Immoral to buy/sell track and put your own name on it?

[jancivil]

Is the dividing line based around creative works in relation to a person? That is, is there a difference between having your work branded under a company name versus having your work branded under a person's name?

Beyond the distinction 'creative', there is a problem of scale, and there is a problem of definition. Is everything coming out of a workplace directly a product that one or a small group could front via a name?

An advertising firm employs 'creative', and a person's reputation from 'creative', or vis a vis a certain project could be the selling point for the client.

So, I think someone buying a track from eg., this particular vendor is unique to this 'profession' and it's suspect, because they're not the creative force they want to be perceived as. It isn't going to go as smoothly in general, other industry I don't reckon. I think there is a low likelihood I'd be persuaded this isn't suspect and an outcome of a certain "Producer" modus operandi. I don't see it as very different than relying on construction kits, though, just the next level.

[VitaminD]

I wouldn't see any problem in selling things - no matter if clothes, pizzas or songs - as long as the other person doesn't claim to have it made him/herself.

So there should be a contract between producer and artist that states who the author of the song is...

Ah but in a corporate environment where multiple people are not receiving credit for a product that ends up with a company's name on it, is that much different than the tailor claiming credit for the work of seamstresses they've employed?

I'm not agreeing either way... but more asking how different is it really that we get no personal credit for seemingly creative tasks that are then labeled under someone else's (corporate) name.

[VitaminD]

Is the dividing line based around creative works in relation to a person? That is, is there a difference between having your work branded under a company name versus having your work branded under a person's name?

Beyond the distinction 'creative', there is a problem of scale, and there is a problem of definition. Is everything coming out of a workplace directly a product that one or a small group could front via a name?

An advertising firm employs 'creative', and a person's reputation from 'creative', or vis a vis a certain project could be the selling point for the client.

So, I think someone buying a track from eg., this particular vendor is unique to this 'profession' and it's suspect, because they're not the creative force they want to be perceived as. It isn't going to go as smoothly in general, other industry I don't reckon. I think there is a low likelihood I'd be persuaded this isn't suspect and an outcome of a certain "Producer" modus operandi. I don't see it as very different than relying on construction kits, though, just the next level.

Ah ok. So because it is in the field where creative energy is a dominant element and focused on one (or few) people and not a company name?

That is to say.. if I could somehow to do my stunt work for a film in which I was leading, but then (I) claimed that I did all my stunts -- THAT would be dishonest and 'immoral' ?

In this case.. the stunt work was the song, done by the ghost producer, and the lead actor is the one buying the music production.


But, under a corporate name, it is different since no one person is (usually) taking claim for the creative work of the many in the company? I can I see that.. but I wonder if there is some minor rub to this in say a CEO getting more credit that perhaps they deserve for the result (be it positive or negative)? Perhaps that is a different discussion though

[Tricky-Loops]

...how different is it really that we get no personal credit for seemingly creative tasks that are then labeled under someone else's (corporate) name.

The decision that everybody has to make PERSONALLY is: How much credit do I need (or want) for my work?

There may be people who don't need any credit at all (imagine a cook working in a world class restaurant; the boss will scoop in most of the praise, not the cook) and there may be artists who want to have sculptures with their name engraved in it and no other name...

Between this extreme poles of no-credit and credit-for-all everything is possible...

The question is: what is immorality? (and the answer would lead deeply into HPC)

[deastman]

Camille Claudel.

[lotus2035]

George Michael Arranger, Audio Production, Bass, Composer, Design, Drum Programming, Guitar, Guitar (Bass), Keyboards, Main Personnel, Piano, Primary Artist, Producer, Vocals

This.

I remember back when 'Older' was released (classic album BTW) reading that Michael did the bass guitar and drums on it, other stuff too but that stuck in my mind. All round talented guy no doubt. Whereas Madonna strikes me as more an entrepreneur/performer. She doesn't have the best voice but she made the most of it and built up her 'brand' which she re-invented every few years like shampoo with a 'new formula' sticker. More Product than art.

Ray of Light is her best album and that's only because of William Orbit.

[spacecult]

...a motown record where one guy at a piano with a lyric and a melody for it and maybe one hook or not and a chord progression gets song writing credits but everyone knows the session musicians were largely expected to write their own parts. and it's not at all difficult to find out who did what on what record and nobody tries to hide anything and this process was an accepted part of the trade.

that's one thing.

this thing, dunno. I know it's a lie. Is a lie immoral?