Not all Copying is Music Plagiarism: How Copying Creates Culture
Copying is something as old as mankind and this does not equal to plagiarism.
Matter of fact, that’s how we all learn: through imitation.
We all know that no particular individual invented whole institutions like language, music or law by mere thinking and deliberate design.
They’re all the product of spontaneous orders.
This is why no one has (or should have) copyright over the words we use or the chords we play.
Creating exclusive rights over such elements would be absolutely detrimental.
Would affect the things we learn, our way with words, the art we create or the music we play…
Negatively.
Though it’s very important to punish fraudsters it’s equally important to protect what makes human creativity what it is: freedom.
And oftentimes, fraudsters get punished by the mere unveiling of their fraud.
To clarify, this cornerstone space where creativity flourishes should be protected by NOT restricting it with exclusive rights.
Things like the chord progressions, scales, intervals, or any other musical element of common use shouldn’t be claimed by anyone as copyright.
They’re the backbone of our culture, in this case, our music culture.
This should be applied the same way to every art where copyright applies.
If exclusive rights are created for such elements, it would be impossible for our culture to advance.
What is NOT plagiarism
Some things aren’t copyrighted
No one creates anything from absolute scratch, from thin air.
Rather than that, what we do is perfecting and taking further what has been done before or we give it a special unique touch, like a personal footprint.
For instance, Michael Jackson didn’t invent the moonwalk, this dance move was taught to him by Jeffrey Daniel of the group Shalamar.
But it would be absurd to say that Michael committed plagiarism, the backslide doesn’t have any copyright.
This is NOT stealing, ideas can’t be stolen.
Many legal systems recognize what’s called the idea-expression dichotomy. This means that ideas, concepts, techniques, or styles aren’t protected by copyright, only the specific and original way someone expresses them.
That’s actually good news for creators: it means that you’re free to take inspiration from existing ideas, build on them, reinterpret them, and make them your own, as long as you’re not directly copying the original expression.
In short, ideas belong to everyone.
The original expression of those ideas is what the copyright system recognizes as copyrighted.
Moreover, what happened here is that Michael took the moonwalk (it was called backslide then) and made it his own signature move.
Why no one can plagiarize by walking backwards
Although Michael Jackson didn’t invent the moonwalk, Jeffrey Daniel only taught him a version of the backslide, but the move’s origins are diffuse and cannot reliably be attributed to a single author.
Jackson adopted and popularized it.
In addition, something very similar happens with Eddie Van Halen, who didn’t invent tapping, but revolutionized electric guitar with it.
However, this happens this way because, in reality, they’re not original creations. As a matter of fact, this is explained better in this post about originality.
Nonetheless, this doesn’t mean MJ or EVH didn’t innovate. On the contrary, they were groundbreaking innovators by picking up things that were already done before and managing to take them to the next level.
Both were able to become pioneers in their fields because of such innovations, influencing millions while doing so.
If someone successfully copyrighted those things, it would be a hindrance for musicians and artists, imagine a world where they wouldn’t let MJ do the moonwalk or EVH play tapping.
Absolutely unimaginable, unacceptable.
Such resources usually cannot be attributed to a single identifiable author, and therefore cannot be subject to copyright protection.
They’re result of such spontaneous processes mentioned above.
Not only guitar techniques or dance moves.
Things like stock instrument licks, melodic/interval tendencies or even musical cliches do NOT have copyright.
And this is necessary to unchain that threshold where innovation and creation can actually flourish.
This goes a little bit further than just given resources like notes, scales or rhythm figures. It consists of the practical appliance of such elements.
For instance, there’s this excellent video by the youtuber Jack Lo that exemplifies this phenomenon in a quite accurate way while studying the song APT by Bruno Mars & ROSÉ.
You don’t have to be a musician to understand this video, everything is well explained by Jack.
This melody (or variations of it) is featured in many pop songs. It would be absurd to claim copyright for the use of such melody, because it is not sufficiently original to qualify for copyright protection.
Originality is a key element for the copyright of a work to be born.
Now, does this mean that APT is not an original song?
Absolutely not. It definitely is.
It’s the use of those particular intervals in that precise moment of the song’s melody what’s not new.
Therefore, the use of such elements from the composition explained above is NOT plagiarism.
Be careful: Make a distinction between composition rights and master rights
Nevertheless, the lyrics, the music production and its master recording, the ROSÉ, Bruno Mars and all other musicians performance of the song are indeed copyrighted.
This is important to notice and clarify: Just because this specific interval tendency within the melody is not original enough, it doesn’t mean you can extend that to the whole song and infringe the copyrights from the master recording, the lyrics, the performances or the original elements of the rest of the composition.
The same principle applies to the recording and performance of any generic or popularly used element like licks, exercises (guitar chromatic exercises) or public domain melodies. They still have master rights.
What actually IS plagiarism
One thing is taking inspiration, using common knowledge that derives from decades of experience and practice and then creating something out of that.
As we explained, this is not stealing music in legal terms. This is innovation that comes from those natural and spontaneous processes of creativity.
This should be left free.
But, a very different one is taking a work someone else did, while knowing you didn’t create it and making it pass as yours without adding any creative contribution to it.
Now THAT is plagiarism.
This is fraudulent behavior, and this is the real problem.
The Giacomo Turra case: Textbook Plagiarism
In April 2025, one name started flooding the guitar community on social media: Giacomo Turra.
Unfortunately, it wasn’t due to his skill or a viral hit.
Giacomo, a social media guitarist with a solid following, thousands of comments, and millions of accumulated views, became the center of controversy after YouTuber Danny Sapko exposed him.
Sapko’s video, titled I caught this famous Instagram musician STEALING songs, revealed that Giacomo wasn’t just taking inspiration, he was passing off other people’s music as his own.
It turns out that Giacomo did not just imitate or take inspiration.
What did Giacomo Turra actually do
He searched for lesser-known musicians (small or medium-sized creators) and took their original audio tracks without permission. He then filmed himself miming over the music, creating the false impression that he had recorded it.
What’s worse, he gave no credit to the original musicians. He clearly tried making other people’s compositions pass as his.
This means Giacomo gained brand sponsorships, fame, and income based on others’ work, all while misleading audiences into thinking the music was his.
That’s not just unethical, it’s FRAUD with all the letters.
In fact, this constitutes plagiarism, and arguably fraud from a moral and reputational standpoint.
The scandal sent shock-waves through the guitar world. And Giacomo’s credibility has been and will remain seriously damaged.
Proof of access: Key element for copyright claims
This concept is crucial.
US Copyright Law says that a plaintiff with a valid copyright must demonstrate that: (1) the defendant has actually copied the plaintiff’s work; and (2) the copying is illegal because a substantial similarity exists between the defendant’s work and the protectable elements of plaintiff’s’.
That’s what we’ve seen earlier on, these two elements constitute plagiarism.
But it doesn’t end up there, there is another key element, which is the proof of access.
This means that the plaintiff has to demonstrate that the plagiarizer had access to the plagiarized work before committing the plagiarism.
In Giacomo’s case, proof of access is very clear.
But there are other cases where proof of access isn’t that clear, especially when someone ends up accidentally writing a song that already exists. Yes, that happens all the time.
Most of the time, these cases end up in a settlement and it doesn’t go as far, neither legally or publicly, as cases like Giacomo’s.
In Summary (TL:DR)
- Copying is not always Plagiarism: Copying as a result of spontaneous social interaction processes is part of how culture evolves and how we learn. It’s foundational to music, language, and art.
- Common experience elements: Chord progressions, scales, and rhythmic figures aren’t copyrighted and can be reused freely. This also applies to certain melodies of licks that have been used by many in the past.
- Cultural Development: Exclusive rights over basic artistic tools would hinder cultural innovation.
- Examples: MJ didn’t invent the moonwalk, nor did EVH invent tapping but both innovated through personal reinterpretation. They didn’t commit plagiarism or fraud by doing this.
- Plagiarism Defined: Taking someone else’s entire creative work and passing it off as your own without transformation or credit.
- Case Study–Giacomo Turra: He mimed over audio from small creators without permission or credit, gaining fame deceitfully.
- Access is Key: In Turra’s case, clear access is proven de facto. Other cases may involve unintentional copying and often result in settlements.
Un comentario