becuase you leave names out of your posts it doesnt mean you are not doing it.

Everyone Feel free to debate and discuss your view but Please Lets all try and be more considerate and respectful to everyone who posts in this thread> There is no reason to have an attitude or make insults toward each other regardless of which view you hold. I am not a believer and Im not addressing this as a mod at the moment. Im just concerned .. But I will if it continues.

Qbee is trembling at the idea of a possible burst out of a nuclear war between Ivy and myself :lmao: :rofl:

Don't worry Qbee Ivy and I are getting used to our "love-hate" relationship, because we both know that we don't hate each other, we always end up talking to each other as if we had never argued, I don't call that hate

@ Ivy, I love you (even if you hate me.... kidding.... or not... )

@ Korgnex, I hate you, just shut up! joking, it's not true man

I am repeating something that I have already said since I joined this forum, I've never turned against anyone personally. If I argued, counter-argued or reacted about something, it has always been related to the posts or actions themselves regardless of the person who was behind them. In this thread I might disagree with some people, but in other threads I might agree about other things or vice versa.

The only personal posts I've written were absurd jokes with no intention of mockery.




p.s. Sorry for the triple post, but they are of completely different scope, so for the sake of clarity I separated them..

 

[Chamife]

Let's say this is plagiarism or self-plagiarism and we confront the Estate with it (that they were ethically wrong to not provide the info of 'borrowing' from Invincible (can that be really proven btw? Don't know how exactly that conclusion was made, by waveform?)

They will probably say, yes, we took it from Invincible and then what? Not sure that's unethical, because Michael isn't here anymore to complete it. They were doing it 'in his best interest', so to speak.

What can we do with that conclusion, that's my question.

Bumper, really interesting issue you brought up.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Let's say this is plagiarism or self-plagiarism and we confront the Estate with it (that they were ethically wrong to not provide the info of 'borrowing' from Invincible (can that be really proven btw? Don't know how exactly that conclusion was made, by waveform?)

This is the whole issue. You canot call it "borrowing" (or legally speaking "fair use"), because it hasn't been credited, but a clear "stealing" which is unlawful. The question is who did it and was the Estate aware?

They will probably say, yes, we took it from Invincible and then what? Not sure that's unethical, because Michael isn't here anymore to complete it. They were doing it 'in his best interest', so to speak.

What can we do with that conclusion, that's my question.

Bumper, really interesting issue you brought up.

This is where the debate starts, if the third party wasn't involved (the public), it wouldn't flirt with the limits of the legal issues, but only with ethics. First, their argument to say that it would be in Michael's best interest does not explain why they omitted to credit it (to inform the third party - the public).

Second, because the third party is involved (the public), it would be hard to prove that it is in Michael's best interest rather than in their attempt to financially profit from the deceived public by selling them something that is credited as new, when it clearly isn't. So what is the real reason behind it? Michael's interest (without crediting him) or financial profit by fabricating sentences?

Imagine that tomorrow all of sudden they release "In the back" with full lyrics sung by MJ, but copy-pasted from previous material without crediting the inserted parts which were necessary to bridge the gap in the lyrics. It would be not only unethical not to credit those parts, but also considered as forgery (sound trafficking), and that is illegal.

I don't know, I am not a legal expert, I am repeating it, but the copy-pasted sentences from previously released material without credits is something that I can't name it. So I am trying to understand it, legally speaking what are those uncredited copy-pastes:

plagiarism?
selfplagiarism?
fair use?
forgery?

How do you call something that isn't new, yet labeled as new and put on the market and sold as new?

 

[dam2040]

Ready 2 Win is On The Line??? I just heard R2W and it instantly reminded me of OTL...

 

[Chamife]

Bumper, answer to your last question is 'misleading' (i think)

MISLEADING CONDUCT
Knowingly making a false statement; intentionally omitting information from a statement and thereby causing a portion of such statement to be misleading, or intentionally concealing a material fact, and thereby creating a false impression by such statement; with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a writing or recording that is false, forged, altered, or otherwise lacking in authenticity; with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a sample, specimen, map, photograph, boundary mark, or other object that is misleading in a material respect; or knowingly using a trick, scheme, or device with intent to mislead. 18 USC].

 

[Korgnex]

Also legally Michael Jackson Estate is Michael Jackson. so there's not a "someone else" here. They are one and the same.

No, no, no. I have to correct you here, ivy. A legal successor cannot qualify for "self-plagiarism". Self-plagiarism applies to natural persons only, not to corporate bodies.


If George Lucas recycles his old stuff for a new movie without proper identification and traceability, it would be self-plagiarism. If he died and his legal successors do it, it would be plagiarism, not self-plagiarism. The problem of rightholder has nothing to do with it. Most things that you watch on TV e.g. are legally owned and administrated by companies and the original creators have been paid and receive royalties. If they recycle the original work to create something new, it's not "self-plagiarism", it can only be plagiarism if it's not credited.
And by the way, both self-plagiarism and plagiarism aren't illegal in the movie industry. You can only infringe someone's copyright. If you don't infringe anyone's copyright, there's no crime.

Also think about the constant use of stock footage / archive footage from other right holders in TV series and movies. Is it all credited? No. You watch it on TV, you watch it at the cinema, you buy the DVD/Blu-ray. But it is all credited? No.

The same goes for the music industry. You can infringe someone's copyright. But neither self-plagiarism nor plagiarism are illegal according to the law.
In the case of the Cascio tracks: You cannot infringe your own copyright. There's no crime.

What Bumper is wondering about is if consumers could argue that they were misled. That would be the issue of a consumer fraud lawsuit as it happened with the Milli Vanilli scandal. And my answer to that it: They could. But they would have a hard time to make their point of how they were intentionally(!) misled.

 

[dam2040]

^^ Is that because it's not done by the actual creator of the material?

 

[love is magical]

No, no, no. I have to correct you here, ivy. A legal successor cannot qualify for "self-plagiarism". Self-plagiarism applies to natural persons only, not to corporate bodies.


If George Lucas recycles his old stuff for a new movie without proper identification and traceability, it would be self-plagiarism. If he died and his legal successors do it, it would be plagiarism, not self-plagiarism. The problem of rightholder has nothing to do with it. Most things that you watch on TV e.g. are legally owned and administrated by companies and the original creators have been paid and receive royalties. If they recycle the original work to create something new, it's not "self-plagiarism", it can only be plagiarism if it's not credited.
And by the way, both self-plagiarism and plagiarism aren't illegal in the movie industry. You can only infringe someone's copyright. If you don't infringe anyone's copyright, there's no crime.

</SPAN>

Why plagiarism is not illegal in the movie and music industry? Aren&#8217;t movie and music &#8220;creation in material form.&#8221; As a matter of fact, there are many plagiarism cases throughout the past centuries. </SPAN>

I just did a quick google search and found the following site. You might have come across it already.</SPAN>

See this link: http://cip.law.ucla.edu/cases/Pages/default.aspx</SPAN></SPAN>

Michael&#8217;s Dangerous case is included. I haven&#8217;t got the chance to read the full text. But, it certainly looks interesting and I&#8217;ll definitely check it out tonight. </SPAN>

Plagiarism does not only apply to written text, but also other art forms. In literature, we give proper attribute to the original author by citing the name of the author and providing adequate information on the source of quotation. </SPAN>

Now, to repeat Bumper&#8217;s question, please provide me sources that state plagiarism does not apply to music and proper credit is not necessary in music. Please tell me where I can see it explicitly stated that proper credit (name of the original creator and information on the source work) can be omitted as long as copyright is cleared.</SPAN>

Isn&#8217;t taking a piece of sound recording and reuse it in a different song considered music plagiarism? You may be right that music plagiarism is not illegal. However, I want to know which intellectual property law clearly said so. </SPAN>

Also think about the constant use of stock footage / archive footage from other right holders in TV series and movies. Is it all credited? No. You watch it on TV, you watch it at the cinema, you buy the DVD/Blu-ray. But it is all credited? No.

</SPAN>


First, have you considered whether the stock footage/image have already passed into public domain? </SPAN>

Second, I have always seen proper credits listed at the end of movie. One example I can think of is This Is It. At the end of the film, I remember seeing CNN being credited, most likely for the news footage used in the beginning Light Man part. Credit was even given to the Beat It short film. Obviously, Columbia Picture must have already cleared the right to use the footage with the Estate. Proper credit is still given. </SPAN>

The same goes for the music industry. You can infringe someone's copyright. But neither self-plagiarism nor plagiarism are illegal according to the law. In the case of the Cascio tracks: You cannot infringe your own copyright. There's no crime.

</SPAN>

Again, according to what law? Seriously, it&#8217;s the first time that I heard plagiarism isn&#8217;t illegal in the music industry. Yes, if someone wants to sample a piece of music, the first step is to obtain clearing from the copyright owner. So, there is no copyright infringement. However, proper credit should also be given. I ask again where do you see that proper credit is unnecessary as long as copyright is cleared.</SPAN>

See the following:</SPAN>

"Will You Be There" was the subject of two lawsuits. The first was for copyright infringement of the </SPAN>Clevelend Orchestra's</SPAN> recording and lack of credit to </SPAN>Beethoven</SPAN> for the use of his symphonic prelude. The suit was filed by the </SPAN>Cleveland Orchestra</SPAN>[SUP][5]</SPAN>[/SUP] for 7 million dollars and was settled out of court. Subsequent printings of Dangerous</SPAN> have included full credits in the album booklet. The second lawsuit was a claim of plagiarism by Italian songwriter </SPAN>Albano Carrisi</SPAN> who claimed that "Will You Be There" was copied from his song "I Cigni di Balaka" ("The Swans of Balaka"). After seven years, an Italian court ruled in favor of Jackson, stating that while the two songs were very similar, they were both inspired by a traditional Indian song. Carrisi was ordered to pay all legal fees related to the case.
</SPAN></SPAN>
If proper credit is not necessary, then why all subsequent printings of Dangerous have included FULL CREDITS in the album booklet? Even credit to Beethoven, whose works are public domain, is given. </SPAN>

What Bumper is wondering about is if consumers could argue that they were misled. That would be the issue of a consumer fraud lawsuit as it happened with the Milli Vanilli scandal. And my answer to that it: They could. But they would have a hard time to make their point of how they were intentionally(!) misled.

</SPAN>

The Milli Vanilli scandal is irrelevant to the current discussion. We are not talking about vocals from imposers, but music plagiarism. </SPAN>

Let&#8217;s assume it&#8217;s true that sound recording from Invincible (released original work) is being used in Monster (different work) and proper credit is not given.</SPAN>

First, is it plagiarism? I&#8217;m not asking whether it&#8217;s legal or not. I&#8217;m asking whether it&#8217;s considered plagiarism or not.</SPAN>

Second, as consumers, without proper credit, do we feel we were being misled into believing that Monster is an original recording?</SPAN>
</SPAN>

 

[Korgnex]

Plagiarism and self-plagiarism do NOT exist in the law! And what you have posted is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!
Plagiarism can be included in a copyright infringement, self-plagiarism cannot. You cannot infringe your own copyright.
I have NEVER said it would only apply to text, it DOES apply to everything. It is NOT illegal though, the law does not know plagiarism as a crime. It knows copyright infringement though.
That's what some here do not really understand, unfortunately.

There is NOT a single law that declares plagiarism as a crime! How am I supposed to answer this when there is NO law that knows plagiarism?


I simply mentioned the Milli Vanilli consumer fraud lawsuit because that's all you can do. That's it.

The second lawsuit was a claim of plagiarism

It is not a legal term. The lawsuit was actually about copyright infringement. Plagiarism is a word used to be more specific. But the crime was NOT plagiarism BUT copyright infringement!!!

 

[love is magical]

Plagiarism and self-plagiarism do NOT exist in the law! And what you have posted is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!
Plagiarism can be included in a copyright infringement, self-plagiarism cannot. You cannot infringe your own copyright. That's what some here are do not understand.

I simply mentioned the Milli Vanilli consumer fraud lawsuit because that's all you can do. That's it.

If it's accurate that the Cleveland Orchestra sued Michael for copyright infringement of its recording AND lack of credit to Beethoven's works, then it tells me plagiarism (use of others works without proper credit) is illegal. It also refutes your claim that there is no plagiarism if there is no copyright infringement.

Beethoven's works, as mentioned in my prior post, are public domain. Beethoven's works are no longer protected by any copyright. So, the use of it is not consider copyright infringement. Yet, when people derive their works from Beethoven's symphony. They give Beethoven proper credit; or else, it's considered plagiarism.

As shown by the Cleveland case, it can be a ground for a civil suit. I haven't read the actual court paper of the Cleveland Orchastra case. The information is from wiki, which might not be 100% accurate.

 

[Korgnex]

LOL! You don't understand it at all. They didn't give proper credit to the Cleveland orchestra. When they perform a work (and be it public domain) their performance becomes COPYRIGHT-PROTECTED ON ITS OWN!!!!!
The recording / performance of something that is or has become public domain, is NOT public domain itself. Public domain means that you can perform or use the work that is public domain FOR FREE without anyone's approval BUT no-one else can use this NEW rendition without your approval because your work (your very own rendition of the original work) is COPYRIGHT-PROTECTED.
On Dangerous they simply used a performance from the Cleveland Orchestra without their permission. That's COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!

Seriously, you have to fully understand this first before coming to such terribly wrong assumptions.


Example: If you perform a written piece of Shakespeare, a work that has become public domain and someone records you on a videocamera (without your permission) and then puts this recording on youTube, you can take legal steps against this if you don't want this performance to be made available as a recording to the general public.


Sorry. I don't want to be rude. So please forgive me my "lol". You have to understand that it's always a bit frustrating for someone who actually knows something to explain it to someone who doesn't but always asks "Why? How you know? I see this different". What I'm writing simply is what it is. You have to accept it and if you want to learn more about it, you can ask people/experts where you live who deal with this matter. It's hard to explain this through the use of postings on a forum and I don't have the time for it.

 

[love is magical]

LOL! You don't understand it at all. They didn't give proper credit to the Cleveland orchestra. When they perform a work (and be it public domain) their performance becomes COPYRIGHT-PROTECTED ON ITS OWN!!!!!
The recording / performance of something that is or has become public domain, is NOT public domain itself. Public domain means that you can perform or use the work that is public domain FOR FREE without anyone's approval BUT no-one else can use this NEW rendition without your approval because your work (your very own rendition of the original work) is COPYRIGHT-PROTECTED.
On Dangerous they simply used a performance from the Cleveland Orchestra without their permission. That's COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!

Seriously, you have to fully understand this first before coming to such terribly wrong assumptions.


Example: If you perform a written piece of Shakespeare, a work that has become public domain and someone records you on a videocamera (without your permission) and then puts this recording on youTube, you can take legal steps against this if you don't want this performance to be made available as a recording to the general public.

</SPAN>

Korgnex, is it really necessary to start your post by &#8220;LOL! You don&#8217;t understand it at all.&#8221; Instead of claiming people who don&#8217;t understand, may be you should try to understand what other people are trying to say. I&#8217;m trying to have a meaningful discussion here. I want to learn from you and others. Seriously, seeing you laughing out loud at my post (when I didn&#8217;t have any intention to be funny) is quite hurtful.</SPAN>

Back to the Cleveland Orchestra, the performance by Cleveland Orchestra is not public domain. I absolutely understand that. However, the work composed by Beethoven is. So, we are talking about two issues here. Since Michael used the recording (performance) of Cleveland Orchestra, so the Cleveland Orchestra had ground to sue Michael for copyright infringement &#8211; the use of copyrighted recording (performance) in a different work. What&#8217;s interesting to me is that &#8220;lack of proper credit to Beethoven&#8221; is mentioned. But, why proper credit is given to Beethoven as well? The credit listed in the subsequent printing of the Dangerous album booklets clearly cited the name of the symphony composed by Beethoven (information on the source of original work) as well? Why? Because if not, it&#8217;d have been considered to be plagiarism. Credits are given to not only the Cleveland Orchestra, but also to Beethoven (the creator of the original work) and the name of the symphony (information on the source from which the new work is derived from.)</SPAN>

All along, you keep saying plagiarism is not illegal unless there is copyright infringement. Well, most of the time, plagiarism and copyright infringement go hand-in-hand. When someone plagiarizes, he/she also infringes copyrights. So, plagiarism and copyright infringement are used interchangeably by many. However, what happen when someone plagiarizes works that are not protected by copyright, for example, works that are in public domain? There is no copyright infringement issue; however, is it legal? </SPAN>

Say I quote Shakespeare without proper quotation and reference in my paper. Can I tell my professor that it&#8217;s perfectly legal for me to plagiarize Shakespeare as I didn&#8217;t infringe any copyright? Of course not. Although my professor would most likely not sue me and bring me to court, she probably would inform the appropriate school committee and start the process to expel me. What I&#8217;m trying to say is that plagiarism is not considered legal if copyright is not infringed. That to me is an absurd concept. </SPAN>

In Will You Be There, proper credit is given to both the Cleveland Orchestra and Beethoven because the interlude is from a work composed by Beethoven and performed by the Cleveland Orchestra.</SPAN>

In Monster, part of the song is copied and pasted from Invincible, then why proper credit is not given to the composer and performer of the original work?

BTW, would you please provide a source that clearly state that proper credit and attribution is not necessary as long as there is a clearing on copyright?


Say, I'm writing a paper on American English and I want to quote Bumper's works. So, I PM Bumpy and ask him for permission. Bumpy replied and said "go right ahead." When I publish my work, can I not credit Bumpy and not mentioned the name of his paper at all? I have already cleared copyright with him.
</SPAN>

 

[ivy]

I think what Korgnex is trying to say is plagiarism is a claim under copyright law.

So to summarize:

plagiarism is not a legal offense. It plagiarism results is copyright infringement, those legal charges can be brought.

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

Here Teddy Riley talks about how he created Hollywood Tonight by using older material.

[YouTube]mHE-2rJGTJY[/YouTube]

 

[ivy]

Say I quote Shakespeare without proper quotation and reference in my paper. Can I tell my professor that it&#8217;s perfectly legal for me to plagiarize Shakespeare as I didn&#8217;t infringe any copyright? Of course not. Although my professor would most likely not sue me and bring me to court, she probably would inform the appropriate school committee and start the process to expel me. What I&#8217;m trying to say is that plagiarism is not considered legal if copyright is not infringed. That to me is an absurd concept.

love is magical - here you are mixing up "legal" and "not acceptable". I can tell you that while you can get an F in class or expelled from school, your teacher or university cannot sue you as they have no claims to the material.

Read below

Determine whether or not you or someone you are representing have been plagiarized by the legal definition of the word. Consult the web or a lawyer to ensure that intellectual property rights have been violated before you file a lawsuit.

Ensure that the work in question was protected under U.S. copyright laws. Consult an attorney to begin determining the best course of action to file a lawsuit against the plagiarizer.

Know that most plagiarism suits are considered a misdemeanor under U.S. law. However, if the plagiarized material received large circulation or a profit was made, it could be considered a felony. Decide if the content or the ideas have been plagiarized, since theft of knowledge or ideas is difficult to prove in a court case.

 

[love is magical]

I think what Korgnex is trying to say is plagiarism is a claim under copyright law.

So to summarize:

plagiarism is not a legal offense. It plagiarism results is copyright infringement, those legal charges can be brought.

Is plagiarising Shakespeare, Mozart or Beethoven legal?

I did not mix up "illegal" and "not acceptable". I fully understand that my professor will not sue me if I plagiarize Shakespeare in my school work. But, say I plagiarize Shakespeare in a novel that I decide to publish to the public (hypothetical situation) without proper reference to Shakespeare. Is it legal? Or just not acceptable?

And also, again and again, please tell me where I can read that proper crediting is not necessary as long as there is no copyright infringement. Thanks!

 

[ivy]

Is plagiarising Shakespeare, Mozart or Beethoven legal?

In what sense?

-- If you do it at a school paper with no profits you will not see a "legal" consequence. You can fail the project, fail the class and thrown out of school that's it.

-- If you do it for a book and sell it, you can face a intellectual property infringement lawsuit and you can be fined and send to prison.

And also, again and again, please tell me where I can read that proper crediting is not necessary as long as there is no copyright infringement. Thanks!

I can't and you can't show me a place where it says proper crediting is needed. There's no set album credit rules to my best of knowledge. It's important to note that Album credits aren't like academic papers which as stuff like MLA style referencing and so on.


In our case all of these are totally irrelevant because

- it's not "someone else's" work
- all copyright and intellectual property and so on is controlled by MJ Estate and therefore never complain.

The best bet for fans again will be a fraud or false advertising claim. and that would bring in the questions of fair use. how much of the song is plagiarism in your opinion? If we are just talking about adlibs and screams and so on, I don't think it will be enough honestly.

 

[ivy]

http://soundcloud.com/tarylljackson/4ever

New Taryll Jackson song

 

[Chamife]

Here Teddy Riley talks about how he created Hollywood Tonight by using older material.

[YouTube]mHE-2rJGTJY[/YouTube]

Interesting and I will watch it again, but it would be a lot more interesting if he talked about the creation of Breaking News or Monster.

You happen to a have a YT of that too?

Nah, didn't think so...;D

And he didn't re-use older material. He listened to the Dangerous album again for inspiration. What would Michael have liked? That's a whole different thing.

 

[ADKIc3mAnX]

Interesting and I will watch it again, but it would be a lot more interesting if he talked about the creation of Breaking News or Monster.

You happen to a have a YT of that too?

Nah, didn't think so...;D

And he didn't re-use older material. He listened to the Dangerous album again for inspiration. What would Michael have liked? That's a whole different thing.

By Teddy saying that they came from his catalog and he used them it tells me that it's older material mashed up.

And no but I will look for it later

Update: For now [YouTube]HykcbHzV7gg[/YouTube]
[YouTube]rA7HEdn1Z80[/YouTube]

 

[StellaJackson]

There are no samples used in Hollywood Tonight from older work. And Teddy Riley is completely unreliable. The guy is nuts.

Also, I wonder if Rodney Jerkins is aware that material from songs he co-wrote and produced was used on BN and Monster....

 

[Chamife]

By Teddy saying that they came from his catalog and he used them it tells me that it's older material mashed up.

And no but I will look for it later

Update: For now [YouTube]HykcbHzV7gg[/YouTube]

You're right. I skipped the first line... It was older material.

@Stella: Teddy Riley says he used a sample from Michael's cataloque.

No comprendo

 

[StellaJackson]

You're right. I skipped the first line... It was older material.

@Stella: Teddy Riley says he used a sample from Michael's cataloque.

No comprendo

Teddy Riley says a lot of things. To be honest, I think he's a bit simple.