Is it acceptable or not?

[Dark Fiber]

Good afternoon!
Since 2 years i'm also selling tracks as ghost producer.
This i do at a portal of which the name i won't mention.
Last week i finished a track and thought "let's upload this on the portal".
Unfortunately, and also quite astonished to find out it was diapproved, because it sounded way too much like Yazoo's Don't Go.

The thing is, i started to tweak my synth to sound like Yazoo's and then i tried to form a slightly different melody. When i achieved that i made up all the additional sounds en voila, 6 hours later the track was finished. So it's undeniable where the inspiration came from, but i really don't think that this is some kind of copyright infringement.

What's your opinion on this?

https://soundcloud.com/stikkers/reunion-v1

[vurt]

it's close enough that they might not want to take chances in court.

[thecontrolcentre]

Didn't Marvin Gaye's family just sue someone for sounding too much like Marvin Gaye? Might explain their reluctance ...

[Googly Smythe]

...i tried to form a slightly different melody...

Should have gone for a very different melody - eg reverse it.

[kritikon]

If you're trying to sell tracks...I absolutely see why they didn't approve it. "Influenced by" and copying note for note are different things. It's not even like the timing is any different either - that's not "influenced by" in my books.

[zerocrossing]

I don’t think it’s a legal thing, but more of a, “we’re not interested in your Yazoo rip-off song because we don’t think people will want it.” Maybe spend some time coming up with something original?

[dark water]

Tbh, even though you (the OP) might or might not have a decent argument, ultimately you live in an algorithm-dictating world when you upload your work online.

You as an arranger here.
Me as a remixer.
Rick Beato as a YT commenter and music-referencing coach.
Etc.

We've all fallen foul of the all-seeing, all-knowing online algorithm judge, jury and executioner.

So what do you do?
Ditch the idea or amend it so it doesn't get nobbled by the algorithm.

There is no fairness, leeway, morality, greater existential points to be made here. The algorithm doesn't care and you're playing by its rules.


Ultimately (and most sadly) even world-famous, long-established (original) artists are getting shafted by algorithms which dictate what songs nowadays the public "should" be prioritized to listen to compared to those songs deemed less profitable and 'worthy' to the Big Execs who try to control the industry.
(This point has been covered by Beato and others previously).

And as for breaking into the music industry?

...But what I do know is that the hopes of every emerging artist have been savagely diminished by an infrastructure that is rigged to the point of ­scandal.

Each time a song is streamed, the label and the streaming platform – and, increasingly, the two are intertwined – take 55 and 30 per cent of the action (respectively). Paid just 15 per cent, the songwriters themselves can expect to earn between £0.004 and £0.009 per play. That’s not a typo, by the way.

Non-writing musicians are paid nothing at all. As of 2020, eight out of 10 music creators earned less than £200 a year from streaming services. Once again, this is not a typo. (In the United Kingdom, the average base salary for Spotify employees is £60,563 per annum.)

In a tweet posted on March 20 2021, Feargal Sharkey, the former singer with the Undertones and the erstwhile head of the umbrella organisation UK Music, wrote, “You’re going to need 7,343,157 streams per month just to make minimum wage.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/what- ... st-killed/

[BertKoor]

> You’re going to need 7,343,157 streams per month just to make minimum wage.”

Talking about totally unacceptable...

[Googly Smythe]

I think the real money is in merchandising. T-shirts, &tc.

[Dark Fiber]

it's close enough that they might not want to take chances in court.

Thanks for your comment. Found myself in a bad case of tunnel vision