Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on X
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
love is magical
Proud Member
</SPAN>ivy;3596729 said:
Thank you. So, unlike Korgnex’s claim, plagiarizing non-copyrighted material can be ILLEGAL. Is it a fair statement?
</SPAN>ivy;3596729 said:
I don’t know if there is any “album credit rules”; however, I do know there is copyright law, of which “album credit” falls under. </SPAN>
The U.S. copyright law states the following:</SPAN>
At a minimum, a proper citation must contain the author's name and enough information about the source of the quotation, so that the reader can easily find the quotation in the original.</SPAN></SPAN>
Although I can’t find any album credit rule, which may not exist now. But, the U.S. Copyright Law clearly states proper credit is minimum requirement. If I applied the above to music, don’t you think credit needs to cite the name of the performer/composer and information on the original work?</SPAN>
</SPAN>ivy;3596729 said:
Has anyone here claim that there is a copyright infringement issue? No. As a matter of fact, Bumper said in his very first post that the issue is PLAGIARISM. I asked two questions in one of my earlier posts.</SPAN>
First, if it’s indeed true that part of Invincible is being copied and pasted into Monster without proper crediting, is it considered to be plagiarism? Yes, or no? I’m not asking whether it’s legal or not. I’m not asking whether the amount of plagiarism warrant a lawsuit. I’m asking whether the act is plagiarism.</SPAN>
Second, without proper crediting, will consumers be easily misled to believe Monster is a complete original work? </SPAN>
Korgnex
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,509
- Points
- 113
- Country
-
It is credited because that is the name of the performed work. The performance can only be identified this way. It has no identity on its own, no other name. How else would you identify their performance? You need to name what it is.
If this performance would be known by a certain name, they could just mention that name but their performance doesn't have any name on its own. So you name the name and the original author.
Last edited:
Chamife
Proud Member
Well, there aren't any inconvenient questions for them to be answered this way, like why Michael didn't sing every word himself all at once.
love is magical;3596747 said:
your examples aren't non-copyrighted material. Also copyright is established when a material is credited. To establish a copyright it doesn't require a copyright registration. Copyright registration is only useful in determining the ownership. So in theory every work is copyrighted. It's just to establish copyright / ownership / who did it first in not publicly released material.
they don't exist. Also people can waive their right to be credited such as Michael was not credited on Do the Bartman song. So what if Estate said "you can use whatever you want and you don't need to give credit"?
Also the example here is a self-plagiarism in a creative work. Which is known more as recycling. A lot of musicians recycle good melodies they created and so on. They don't necessarily credit the original song.
the article that I posted with Steve Shafer answered this question with saying that there's no clear determination of Self-plagiarism. One group claimed it was their own words and they can reuse them and it wouldn't be plagiarism. The other side argued it has to be totally new. Even in academic circles we have seen people mention "how much of it is too much" and we have read that they allowed literature reviews and methodology to be the same.
So your question is an ethical argument with multiple differentiating opinions. It's not a black - white answer.
I was actually looking to the fair use and it said these
- can an average person identify the source?
- how much is copied?
so for example if the cascio song is like "breaking the news breaking the news ahhh" and ahh is copied. can an average person identify that copy and is it significant?
that "take me away" is a lot more problematic because it takes totally old works and presents it as new. the Cascio songs have a lot of new material with minor includes from old material.
ADKIc3mAnX
Proud Member
Sorry I forgot you know more than the man who produced it.
[YouTube]0oF87b4fcnE[/YouTube]
Just for that you think he's crazy ?
SMH
Imagine if he read your posts what would he think of you.
StellaJackson
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,741
- Points
- 63
I never said that. I just said that I don't trust a man who claims that Michael is alive and who speaks to women like they are dirt on twitter. Nor do I trust a man who turned a blind eye to suspicious sounding tracks because he needed the gig. I'd rather trust Taryll and the like any day. And besides, Teddy only produced that mix. The original work was written and produced by Brad buxer and MJ before Teddy butchered it. Birchey's version is far closer to the demo.
Last edited:
ADKIc3mAnX
Proud Member
This ?
[YouTube]LLNydB4aN9Y[/YouTube]
StellaJackson
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,741
- Points
- 63
It at least has the original lyrics in and doesn't completely change the tone of the song with that awful bridge.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
My question however remains... who did it? The Estate? Teddy? Eddy? And that makes a whole lot difference, because if Eddie did it, then he clearly "stole" (plagiarised = theft = illegal) the words from "Invincible." Also, what happened to the missing word which was replaced by the one from "Invincible"?
Also, isn't this a case of trafficking in sound recording?
17 U.S.C. § 1101 : US Code - Section 1101: Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos
(a) Unauthorized Acts. - Anyone who, without the consent of theperformer or performers involved -(1) fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musicalperformance in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies orphonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized fixation,(2) transmits or otherwise communicates to the public thesounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance, or(3) distributes or offers to distribute, sells or offers tosell, rents or offers to rent, or traffics in any copy orphonorecord fixed as described in paragraph (1), regardless ofwhether the fixations occurred in the United States,shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through505, to the same extent as an infringer of copyright.(b) Definition. - As used in this section, the term "traffic in"means transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, asconsideration for anything of value, or make or obtain control ofwith intent to transport, transfer, or dispose of.(c) Applicability. - This section shall apply to any act or actsthat occur on or after the date of the enactment of the UruguayRound Agreements Act.(d) State Law Not Preempted. - Nothing in this section may beconstrued to annul or limit any rights or remedies under the commonlaw or statutes of any State.
Source: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/17/11/1101
Also, isn't this a case of trafficking in sound recording?
17 U.S.C. § 1101 : US Code - Section 1101: Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos
(a) Unauthorized Acts. - Anyone who, without the consent of theperformer or performers involved -(1) fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musicalperformance in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies orphonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized fixation,(2) transmits or otherwise communicates to the public thesounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance, or(3) distributes or offers to distribute, sells or offers tosell, rents or offers to rent, or traffics in any copy orphonorecord fixed as described in paragraph (1), regardless ofwhether the fixations occurred in the United States,shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through505, to the same extent as an infringer of copyright.(b) Definition. - As used in this section, the term "traffic in"means transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, asconsideration for anything of value, or make or obtain control ofwith intent to transport, transfer, or dispose of.(c) Applicability. - This section shall apply to any act or actsthat occur on or after the date of the enactment of the UruguayRound Agreements Act.(d) State Law Not Preempted. - Nothing in this section may beconstrued to annul or limit any rights or remedies under the commonlaw or statutes of any State.
Source: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/17/11/1101
love is magical
Proud Member
</SPAN>ivy;3596770 said:
My question is really simple. I want to know whether plagiarism is illegal (or unlawful) if there is no impending copyright infringement. </SPAN>
I used Shakespeare as an example because Shakespearean plays are no longer protected by any copyright law and are considered public domain. Who is the copyright owner of Macbeth? Copyright ownership has an expiration date. </SPAN>
Ever since my first writing class, I was told about the consequence of plagiarism. Plagiarism is not acceptable and unlawful. Just like how you mentioned previously, the act of plagiarism might result in misdemeanor or even felony charges. </SPAN>
So, I want to know how plagiarism is not illegal per Korgnex’s claim. Just because nobody is suing doesn’t mean it’s lawful.
</SPAN>ivy;3596770 said:
Again, for a second time, I’m not saying there is any issue with copyright infringement. I’m talking about plagiarism. The definition (generally accepted) of plagiarism is straightforward. Using another person’s work (intentionally or unintentionally) without crediting is considered plagiarism. </SPAN>
Did the producers of the Do the Bartman song sample any other Michael Jackson song? Not that I’m aware of. Michael, as one of the writers of the song, waived the right to be credited, which was totally fine. So, how is it relevant to plagiarism?</SPAN>
</SPAN>ivy;3596770 said:
I agree that there is no clear-cut determination of self-plagiarism. That’s why it’s an interesting topic.</SPAN>
However, the Estate of Michael Jackson is an artificial entity. The administrators of the Estate have the rights to make business decisions related to matters of the Estate. The Estate is not Michael Jackson, the artist. I still don’t think whether it’s reasonable to see the Estate as Michael Jackson. I never do. To me, the Estate is managing the Michael Jackson brand. Shouldn’t self-plagiarism become invalid as soon as the artist deceased? How can a deceased man continue to create? Just like how one can no longer slander a deceased man. The recycling of Michael’s previous works will not end in any copyright infringement. That we all know. But, is the recycling of Michael’s work by his Estate considered self-plagiarism or just plagiarism? </SPAN>
If it’s considered self-plagiarism and legal, don’t we enter into a dangerous territory? With today’s technology, the Estate can commission some producers and do a new “Take Me Away”-ish song without any legal consequence. </SPAN>
</SPAN>ivy;3596770 said:
I never pretend there is no ethical argument in my question. And, I don’t understand why we have to avoid giving opinion on ethical issue.
</SPAN>ivy;3596770 said:
I guess this is supposed to answer my second question, which is “absence of proper crediting, will consumer be misled to believe Monster is a complete original work? </SPAN>
Based on what you just said, the Cascio songs have a lot new material with minor elements from old materials. Then, how would consumers know such fact without more information in the album credits?</SPAN>
Your first bullet point, “can an average person identify the source?” What’s the definition of “average person?” I have listened to Earth Song thousands times. So, I can recognize the “hoo’s hoos” in KYHU is from Earth Song. I can also recognize the “hee hee hee” in Breaking News is from ITC. Am I an average person?</SPAN>
My coworker doesn’t spend days and nights listening to Michael. He only knows about Thriller. Is he an average person? </SPAN>
I’m confused here. </SPAN>
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
love is magical;3596818 said:
If plagiarism is considered as theft, then it is illegal, because theft is illegal.
love is magical;3596818 said:
What Korgnex and Ivy are saying is that the term itself "plagiarism" in the law isn't used. However, what I see in the law is that the term theft and trafficking in sound recording are used. So if the plaintiff can prove that he's been a victim of theft legally speaking (and victim of plagiarism non-legally speaking), then plagiarism = theft or = trafficking in sound recording = illegal.
love is magical;3596818 said:
If I am not mistaken, Michael was credited on Do The Bartman under another name.
love is magical;3596818 said:
We actually don't know who did it. If Eddie did this and registered the copyright for it, then it becomes "unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recording", and that is clearly illegal.
love is magical;3596818 said:
Or all the demos released on UC? Imagine the song In The Back with full lyrics released tomorrow, but fabricated and uncredited from previous sentences/songs.
love is magical;3596818 said:
Good point, there is no legal definition for "average person".
The question is not who is an average person though, or what an average person can identify, but the real issue here is how come that fabricating sentences from previous work (i.e. inserting copy-pasted words into a sentence) can be considered as legal when this part of the work has already been credited and copyrighted in the past. The subquestion is, what did Eddie register then two days after MJ's death? That copy-pasted part included or excluded? We, the consumers are clearly misled.
Last edited:
I'm tired
Bumper - regardless of who did it - how they can stole anything if they are given permission or authorization by MJ Estate?
Love is magical - there's no legal definition of plagiarism so plagiarism itself alone is not illegal or a crime. People whose works are plagiarize can do fraud or copyright infringement lawsuits. So no one would sue you because you used Shakespeare (hence plagiarism) but they can sue you for fraud if you made millions by selling a book that used his work (hence fraud).
For the "take me away" yes they can do it but they need to specify that it's old material.
Bumper - regardless of who did it - how they can stole anything if they are given permission or authorization by MJ Estate?
Love is magical - there's no legal definition of plagiarism so plagiarism itself alone is not illegal or a crime. People whose works are plagiarize can do fraud or copyright infringement lawsuits. So no one would sue you because you used Shakespeare (hence plagiarism) but they can sue you for fraud if you made millions by selling a book that used his work (hence fraud).
For the "take me away" yes they can do it but they need to specify that it's old material.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Well, ok, common sense is one thing, but the law doesn't define things according to what an average person evaluated on common sense can or cannot do.
The law stipulates that theft is theft, be it a part or the entire work.
And to answer you first question above, we can't say regardless of who did it, because if Eddie submitted those songs with copy-pasted material before the Estate was even aware of their existence, then there is clearly a legal problem there. If Teddy did it, then I guess the Estate gave the permission, but that's only a guess. What is the Estate aware of actually?
love is magical
Proud Member
Take a break and relax, ivy. No one forces you to participate. Come back when you feel rejuvenated
Actually Teddy on twitter said that he added screams and so on and that was it. So it seems more likely it was added after they got the songs. And even if Eddie copied them there's not a problem if they approved it.
And to quote Birchey MJ adlibs, screams etc were SEPARATE tracks. So yeah everyone should be aware and willing in this instance. It's not like they added or hid the screams in other tracks.
oh I'm okay. It's just you (speaking plural) has created a new discovery which is not a discovery.
Eddie, Teddy, Pope or Elves could have copied Michael's adlibs to the songs, it's okay as long as Estate who owns the copyright to Michael's songs gave permission before it was released. Yes we all know Michael himself didn't copy them but the people working for Estate copying them is not "someone else". Even if Eddie had copied Michael's work and Estate said "it's fine" then he didn't steal anything or plagiarized anything. He got permission.
No one - with the ownership power (meaning Estate) is going to sue them for plagiarism , theft, copyright infringement and so on.
Therefore you - as consumers- are still left with fraud or false advertisement. That they - regardless of who- fooled you to believe these were new when they weren't. It's basically the same thing with fraud based on fake vocals.
so in short it's like pounding the sand.
And to quote Birchey MJ adlibs, screams etc were SEPARATE tracks. So yeah everyone should be aware and willing in this instance. It's not like they added or hid the screams in other tracks.
oh I'm okay. It's just you (speaking plural) has created a new discovery which is not a discovery.
Eddie, Teddy, Pope or Elves could have copied Michael's adlibs to the songs, it's okay as long as Estate who owns the copyright to Michael's songs gave permission before it was released. Yes we all know Michael himself didn't copy them but the people working for Estate copying them is not "someone else". Even if Eddie had copied Michael's work and Estate said "it's fine" then he didn't steal anything or plagiarized anything. He got permission.
No one - with the ownership power (meaning Estate) is going to sue them for plagiarism , theft, copyright infringement and so on.
Therefore you - as consumers- are still left with fraud or false advertisement. That they - regardless of who- fooled you to believe these were new when they weren't. It's basically the same thing with fraud based on fake vocals.
so in short it's like pounding the sand.
Chamife
Proud Member
If there ever will be a Q & A with John Branca, we could ask him if he was aware.
I feel the last word hasn't been copy-pa...err..spoken yet about this subject...
I feel the last word hasn't been copy-pa...err..spoken yet about this subject...
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
I wasqn't referring to screams or ad-libs, but to fabricating a sentence by inserting a copy-paste from another song. It's forgery. So if Teddy added ad-libs and screams, ok, but how do we know who fabricated the sentences? There is no credit, nor any explanation, yet we clearly hear cuts between words and previous material blatantly copy-pasted.
So what did Eddie possess in first place then if he didn't do it, something like "In the back"?
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Well, then in that case expect future forgeries, because they clearly seek financial gain, they mislead public and alter Michael Jackson's work.
So many unethical things without it being illegal is a shame.
p.s. you keep on mentioning ad-libs. I never spoke about ad-libs, but copy-pasting words in the middle of sentences. That's not ad-lib, it's forgery. They aren't comparable.
@bumper - how many words? what percentage when compared to the whole song?
and you know that they replaced John Lennon's words with Paul McCartney because it was not high quality? Was it forgery? Isn't saying "finished after Michael's death" cover the "forgeries" you mention? Can't a reasonable person realize that as Michael cannot record anymore some production liberties is taken in the final work?
and you know that they replaced John Lennon's words with Paul McCartney because it was not high quality? Was it forgery? Isn't saying "finished after Michael's death" cover the "forgeries" you mention? Can't a reasonable person realize that as Michael cannot record anymore some production liberties is taken in the final work?
love is magical
Proud Member
Ivy, honestly at this point, My only interest is to have an open discussion on topics that force me to think outside of my boundary. I am not a musician nor a copyright law expert. But, I enjoy learning and reading about such subjects. That's why I ask questions and discuss with others. To you, it seems we are acting like we discover a new continent. But, frankly, i don't feel that at all. Probably because i don't care about the Estate or the Cascios. To me, it's simply a discussion. You feel like we are pounding sand. Fine. But, to me, it's a constructive discussion. I learn something new through such discussion. It's better than psychoanalysing the children through their tweets or regurgitating the same old ridicules towards LMP and the family. That's what I called tiring.
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
How many words is not an issue. Stealing a dime or a million dollar is still stealing. It's the principle, not the quantity that counts.
-Was Paul McCartney credited?
-Did they fabricate John Lenon's sentences from his previous work and misled the public to believe that he recorded it as such?
Yes, but without giving proper credits and any footnote when you hear oddities in the song within the sentences, no I can't understand that omission, because I paid for it as a new track. As a consumer I am entitled to be informed what I buy.
Last edited:
fair use notion would disagree with you.
love is magical
Proud Member
I don't know anymore. :sigh:But, I have fun. :lol:
BUMPER SNIPPET
Guests
Well the tone was absolutely not fun. Good night.
Why do I bother anyway, I just wonder....