At what point does a "remake" become plagiarism? E.g Waterfalls TLC vs Stooshe. Maybe you can think of some others. So, I could find a song made 20 years ago and "remake" it so it sounds about 95% the same and get rich and famous from that? What am I waiting for then?! (not that I really would) Imagine someone did that to a Michael Jackson song like Thriller, wouldn't people complain it was crossing the line into Plagiarism? I'm not really familiar with law when it comes to music...if the song sounds so alike doesn't the creator have to give permission or something? Could they sue?

Doing a remake/cover/remix/version/dub/variation/interpretation/mash-up/etc... of something has a long history in western music culture. I don't see anything wrong in doing so. At least if the original composer agrees to it (if he still lives). Oftentimes remakes of songs are even way better than its original imo.
Plagiarism is if you name it something new and disguise the fact that you used existing musical material. But even then its hard to say in some cases, since the combinations of certain things like harmonics/melodies aren't endless and similarities can be found everywhere.

I don't understand the problem. It's a cover song. People make covers all the time. Sometimes, the cover is more popular than the original (e.g., I Shot the Sheriff for Clapton, original by Marley and All Along the Watchtower by Hendrix, original by Dylan).

If the cover is very similar to the original, it usually won't hit it big. Someone might cover Thriller? As if Thriller is sacred or something? Someone did cover Michael Jackson and have a reasonable sized hit (Smooth Criminal by Alien Ant Farm).

It's not plagiarism because plagiarism is when someone steals WITHOUT GIVING CREDIT. In a cover song, the original song writer is credited and gets all the songwriting royalties.

See Coldplay and Joe Satriani for an actual case of accused plagiarism.



This case was dismissed, but there was an out-of-court settlement.

Probably the most famous plagiarism case is George Harrison's My Sweet Lord, which was accused of copying off of He's So Fine, made famous by The Chiffons. Harrison lost. Again, this was uncredited copying. Not a cover song.



Here are the full original versions.

The Chiffons:



George Harrison:

Something I didn't make clear. Cover versions (where the original writer is given credit), are 100% legal. You don't even need permission, just give them credit and pay them royalties.

Well yeah if they pay them off it doesn't really matter. But how do they give credit exactly?

Also my own personal problem with it is that you have an artist that makes a good song, and then so many years later some (crap manufactured *cough*) band pops up out of no where and makes a hit out of it, and all the children don't even know it's a remake. If a cover sounds almost identical to the original then musically there is no point, it's more like a cash grab. I find that annoying.

I think some people will feel songs are sacred like Thriller (that song just came to mind it's not a personal fav) I remember Alien ants cover of Smooth criminal actually, I really liked it at the time. I dunno about you but I can only really appreciate a cover if it somehow makes the song its own.

On the CD liner notes, the song is credited to who actually wrote the song. Since people don't buy CDs anymore, the Wikipedia page.

E.g., here's the Wikipedia entry for Led Zeppelin I.

A few of these songs were originally credited to Page/Plant but changed because of legal action.



Also note Jake Holmes sued Jimi Page, accusing him of stealing Dazed and Confused. The case was dismissed and out of court settlement was reached. Since the credits still say Page, I presume that it was money in exchange for Page keeping credit for the song.

BTW, there's a series of youtube videos detailing accusations of Led Zeppelin committing plagiarism.

Here's part I.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyvLsutfI5M

Check out the website:

http://www.whosampled.com/

Which lists songs and the songs are being covered or sampled.

You might also want to watch the series "Everything Is a Remix" which discusses just often media are re-sampled, re-cut, or otherwise modified to create something "new".

http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/

I do covers on YouTube, as do a ton of people. It's completely fine and the artists are always credited in the titles. However 2 or 3 of my covers have had copyright claims on them which basically all i had to do was accept that the material was not my own (which was already stated in the title) but I guess it was just some extra precaution.

Thanks for links. Btw I don't feel the same about the use of samples, just for the reason that people often make songs that sound completely different to the original when using them.

There is a lot that goes into royalties as I learned in a music industry class. A lot of times it just takes a simple email/phone call to clear with an artists manager about doing a remake but often times there is royalties involved which will be dealt with via contract or a record label.

From my understanding Covers are still under copyright infringement because you are still using the original melody of the song and the same words so you are still required get the proper licensing to do these. It is true however that an artist can never prevent you from doing a cover as long as you pay the royalties they are entitled.

Giving an artist credit in the title is not enough to consider this legal unless the music has a creative commons licensing that states thats the only requirement.

I think one of the better modern day versions of copyright infringement cases that in a sense relates to a remix or a cover is Shepard Fairey. He is the guy who created the 'HOPE' posters for Obamas first campaign. It turns out the photo that he used before he colored on it and added the words HOPE was from an AP photographer.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep...airey-20120908

Definitely a fine line to walk as an artist and its always better to check first then to be sorry later.