Figuring out what works and making it over and over again as long as it works – that’s what the music industry is based on. Being inspired by some track and using it for reference is perfectly fine and has nothing to do with plagiarism. Everybody borrow something from somebody and you are not an exception. If you have self-awareness and honesty you will see that most of your tracks are an adaptation of someone else’s work in your own interpretation, and it doesn’t even have to be conscious.
I agree. I had hoped no one would be called out in this thread but I guess it was unavoidable. For sure, influences are all over my music.
I guess the point of my initial post was whether there is less sensitivity toward closely matching another AJ item than there would be closely matching a huge radio hit or well-known film score. Or is that just part of the culture of a marketplace like this where we are all chasing the same buyers who show us what they want when they spend their money?
“good artists borrow, great artists steal” Pablo Picasso or TS Elliot said that.
As hard as it is to accept music is business, and how many times does Pepsi come out with a new drink and if it works Coke comes out with something similar.The same is true with music. If people like C – G – Am – F you are going to see a lot of tracks with that chord progression, or D – C – G. If you are on top people are always going to be trying to use what you did as a model to get there themselves. I believe it’s true what the others were saying though. If a buyer wants something that sounds like Audioquattro’s Clouds, or Soundrolls A Way to the Top why wouldn’t they just buy Clouds or A Way to the Top. It’s not like those songs are anymore expensive.
“I guess the point of my initial post was whether there is less sensitivity toward closely matching another AJ item than there would be closely matching a huge radio hit or well-known film score. Or is that just part of the culture of a marketplace like this where we are all chasing the same buyers who show us what they want when they spend their money?”
very well stated – totally agree Pink Zebra.
Friends, who needs originality here? AJ is’t America’s got the Talent. This is a business. And most of people definitely will produce the songs that sound similar to world hits or bestselling tracks to earn money.
I do not think that a copy can steal the popularity of the original. But of course an exact copy is bad.
By the way, there are many famous composers who are not shy of borrowing.
Listen to soundtracks for example:
“American Beauty – Dead Already” and “The World’s Fastest Indian – Bike Shop”
I think the beginning of this tracks are too similar. Anyway, they both got into movies.
Seems like a new trend in movie trailers is to have those big dramatic hits like the inception sound, those guys are all ripping each other off and that’s in the major leagues. It happens, when a trend is hot it will be done to death. I agree that no one should be directly ripping each other off but to be inspired by something and taking your own unique crack at something is fine.
- Envato Staff
- Featured in a Magazine
- Contributed a Tutorial to a Tuts+ Site
- Interviewed on the Envato Notes blog
- Repeatedly Helped protect Envato Marketplaces against copyright violations
- Author had a File in an Envato Bundle
- Author had a Free File of the Month
Plagiarism occurs at every level of the industry, whether it’s Audiojungle or a multi-million dollar film score. Some composers (e.g. Tom Newman) are even asked to rip off their own music.
The problem with AJ, is that some of the copying is SO blatant. Some of the top tracks are being used for more than just inspiration and are being copied in so many aspects there is no originality in the new work whatsoever.
For example, there are plenty of cinematic tracks – mine included – doing the Inception ‘BRNNNNN’ megahorn thing. Hans Zimmer / Zack Hemsey will always get the credit for that because they did it first, but it’s very difficult (impossible) to trademark/copyright a single unison brass hit with a bunch of distortion and a creative reverb on it. So…we all do it.
Edit: I’ve heard plenty of tracks trying to rip off that Inception hit, but no-one else’s still sounds remotely as good as the original.
But we didn’t do it first, and we don’t have the association with the Inception trailer, so it will never sound as cool anyway. But we do it because people like that sound, and it sells on Audiojungle. We’ll then create tracks that use that ‘BRNN’ idea and incorporate it into a musical work. This is adaptation. As previous authors have already noted, we are all adapting something into our creative work anyway, because it’s how we learn. We could say the same thing about the I-V-Vi-IV chord sequence mentioned above.
What hardly any of us do, at least as far as I know, is copy the structure and pacing of the Mind Heist track (the one that is used in the Inception trailer), the arrangement, etc… in almost the exact same order. This is re-creation.
What pinkzebra is referring to is the blatant and totally unimaginative copying of one track in almost its entirety. It becomes quite obvious that the author of the ‘new’ song has listened to a previous work, and decided to try and recreate it. Re-creation is without doubt an excellent technical exercise, but to sell something like that on Audiojungle or elsewhere is a waste for everyone. Especially when the titles/tags are copied.
Personally, I don’t know why so many authors try to get in on the Corporate/Motivational section (which is where by far the most blatant copying takes place, though there are a couple in the Cinematic section that are pretty shameful too). This genre is already dominated by certain authors. Why not branch out into other genres and help expand the marketplace and establish a niche somewhere else? I do understand that people want to chase buyers, and there are a lot of buyers in that section, but there are also plenty of buyers here buying well-produced and extremely obscure stuff as well.
As a result, it’s my opinion that there are a significant number of authors here who only care about the dollar and not about the product, and certainly not about their own creative development. Ultimately, that’s their problem, not mine, but if people planned their business for the next 5 years, instead of the next 5 months, they might have more success on different marketplaces, and not just here.
It is one thing to adapt others’ work – which has been done in all artforms for as long as I can remember. It’s another to blatantly plagiarize and not use one ounce of creativity whatsoever. But some ‘artists’ don’t care about that and only care about chasing the dollar, so this kind of thing will continue and short of flagging certain tracks, or the reviewers picking up on it, there is little we can do.
Just one thing to add to the conversation here that I don’t think has been stated yet:
If ANYONE sees or hears ANY blatant rip of ANY AudioJungle track, PLEASE send it to support. DO NOT post it in the forums. Directly reproducing or very closely emulating another AudioJungle author’s work with intent is not allowed and is totally frowned upon. It can not only get your item removed but you can also either get a warning or a permanent ban. Purposely ripping-off another person’s work is NOT tolerated, it’s not cool and it’s not worth it.
Just one thing to add to the conversation here that I don’t think has been stated yet: If ANYONE sees or hears ANY blatant rip of ANY AudioJungle track, PLEASE send it to support. DO NOT post it in the forums. Directly reproducing or very closely emulating another AudioJungle author’s work with intent is not allowed and is totally frowned upon. It can not only get your item removed but you can also either get a warning or a permanent ban. Purposely ripping-off another person’s work is NOT tolerated, it’s not cool and it’s not worth it.
Thanks Scott – glad to hear your perspective. Copycats need to remember that any given song doesn’t need to legally constitute copyright infringement for you to ban the song or them as a contributor.
Good read Gareth.