&quot;Artists Beware&quot;

Hm... without hearing the melody/composition between the two this is really hard to give advice on. However, so many songs can sound exactly the same, and it's a fair bit different world then instances of traced/copied graphic art.

You got the refund, thankfully. I would ask them politely about the recycled tune, and see how they reply. There are coincidences like this, and with music it happens often. I wouldn't think this is suitable for a beware unless you can find other examples where it's a direct rip from something. Often times in the music community I've noticed folks using other samples of songs, beats, and general ideas - it feels like a much looser thing then with graphic art. But I could be absolutely wrong on this.

From:

corghi.livejournal.com

I don't think it's worthy of a beware. Like Neo said, since there's nothing to really compare it to, it's hard to give a solid opinion.

A visual artists drawings can be very similar, though different. They use the same structure to draw (poses/style), and change things to fit the description, if that makes any sense. It's just how you'd feel personally.

Also, maybe they weren't very experienced and had basics or things that they were used to, to go off of, perhaps using their music as a crutch. There's a lot of factors.

I'm glad that they refunded you though.

From:

leahtaur.livejournal.com

Makes me wonder if this is comparable to an artist using virtually the same pose in more than one drawing. Draw enough over a decade or more and you will have used some poses several times.

Would love to hear from a musician in the community! I just can't really say because I'm sure there is etiquette and things that are "simply not done" in the music community that I am not aware of.

From:

mazz.livejournal.com

A lot of visual artists will recycle poses of work turned down and refunded. If they refunded you and wanted to re-sell the work to make some of their money back for their time I don't really see a problem with it.

From:

tenzanosumi.livejournal.com

Except that this scenario is the reverse of what you mention. If I turned something down and then it was adapted into a later work, then that's a different issue entirely.

Let me make a visual art analogy: Artist draws original, non-commissioned art for a portfolio collection that is to be sold. Later on, the artist offers commissions and decides to pull a piece from that previous portfolio, modify a few details and provide that to the client after having advertised as offering an original piece. Maybe more difficult with traditional media, but with digital media this would be simpler.

I hope this clarifies the timeline I put forth.

From:

mazz.livejournal.com

OT: God your icon is old hahaha. I use to have one of my old fursona. (that's not a bad thing, the flying icons were one of my favorite icon memes)
--

Ah I see I mis-understood the original situation. I don't think it would warrant a beware since you aren't the one who technically got ripped off since you got a refund. I'd for sure not purchase from them again in the future and I hope this behavior isn't common for them.

Edited Date: 2013-11-15 04:17 pm (UTC)

From:

But in your post you said a 'song commission' as in a single song tailored to your tastes, correct? That is not comparable to something in a 'folio.

From:

socks-the-fox.livejournal.com

That's the issue. It was sold as something tailored to their tastes, but it turned out to not be.

From:

Yes, and he got a refund. So he doesn't 'own' the track. The artist can do what they want with it.

Edit; His post is somewhat confusing; someone clarified below. The fact still remains that he got a refund. Plus, if it's just a simple beat versus the entire song. The OP isn't clear on that.

Edited Date: 2013-11-15 10:06 pm (UTC)

From:

growly.livejournal.com

Since you got a full refund anyway, it seems like a non-issue at this point... just avoid buying from them in the future, I guess.

From:

Recycled beats is not a new thing in music (I'm gonna go out on a limb and use techno). Its done quite often then! That classic 'doonce doonce doonce' beat, and such. The thing is, if the composer is actually good you're barely going to register it (or care, otherwise techno and its cousins never would have made it far). Its pretty akin to using a pose again.

But given the fact that A) you turned down the offered composition and B) you were refunded in the end means this isn't beware-worthy.

Edited Date: 2013-11-15 05:00 pm (UTC)

From:

frisket17.livejournal.com

LOL

This.

Example:

J.Cole's "Work Out" song is a rip off of Paula Abdul's "Straight Up"

Straight up, now tell me do you really wanna love me forever. Oh, oh, oh. Or is it just a hit and run (Well, hey) Straight up I tell ya I just really wanna ...

Totally had a flaily point attack when I heard that. Music "artist" indeed. Happens a lot in music, but ...that one. That one sat with me wrong.

From:

Let's not forget Kanye and Daft Punk either. I have no idea if DP is the original owned of Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger, but Kanye obviously isn't.

From:

the beat from Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger was sampled from Edwin Birdsong's "Cola Bottle Baby": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3AKrwna2C8

From:

nellyaa.livejournal.com

I think Kanye got permission from DP. Otherwise that would've been a little too close to my tastes to the original.

And yup, DP usually uses samples and make new songs out of them. At least in their original work - they didn't in their Tron Legacy OST afaik. (Correct me if I'm wrong)
Though, I don't know about their latest album Random Access Memories, after listening once I tossed it in the bin. (Dont.Start.Rant.Arrgh..)

However, wouldn't say DP "copied" with using samples, since the outcome is something completely different and has a quality.

From:

spyral-out.livejournal.com

They didn't sample for the soundtrack, it was new composition.

But yeah, sampling is really common in several music genres - it's referred to as plunderphonics, especially when it's used as the centerpiece for the majority of an artist's work (a la Girl Talk) - but it's not the same as straight up plagiarism.

From:

Like everyone else said, we'd need to listen to the music to give good advice, but personally I wouldn't even find this an issue. There's "recycled" themes in the art industry all the time, it's going to happen especially if it's something you've been doing for years. If it were near exactly the same, that would be a different story, but there's no way we can tell without hearing it.

From:

From your post this is what I make of it;

Commissioned music; didn't like it. Got refund. Now upset he is using it elsewhere?

As an artist, this is extremely common. If people scam (don't pay) or don't like the sketch, I'll often either sell it as a YCH, or use it for another commission.

There has been one, maybe two times, where I took payment after completion and the commissioner never paid, so I reused the finished image.

If you didn't pay (Refunded in this case) it's not yours and the artist can do what they like.

The only way it could be is if you provided you own beats, and he is using those.

From:

0acorn0.livejournal.com

Oh you beat me to it!

From:

ryunwoofie.livejournal.com

Feel the same way 100%

From:

OP was saying that they commissioned this person in 2009, and the artist released a compilation with a song that had a very similar beat/melody the refunded commission, which was originally made in 2007.

Edit: I seriously don't get it. People aren't reading the entry right. The artist didn't re-purpose the OP's old commission into a song. They used a lot of the original song for the OP's commission

Edited Date: 2013-11-15 09:44 pm (UTC)

From:

Which would've made the OP's commission "recycled work" technically. Which, unless it's blatantly obvious that it's been reused, happens a lot with music and just art in general, it's not that big of a deal.

Edit because bad keyboard is bad.

Edited Date: 2013-11-15 10:11 pm (UTC)

From:

Yeah, I'm not necessarily saying the artist OP commissioned should have a beware against them, but most of the commenters' advice is bad because they misread it entirely.

From:

It'd be polite of you not to downplay the commenters opinions as "bad", as this is open for discussion. They aren't "bad", but there is room for misunderstanding. The OP wasn't super clear in their post, so I can see how it'd be taken various different ways.

From:

Sorry, I should have used more tactful vocabulary.

From:

I read it correctly, my comment as is still stays. Musical recompositioning is not uncommon. OP also did not A) accept the song and B) was refunded. There is nothing to beware about this.

From:

doggiy.livejournal.com

From my understanding, the musical artist had already produced the piece on an album in '07, and later in '09 had tried to pawn the same piece off to somebody else as an original, newly rendered and composed commission. Surely that's fraudulence, to some extent?

From:

Look, even with the OP telling us the melody/etc is similar, etc .. The rest of us do not KNOW that, or to the extent. Could it be the same song? Yes. A new song with unfortunate similarities to the other work? Also yes. But without listening we can't tell.

Even after that, I already broke down why this is not bewareable without using the music itself, later in the comments. So this circle jerk of trying to nail this anonymous musician to the wall is getting old.

From:

dinogrrl.livejournal.com

Speaking from a classical music background, my experience may be different than what the pop music world is like, but here you go:

Without hearing both tracks, it's hard to say. Honestly at this point, I wouldn't worry about it, unless you were thinking of commissioning this person again.

Did you compare both tracks side-by-side, or were you working off memory? Are you positive of the dates of composition for both pieces?

A lot of composers recycle tunes, rhythms, words, etc. Especially from themselves! Just listen to movie soundtrack composers, they love reusing their favorite motifs, they'll steal from classical pieces, they'll use tunes of modern pop songs...the music world has a much larger gray area of borrowing/influence/homage vs plagiarism than visual arts. Yeah, a composer will get called on their nonsense if 'borrowing' is ALL that they do, but if it's here and there, nobody cares. Unless this person was literally reusing stuff note-for-note and only changing a couple words in the tune, there's probably not too much to be done about it.

From:

0acorn0.livejournal.com

This just sounds like he reused your commission. You got your refund, so the song ended up being his to do as he pleased.

Sort of like an artist may reuse a pose of a refunded or nonpaid commission as a YCH/prepose.

From:

I think what the OP is worried about was their commission being "recycled work", since they state that the album was released 2 years before they commissioned the person.

From:

0acorn0.livejournal.com

Could it be a case of mistaken recycling due to the artist's own taste in music and their craft?

Some artists will mistakenly redraw the same pose because it's one they are comfortable with, and it could be something as innocent as that.

From:

That seems to be everyone else's thoughts as well. There's really no way to tell without listening really.

From:

meeka-meerkat.livejournal.com

I think the OP is just wondering if they should warn other people, so nobody else gets recycled music from this artist.

Sorry if this is super obvious, but I feel like the above comments focused more on the OP's resolution than future customers |3

From:

kadaria.livejournal.com

No, this is exactly it and I'm not sure why everyone thinks it's the reverse.

From:

tenzanosumi.livejournal.com

There seems to be some confusion on the timeline and the end product. To re-iterate what I said earlier, this is not a case where I rejected a commission and then it was later incorporated into a derivative work. Rather, it's the reverse. The album (and the track in question was uploaded in 2007. That's a full year before I even made the purchase.

What's in question? This isn't simply sampling as a few of the posts have defined. Music isn't my specialty; I only grasp a few bare concepts. I cannot tell you specifically if there's been a transposition of octave or a change in tempo to the very BPM, but do know the concept of melody and that's when you hear a certain arrangement of notes and you recognize a certain part of a musical composition. In my particular case, the song I was provided in 2009 and the song that was uploaded in 2007 match in melody throughout the entire duration of the song. It is undeniably recognizable.

I haven't provided samples of the songs because it would then become apparent who the musician is. I've kept mum on that because I wonder to what net effect making a full-fledged aware on them would accomplish. They're not taking commissions and I have no loss of money as a result.

From:

If they are not taking commissions then I do not think this is enough material for a beware. It's annoying that the songs are probably the same tune, however there's very little to be done about it unless:

1.) You owned the track and want to use it for commercial purposes.

2.) He's taking commissions and recycling lots of songs.

Otherwise this is kind of a grey area and not beware able. I wouldn't take to warning anyone unless you can prove this is a habit and repeatedly done by this particular musician. The simple fact of them no longer taking on work sort of negates the point of bewaring about them.

From:

tenzanosumi.livejournal.com

You're correct in that I didn't own the song. Transfer of rights and clarification on what can/can't be done is actually something that I think that people are more progressively coming to understand. I feel like that's definitely something that can be attributed to this community.

However, some of the feedback this has generated is troublesome. As far as this being a habit, I cannot attest to that at all. However, doesn't that seem to be a bit of a tenuous point considering many posts are isolated incidents and not indicative of habitual activities by either bad artists or buyers?

What's also troublesome is that it seems that some of these responses have an overbearingly expedient tone to them. In more direct terms, this is reflected by the number of people saying that since I lost no money, there's no issue here. If that's the prevailing viewpoint in this community, then why would we entertain advice discussions like this? I would hope the reason is so that it better informs both artisans and their patrons. Wouldn't a post that is calling into question the integrity of a particular person's business practices fall under the purview of that? Even in spite of the fact there may be no damages and there may not present risk? Couldn't this perhaps become an issue at a future date regardless of who the participants are?

Even though A_B really has no sanctioning on how any of us conduct our business, it has certainly made many of us reflect and make more ethical and informed business practices. I can't help but feel that some of this discussion has been diminished simply because the focus has been on what's been -done- to us instead of how we -do- business. Wouldn't that curtail some the transformative capability this community has?

From:

dinogrrl.livejournal.com

So what is your question then? Are you asking what should be done about this particular situation? Or how to avoid it in the future? I'm really confused now. Your question in the post was "A_B, what do you make of this? What's your advice?" and I guess our answers are not what you wanted...?

What makes your case hard is that it happened four years ago, it was resolved to both parties' agreement (apparently), and there were no questions about it until very recently. I'm not saying that there isn't a chance this person did something wrong with your commission, and I'm not saying that past wrongs shouldn't be addressed. I'm just honestly not seeing a reason to dredge this up unless the person in question is still taking commissions and is still acting dodgy.

From:

Like people have said, without listening to it, we have no place to judge whether this is an okay practice or not. You got your money back, later discovered that the music has the same melody, and suddenly it's a big issue? Obviously they're not a scammer or were trying to rip you off, or else they'd intentionally give you something they've already done that you didn't ask for and keep your money, or just straight out leave you with nothing. I'd honestly just avoid commissioning them again if it's that big of a problem with you, and maybe let your friends know how you feel about it.. Artists do use the same pose from time to time by accident, and unless there's other commissioned work that sounds just like their older music, I'd say this is the case here only with music.

Edited Date: 2013-11-16 02:20 am (UTC)

From:

So at the end of the day, you want to know if its worth it to beware this artist to warn others of potential self-sampling.

Answer at this point is a no in my opinion. I'm going to say my reasons why, which will no cover these two facts: ages of pieces and the fact you rejected and were refunded.

This is only my opinion, mind you and not indicative of the Mod Collective as a whole.

A) We have established that sampling in music is common, as long as it is not excessive or outright plagarism.
B) We also do not know if its a stylistic choice of this artist, or an unfortunate crutch of theirs.
C) They're not open for commissions/trades, so while that can indeed change, this brings me to the last point:
D) Aside from the bummer of not getting a product, this experience seems to have not been a negative one? Artist was not unpleasant with you at all it seems (else you'd have mentioned a poor working relationship with them), so the whole transaction was civil.

With these four points alone, its simply a non-bewareable issue at that point.

From:

"What's also troublesome is that it seems that some of these responses have an overbearingly expedient tone to them. In more direct terms, this is reflected by the number of people saying that since I lost no money, there's no issue here. If that's the prevailing viewpoint in this community, then why would we entertain advice discussions like this?"

(Note rule #5, as you are sort of treading on the line of "why did a mod post this?")

I do not see how this is troublesome, as you have quite a wide variety of responses here. Some people feel the lack of money is a non issue, however not everyone does - I do not. A refund doesn't negate bad business ethics and we have plenty of bewares on that alone. What perhaps is troublesome to me is that you ask for advice and get it - then seem irritated at the results because they aren't aligned with your own. You now have two moderators giving you solid answers - No, this would not be fit for a beware given the evidence you've spoken about.

This artist doesn't take commissions, so in essence what is to beware? Who are we warning him against if he doesn't have customers anymore? The plain simple answer is "Let it go".

From:

ljmydayaway.livejournal.com

I think what's in question is whether or not the original track was a commission, or just a private work that he did for himself. This would be similar to an artist taking an old sketch that they've had laying around, dusting it off, fixing it up, and then giving it to a customer as a commission (like a pre-pose or whatever).

It's not really bad, per-say. A little not-cool if you were told you would get a 100% brand new custom tune, but since you ended up not liking it anyways, it kind of seems like a non-issue?

Or it could also just be that the musician really likes that beat and uses it in a lot of their songs, and your song just happened to match that one really closely (like an artist doing the same pose over and over because they like drawing it that way).

*shrug*

From:

spiffystuff.livejournal.com

Like others have said, we aren't listening to the music so it's hard to render a verdict on whether the two are copies or not.

Even if they were, unless the artist is reselling the same copy to multiple people (vs reselling a previously personal work), that's borderline. Depends how much they tried to edit it to your tastes I guess.

As others have said, since you didn't like it and they refunded, it seems not beware worthy. NOT since a refund negates all bad practices, but because it doesn't sound like anything too bad happened in the first place. Sounds more like you didn't like their style/creative process and got a refund, end of story?

From:

kohaku-chimaera.livejournal.com

I can't help but feel really troubled by the amount of people saying this is "normal" in the music world so it's not something to worry about.

If this was drawn art with the same issue everyone would agree that it's wrong, I'm sure.

When you commission someone for an original piece of art--drawn, composed, or otherwise--you expect an -original- piece of art, don't you?

From:

dinogrrl.livejournal.com

The music and visual arts worlds are indeed very different.

I agree that if you commission an original piece, you shouldn't get recycled music. That being said, where does recycling end and personal style begin? Without being able to compare the two pieces of music, we're basically taking shots in the dark as to which case it is.

From:

zydala.livejournal.com

I'll go off on a limb and answer this and say no, I would not say it's wrong, it really depends illustration-wise, and a lot of the above points can apply.

Re: "Sampling" - if an artist uses an (originally created) base or (originally taken) references and re-uses them for their originally created pieces, there's nothing "foul" about that. If you don't like that they do that, it's up to you whether or not it's worth your money, but otherwise, if there's no plagiarism or copyright infringement of other artists, there's no "beware" to be had.
Alphonse Mucha re-used drawn pose references he had for multiple pieces he did, and Norman Rockwell took his own photograph references and would reuse pieces of them (poses, faces, etc). Does that make them less influential or less talented?

Same applies here. the artist had (most likely) chords and pieces of his own creations that he re-used (without hearing this, can't be too sure), OP got a refund for the piece because he didn't like it, so there's not really a lot of applicable relevance to the situation to make it a beware.

My personal opinion here obviously.

From: