

Navigating Plagiarism Risks in Sonic Branding & Jingles:
a musicologist’s insight
Thomas Dickson (PhD)
Musicologist / Sonic Branding Strategist
Email: thomas@sonicbranding.com.au
Website: sonicbranding.com.au
January 2025
Disclaimer
This document is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content reflects the insights and opinions of Dr. Thomas Dickson, PhD, and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, the author and publisher make no guarantees regarding the completeness or applicability of the strategies discussed herein.
This guide primarily focuses on mitigating risks related to melodic and rhythmic similarities in sonic branding and jingles. It does not comprehensively cover all aspects of intellectual property law, including but not limited to sampling, lyrics, or mechanical rights. The document provides strategies to reduce, but not eliminate, the risk of legal disputes. Musical plagiarism cases are inherently subjective, and following the outlined strategies does not guarantee immunity from litigation.
For legal advice specific to plagiarism, copyright, and intellectual property law, please consult a qualified legal advisor. Use of the information contained in this guide is at the reader’s own risk.
© 2025 Dr. Thomas Dickson | All Rights Reserved
This document may be redistributed in its entirety for educational and informational purposes, provided that:
- No modifications, alterations, or adaptations are made to the original content. The document must remain intact and unedited in any format or medium.
- Proper attribution is given to the author, Dr. Thomas Dickson, and all copyright notices and disclaimers must be retained in full.
- Redistribution for commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written consent from the author.
For inquiries regarding commercial use, derivative works, or permissions beyond this scope, please contact Dr. Thomas Dickson at thomas@sonicbranding.com.au.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As the demand for sonic branding intensifies, the risk of plagiarism within jingles and sonic logos grows. This document explores the evolving legal landscape, highlighting the increasing scope of music plagiarism cases that extend beyond melody.
The rapid rise of sonic branding has compressed creative space, often relying on temp tracks that blur the line between inspiration and imitation. With copyright holders employing AI to detect infringements and legal precedents expanding to protect broader musical features, sonic branding agencies face heightened exposure to litigation.
Key Issues Addressed:
- Expanded Definitions of Plagiarism: Courts now scrutinise not only melodic similarities but the collective “feel” of a composition, making replication of familiar works style a significant liability.
- Financial & Brand Risks: Plagiarism claims jeopardise not only agency credibility but also the brand’s authenticity, potentially leading to financial penalties, halted campaigns, and diminished consumer trust.
- Constraints in Originality: Sonic logos, often limited to a few notes, inherently draw from shared musical tropes, increasing the risk of accidental overlap with protected works.
Proposed Solutions:
- Plagiarism Avoidance Strategies: Agencies are encouraged to establish formal plagiarism mitigation plans, involving the use of diverse temp tracks, client education, and structured workflows to minimise unintentional replication.
- Creative Redesigns: Emphasis is placed on modifying distinctive musical features while leveraging less scrutinised elements (e.g. timbre, instrumentation) to build unique compositions.
- Legal Safeguards: Engaging forensic musicologists, conducting algorithmic analysis, and employing blind listener tests can help lessen legal risks.
- Multi-Perspective Analysis: By considering how music is perceived by non-musicians (e.g. judges & juries), agencies can proactively address potential infringement risks before finalising compositions.
Conclusion:
To thrive in the evolving landscape of sonic branding, agencies must balance innovation with legal diligence. By prioritising originality, involving clients early, and implementing structured strategies, brands and composers can lessen plagiarism risks, fostering distinctive sonic identities that resonate with audiences while safeguarding against costly legal disputes.
About the Author:
Dr. Thomas Dickson, a musicologist specialising in music perception and psychology. His expertise supports agencies in developing distinctive and emotionally compelling sonic assets, with a focus on originality and awareness of plagiarism considerations. For consultations, visit sonicbranding.com.au or contact thomas@sonicbranding.com.au.
INTRODUCTION
Navigating Plagiarism Risk in Sonic Branding
Over the past two decades, plagiarism lawsuits in music have become increasingly prevalent with most recently Bruno Mars’ “When I was Your Man” vs. Miley Cyrus’ “Flowers”. As brands embrace custom audio assets, the question arises: how soon until sonic branding agencies, music production houses, and brands find themselves caught in plagiarism lawsuits over jingles and sonic logos?
With the rise of sonic logos as a core branding tool, the creative landscape becomes more constrained. The brevity and memorability required in sonic branding mean that composers often rely on certain recurring musical patterns, putting them at risk of creating content that inadvertently echoes existing songs or competitors’ sonic identities. Moreover, a significant portion of sonic branding relies on temp tracks and sonic mood boards that draw inspiration from popular music or competitor brands. This alignment process—intended to coordinate client expectations with the composers’ vision—may unintentionally result in overly similar compositions.
In addition, the landscape of music plagiarism detection has evolved, with copyright holders actively monitoring for infringements and increasingly leveraging AI to scan their music catalogues and the broader media landscape for possible violations. Often, copyright holders wait until music generates substantial income or visibility, delaying legal action until potential damages are maximised, as seen with Larrikin Records’ “Kookaburra” vs. Men at Work’s “Down Under”. which surfaced nearly three decades after the music’s release.
Historically, melody was the primary musical feature considered protected in plagiarism cases. However, legal precedent has expanded this view to encompass other musical features and combinations thereof. For instance, cases such as Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up” vs. Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” demonstrated that even the “feel” of a piece could fall under scrutiny. If this trend continues, the definition of protected material may expand further, leaving composers even more vulnerable to potential lawsuits over musical features that were once considered fair use.
Financial and Brand Impact of Plagiarised Sonic Assets
While no lawsuits have yet targeted sonic branding directly, the potential financial and reputational consequences are substantial. Plagiarism claims in sonic branding could lead to significant damages, both financially and in terms of brand perception. For brands, plagiarism-related scandals could tarnish their authenticity and brand loyalty, especially if they receive negative publicity that conflicts with their values. A cease-and-desist order would halt all use of the plagiarised audio across advertising platforms, leading to operational and reputational setbacks as the brand rebuilds its audio assets from scratch.
For sonic branding agencies and music production companies, the risks extend beyond monetary loss. Plagiarism claims may harm their reputation among clients and damage their professional relationships with visual branding agencies. Clients often seek sonic branding experts for their creativity, meaning an agency’s unique value is at stake if it is perceived as unable to produce original content. This risk could even lead clients to explore AI-generated audio alternatives if they lose confidence in an agency’s originality.
🎯 Key Takeaway: The rise of sonic branding increases the risk of plagiarism lawsuits, driven by the need for brief, memorable audio assets. Legal precedent now extends beyond melody to the overall “feel” of a piece, making even unintentional similarities a liability. Sonic branding agencies and brands must proactively safeguard originality to protect against financial and reputational harm.
FOUNDATIONS
Purpose of This Article
This article aims to offer practical strategies for lessening plagiarism risk in sonic branding. From a musicological standpoint, it will cover two main areas:
- Originality of the Plaintiff’s Material: Assessing the unique qualities of the original audio assets and the criteria that define “original” in a legal context.
- Substantial Similarity of the Defendant’s Assets: Understanding the threshold at which similarity may be perceived as plagiarism.
We’ll explore both unidimensional plagiarism (e.g., melody) and multidimensional plagiarism (e.g., overall “feel”), providing insights into how sonic branding agencies can reduce their exposure to legal risk. This article will not address sampling, lyrics or access to the original work.
Disclaimer: This article is intended to offer insights from a musicological perspective and is not a substitute for legal advice. Please consult a lawyer for legal guidance specific to plagiarism, copyright, and intellectual property law.
Stolen Melodies, Reverse Engineering & Originality.
In music plagiarism cases, courts often assess how similar one piece of music is to another, typically by examining two approaches: unidimensional and multidimensional musical plagiarism. Understanding these approaches is essential for sonic branding agencies and composers who aim to create original work while managing plagiarism risks.
Unidimensional Musical Plagiarism
Unidimensional plagiarism occurs when a specific musical feature, such as melody, is identical or nearly identical to another work. Historically, court cases have focused primarily on melody, often using simplified versions, like sheet music or piano renditions, to help judges or juries perceive similarities without being influenced by other factors, such as instrumentation or music production. This straightforward approach has formed the basis of many well-known cases.
- Example: The Chiffons’ “He’s So Fine” vs. George Harrison’s “My Sweet Lord” where melodies in question were closely scrutinised for similar features.
Multidimensional Musical Plagiarism
In contrast, multidimensional plagiarism considers a combination of musical feature that together create an overall similarity, even if no single musical feature is directly copied. This approach involves a “constellation of musical features,” where aspects like rhythm, harmony, and tempo contribute to a similar “feel” or essence replicating no single musical feature. This kind of reverse engineering is increasingly common in sonic branding and jingles, where composers may unintentionally recreate the essence of a popular piece.
- Example: Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up” vs. Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” focus on this multidimensional approach, suggesting that even an overall feel can be grounds for perceived infringement.
Challenges of Originality in Sonic Branding
Determining originality in music can be complex, as many musical works are inherently derivative, drawing on shared influences. For example, aesthetic norms and limitations on pleasant-sounding combinations often lead composers to employ familiar patterns, such as the commonly used four-chord progression (notably popularised by Axis of Awesome’s “Four Chord Song”). Sonic logos face additional constraints as short, simple pentatonic melodies, typically ranging from 3 to 7 notes. This structure makes them broadly accessible across demographics and cultures, but also limits opportunities for originality.
🎯 Key Takeaway: For sonic branding agencies and composers, understanding Unidimensional & Multiple Dimensional plagiarism can inform creative strategies that minimise risk. By focusing on unique combinations of musical dimensions and avoiding straightforward imitations of familiar melodies, composers can work within common frameworks while still striving to create distinct and original sonic assets.
Why Use Temp Tracks or Sonic Mood Boards?
Given the risks of potential plagiarism, some may consider avoiding temp tracks or sonic mood boards altogether. While this might reduce the risk of unintentional similarities, it would also eliminate several benefits that temp tracks offer, both for brands and composers.
- Aligning Musical Direction with Client Expectations
The primary benefit of using temp tracks is ensuring that the musical direction aligns with the brand vision. Temp tracks provide brand managers with a range of musical styles or ideas, allowing them to assess which best supports their brand identity. This feedback can guide composers, helping to ensure that the sonic branding aligns with the client’s goals or, sometimes, revealing that the initial brief may need adjustments.
- Establishing Boundaries for Creative Exploration
For composers, temp tracks offer a starting framework that establishes boundaries within which to innovate. With clear limitations, they can focus their creativity on crafting a piece that is distinct yet remains aligned with the brand’s identity. This structure can significantly reduce turnaround time, as it eliminates the need to experiment widely and provides a focused, client-approved direction.
- Enhancing Emotional Resonance and Brand Identity
When used skilfully, temp tracks can evoke emotions or significant associations tied to familiar musical features. By referencing elements that customers already connect with, composers can tap into these associations to build stronger brand trust. Where music acts as part of a customer’s identity, having a distinctive sonic logo that subtly shares features with known music of preference for their customer base can enhance relatability. This familiarity can be a powerful tool in establishing emotional connections, helping a sonic logo resonate more deeply with a target audience.
🎯 Key Takeaway: While temp tracks carry some risk of creating unintended similarities, their benefits for aligning, guiding, and emotionally anchoring sonic branding make them invaluable. By using these tracks thoughtfully and within a structured framework, composers can balance originality with familiarity, creating music that strengthens brand identity without overstepping legal boundaries.
Proactively Addressing Risk In Sonic Branding Plagiarism
To manage the risks associated with temp tracks and sonic mood boards, sonic branding agencies and music production houses can adopt proactive strategies to safeguard originality. This requires a structured approach, which can be divided into three key areas: Preparation, Perspectives, and Strategies.
- Preparation: Laying the groundwork before starting a project is essential. This includes developing clear policies and guidelines on avoiding overly similar musical features and engaging clients in understanding the importance of originality in their audio assets.
- Perspectives: Viewing potential similarities from multiple angles—considering factors such as how non-musicians may perceive the audio and how it would hold up under scrutiny in a legal context—can help identify risks early.
- Strategies: Engaging musicologists, employing algorithmic tools, and testing music with non-musicians can strengthen risk mitigation efforts.Applying specific tactics, such as creating unique variations and combining diverse influences, can support a balanced approach to temp tracks and mood boards, leveraging their benefits while reducing the risk of plagiarism.
PREPARATION
Before starting a sonic branding project, proactive steps can reduce the risk of plagiarism. Establishing a companywide strategy early on helps guide the creative process and aligns clients with the project’s originality goals. Here are three key steps to prepare for minimising plagiarism risks:
- Develop a Plagiarism Avoidance Plan
Begin by recognising the potential risks of plagiarism and establishing a structured approach to avoid it. Many sonic branding agencies focus solely on creativity without formal documentation or protocols to encourage originality. Implementing a plagiarism avoidance plan not only provides a logical process but also offers a defence should questions of originality arise. This guide is intended to support you in setting up such a plan, though consulting a lawyer for legal advice is essential. Having a documented approach helps reinforce originality and can ensure you address plagiarism concerns consistently across all client projects.
- Involve Clients Early in the Process
Once you’ve defined your strategy, involve clients in understanding the importance of avoiding plagiarism. Educate them on potential risks by providing examples from court cases and explaining worst-case scenarios. This has two primary benefits:
- Managing “Temp Love”: Clients can sometimes grow attached to temp tracks or mood board examples, wanting the final sonic branding to replicate these closely. Early discussions help clients understand the importance of avoiding overly close emulation.
- Securing Budget for Risk Mitigation: Encourage clients to allocate resources for risk management, whether through expert analysis, additional revisions, or consultations with musicologists, as these steps are crucial in the sonic branding process.
- Use a Diverse Range of Temp Tracks
Avoid relying on a single piece, artist, or small selection of tracks for your sonic mood board. Instead, gather audio references from a wide range of genres, styles, and backgrounds that meet the client’s brand goals. Mixing and matching elements from multiple references can inspire unique combinations while reducing the risk of creating something too similar to an existing work. It’s easier to refine and align a broader creative direction to fit the client’s brand than to introduce originality after the fact.
🎯 Key Takeaway: By planning ahead, involving clients, and diversifying musical influences, agencies can help reduce plagiarism risks while still delivering compelling and original sonic branding. This preparation phase is essential to creating a streamlined process that prioritises both creativity and legal safety.
PERSPECTIVES
Considering multiple perspectives when comparing a composed sonic logo to a temp track can help identify and reduce the risk of plagiarism. Each viewpoint offers a unique lens through which to evaluate originality and perceived similarity, ultimately strengthening the composition’s distinctiveness & risk of plagiarism.
Start with Unfair Comparisons
When examining music plagiarism cases, the final judgment lies with a judge or jury, not with music experts. This introduces a discrepancy in musical analysis, as the average listener expertise does not match that of a professional composer or musicologist. Recognising this can help composers and sonic branding professionals prepare better for potential comparisons.
Understanding the Expertise Gap: Judges and juries often lack the nuanced listening skills that musicians possess. Subtle musical differences may go unnoticed by non-musicians, leading to unfair perceptions of similarity.
- Example: In the famous case of Queen/David Bowie’s “Under Pressure” vs. Vanilla Ice’s “Ice Ice Baby”, many listeners could not identify the grace note in the former, assuming both tracks were identical.
Simplified Comparisons in Court: In court, audio materials are often reduced to their simplest form to make it easier for the judge or jury to compare. This might involve simplifying harmonic structures, removing layers or omitting complex melodic embellishments, potentially making the works sound more similar than they actually are.
- Example: For In Flame’s “Joyful Noise” (2008) vs. Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse” vocals, beats and synth layers were removed to highlight similarities across a short ostinato.
Manipulation of Musical Variables: Changes such as transposition or altering tempos are sometimes used to facilitate clearer comparisons. These adjustments, while technically minor, can significantly affect how similar two pieces sound to an untrained ear.
- Example: For Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On” vs. Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” instrumentation was stripped for a simplified comparison, the pieces were transposed, and the tempo was adjusted to match. Further, the plaintiff created mashups where Sheeran’s voice was overlaid on the original work.
Ensuring Internal Comparisons are Biased: When conducting internal assessments of temp tracks versus composed material, ensure that the conditions are skewed against the composed material to mimic potential courtroom scenarios.
- Example: Compare your composed work against widely altered versions of the temp tracks through transposition, tempo changes, melodic variation etc to better prepare for how they might be analysed in court.
🎯 Key Takeaway: By understanding that music plagiarism cases often conduct unfair comparisons, composers can proactively create comparisons that reflect courtroom practices and lessen risks. Altering the music to over emphasise the similarities for professional analysis can help identify where the composer risks plagiarising the originality work.
Focus On The Original & Uncommon Features First
In sonic branding, which demands simplicity, memorability, and appeal, most audio content shares common musical features. This similarity poses somewhat of a risk of plagiarism, but the risk is much greater when distinctive musical features are involved. By focusing on avoiding unique and original aspects of a temp track, composers can reduce the risk of infringement.
Examine Unique Features First: The most effective defence in plagiarism court cases often highlights the lack of originality of a piece and argues that shared features are common in many works. To build such a defence, it’s crucial to first identify which musical features of the temp track are distinctive or unconventional.
- Example: Defendants in music cases often show similar chord progressions found in other songs as evidence of a piece’s commonality. Tools like “hooktheory.com” are useful for comparing chord sequences across works. This strategy was implemented by the defendant in Spirit’s “Taurus” vs. Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven” claiming the descending chord progression to be a common musical pattern.
Opportunity for Modification: When working with temp tracks, start by altering the unique musical features to maintain originality while lessening risk. Consider that genre & stylistic norms influence originality perception: a swing rhythm could be distinctive in a reggae track but standard in jazz.
- Example: For Bruno Mars’ “When I was Your Man” vs Miley Cyrus’ “Flowers”, the songs contain different lyrical perspectives, emotional tone, genres, instrumentation, rhythm, arrangement and music production. However, the lyrics, phrasing and melody share strong similarities. The challenge for the defendant is the similar musical features fall easily into protectable copyright material, whilst the dissimilar musical features do not.
Public Domain References: Composers can draw inspiration from public domain music rather than copyrighted works. Using older, copyright-free pieces can ensure a safer creative base.
- Example: Instead of imitating the iconic Jaws theme by John Williams, a composer could look to the introduction of Antonín Dvořák’s “New World Symphony” (4th movement) for inspiration.
🎯 Key Takeaway: By focusing on avoiding the most original & unique features of the temp track, composers can instead draw similarities to the works common place music features. This strategy balances achieving a similar listening experience but reducing the risk of plagiarism.
Most Court Cases Relate to Pitch Information
Musical plagiarism cases typically centre on melody, yet this focus overlooks the array of musical features at play. Courts often compare melodies within the harmonic context, while aspects like timbre, instrumentation, and rhythm are less scrutinised unless they support evidence of plagiarism. This suggests that leveraging non-pitch features from temp tracks in compositions can be a safer creative choice.
Melody as the Core of Most Cases: Melody remains the focal point in most musical plagiarism lawsuits. These cases analyse melodic similarities, comparing how melodies interact with underlying harmony.
- Example: Larrikin Records’ “Kookaburra” vs. Men at Work’s “Down Under” and many others have focused on very short (and somewhat insignificant) melodic phrases. Even despite the lack of impact on the entirety of the song, the plaintiffs won. This highlights melody’s role in determining plagiarism.
Other Musical Features: Beyond melody, aspects like instrumentation and timbre receive less attention in court, unless they corroborate claims of plagiarism. Sharing these features is a lower risk when works are creatively differentiated in pitch information.
- Example: The Hollies’ “The Air That I Breathe” vs. Radiohead’s “Creep” share similarities in vocal melody, but the identical harmonic function (the chords) was a significant factor in the court’s decision.
🎯 Key Takeaway: Pitch information holds the highest risk in plagiarism cases and can determine how much similarity other musical features can share across works. Effectively, significant differences in pitch information can largely protect composers and sonic branding agencies from legal disputes.
Not All Similarity is Perceived Equally
Musical perception is nuanced, and certain features stand out more for listeners than others. This is essential to consider when composing with reference tracks to avoid unintended similarity.
Salient Musical Features: Musical features vary in their perceived importance to the listener. Certain musical features are perceived as more salient and how the musical feature is implemented can also change how noticeable it is to the listener.
- Example: A listener is more likely to recognise a shared opening of a melody than a shared closing between the two pieces of music. This is an ordering effect bias. Listeners may be more likely to recognise similarities between melodies played on the same instrument than melodies played in the same key.
Foreground vs. Background music features: The main melody or prominent music features in the foreground are perceived more readily than subtle background harmonies or counter-melodies.
- Example: Background harmonies in a complex orchestral piece may go unnoticed, whereas a lead instrument’s tune draws immediate attention.
Strategic Composing: When using a temp track, consider how the musical features are presented and how noticeable they are. Altering the arrangement or distributing melodic fragments across different instruments can minimise perceived similarities.
- Example: Rearranging sections of a recognisable melody across various instruments can make it less identifiable and lower the risk of copying.
Cultural Perceptions and Risk: Different musical features hold varied creative value in different cultures. Melodies are often seen as creative highlights, while components like orchestration, harmonisation or music production may be undervalued as mechanical or non-essential.
- Example: Melodic similarity is generally scrutinised more heavily in court cases than harmonic or rhythmic similarities, as melody is typically regarded as the most ‘creative’ aspect of a composition.
🎯 Key Takeaway: Understanding which musical features stand out most to listeners—and how these features are presented—can help composers make informed decisions, minimising the risk of perceived plagiarism.
How Probable Is It That The Music Accidentally Was the Same
In musical plagiarism analysis, assessing the probability of exact or near exact matches in musical composition can provide valuable insights. The question “What is the probability that two independently composed pieces of music could be this similar?” can be addressed through the number of shared similarities across musical features, the degree of similarity and the duration of similarity. This perspective can be crucial when evaluating risks in sonic branding.
Degree of Similarity: As a musical feature moves towards being identical between two pieces, the perception of plagiarism increases. Depending on the possible variability of that musical features, exact matches in the musical feature may be improbable.
- Example: Music sharing identical time signatures is very probable because of the limited options available for most music being 3/4, 4/4 or 6/8. Compare this to identical melodies and the wide variety of melodic pitches, contours and note placement. Increased degree of similarity of melodies increases the risk of perceived plagiarism.
Duration of Similarity: Sequences that are near identical and brief are highly probable, whilst similarity over an extended length of time is highly improbable, indicating potential plagiarism when such matches occur.
- Example: Short phrases of 1-3 notes are often considered too brief to be deemed plagiarised, whereas longer sequences invite more scrutiny. Similarly, short chord sequences are likely to share similarities, whilst longer sequences are less likely to.
Count of Similarity: The similarity of the total number of individual musical features, when analysed against temp tracks or sonic mood boards, should be weighed in terms of probability. As the count of shared musical features increases, so does the likelihood of perceived plagiarism.
- Example: Subtle similarities in melody may be perceived as more similar if other musical features such as instrumentation, harmony, tempo, and rhythm also contain subtle similarity. This is the “sum of the parts” perspective.
Genre and Stylistic Considerations: Genre norms and stylistic conventions can increase the probability of shared musical features, making them appear as common practice rather than intentional copying.
- Example: A swing rhythm that seems novel in one genre may be standard in another, thus affecting the perception of originality.
Practical Strategies for Reducing Risk: Composers should aim to minimise exact or near matches first by diversifying the most similar musical features and avoiding too many shared musical features with reference tracks.
- Example: Rearranging melodic sequences or varying harmonies may create enough differentiation to lower the risk of perceived copying.
🎯 Key Takeaway: Understanding the probability of musical similarities can help agencies and composers navigate potential legal challenges by recognising when similarities may cross the threshold from coincidental to problematic.
Make The Sonic Branding Or Jingle Look Different On Paper
The current legal system often places significant emphasis on the visual representation of music, such as scores or sheet music, i.e. the deposit copy. This focus stems from traditional Western classical music practices, where scores were the primary method for sharing compositions. In contrast, today’s music is most accurately represented by the digital recordings or Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) projects.
Why Notation Matters in Legal Contexts: Legal frameworks tend to favour visual mediums, as non-musicians, such as judges or juries, can more easily spot visual similarities in a score than aurally. Musical features such as pitch, rhythm, harmony, dynamics, and tempo are straightforward to represent in notation, making them high-risk features for perceived plagiarism.
- Example: Melodic contours and note placements shown on a score can be readily compared, highlighting any likeness between pieces. Texture is less clear present through a score as it is shared across multiple music staves and thus harder to compare.
Challenges with Notating Modern Music: Some musical features, such as panning, play style, and timbre, are difficult to represent visually. Features that involve complex sound design, such as drops, stuttering, or glitch effects, are nearly impossible to capture accurately in traditional notation. Similarities or differences in these musical features may be neglected from the legal discourse.
- Example: Attempting to notate Skrillex’s Scary Monsters and Sprites would either lose essential details or be very confusing in a musical score. This piece has extremely complex and modern music production techniques. They are not built on traditional notation but are easily identifiable aurally.
🎯 Key Takeaway: Emphasising musical similarities that are difficult to express through standard notation can lessen legal risks. By focusing on sonic elements that are challenging to visualise, composers ensure that even if the piece sounds similar to another, its visual representation stands apart, reducing the likelihood of legal scrutiny.
Most Musicologist Are Often Classical Musicians, Not Popular Musicians or Music Producers.
Traditionally, musicologists have been trained in classical music, which has created gaps in their expertise regarding modern music composition. Most forensic musicologists—experts who provide analyses in plagiarism cases—are proficient in classical or traditional world music but often lack deep familiarity with popular music and music production techniques. This classical focus can be misaligned with the needs of today’s sonic branding and jingle music production.
The Gap in Expertise: Forensic musicologists typically use methods and analyses rooted in classical traditions, which may not effectively address the nuances of modern music styles or digital production.
- Example: A forensic musicologist may excel in identifying melodic and harmonic similarities in orchestral music but struggle to analyse contemporary pop or electronic music’ layered production techniques.
Innovative Approaches in Music Perception: While some musicologists specialise in music perception and use innovative analysis methods better suited to popular music and production, these practices are not yet fully integrated into legal frameworks.
- Example: Techniques used to analyse pop songs, particularly music waveform analysis, can be used in assessing the impact of music production, but are yet to be presented in court.
Challenges with Digital Music Projects: If a composer were to create new music directly in a DAW using an existing music project’s settings—such as instruments, effects, channels and mixing—as a reference track, it would be challenging to argue plagiarism within current legal practices. The emphasis remains on historical aspects like scores and traditional musical features rather than the details of digital audio projects.
- Example: Even if the result sounds similar to the original, demonstrating this similarity without conventional notation or traditional music language is difficult in legal settings under current scrutiny.
🎯 Key Takeaway: The legal system’s heavy reliance on classical music analysis limits its ability to effectively handle plagiarism disputes in modern music. A balanced approach—differentiating musical features through classical methods while emphasising similarities in contemporary music production— can create a balance between originality and similarity to the temp track.
Avoid Musical Concepts Easy To Explain To Or Be Heard by Non-Musicians
While musicologists can heavily influence the outcomes of music plagiarism cases, the final decision is made by judges or juries who typically lack musical expertise. This creates a knowledge gap where certain similarities can be overemphasised or misunderstood.
The Ordinary Observer Test: The ordinary observer test is used to determine whether an average listener (non-musician) would recognise that a piece has been plagiarised.
- Example: If two pieces share an easily recognisable element like timbre, non-musicians may see this as convincing evidence of plagiarism, even if the similarity is not musically significant.
Risk of Simple Musical Concepts: Musical features that are easy for non-musicians to identify are more likely to be emphasised in court. This makes them a higher risk for plagiarism claims.
- Example: Two songs with simple short melodies might be considered similar by a judge or jury, whilst two longer complex melodies might not, to the same degree. This could be further confusing if the melodies are note-for-note similar but function differently based on the harmony such as C E G as a tonic (I) vs. C E G as a dominant (V).
Challenges with Complex Concepts: More sophisticated musical features, such as texture and structural variation, are harder for non-musicians to understand in court. Judges may dismiss evidence involving these concepts if they do not fully grasp their relevance.
- Example: A piece that borrows transformation techniques from another piece at specific points in time — such as retrogrades, inversions or re-harmonisation—might not be seen as similar by non-musicians, even though it technically is plagiarised.
🎯 Key Takeaway: Copying straightforward and easy-to-explain musical features carries a higher risk, as they are more noticeable to non-musicians. Conversely complex features are harder to identify and explain, posing a challenge in effectively conveying their significance during legal proceedings. To minimise risks, composers should be cautious with simple, recognisable musical features.
Biases in Creativity & Complexity
Subjective judgments by listeners can significantly influence court cases involving comparisons of two musical works. These biases can affect the perception of originality and plagiarism in several ways.
Bias Toward Well-Liked and Original Artists: When using temp tracks from well-known artists or songs perceived as original and emotionally impactful, there is a higher risk of scrutiny. Music by artists who are independent or “Underdogs” is often viewed as inherently unique.
- Example: In the Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up” vs. Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines”, borrowing from the well-liked original artist of a group that is underrepresented or marginalised played a role in the court’s perception and decision-making that Blurred Lines unlawfully copied portions of Got to Give It Up.
Impact of Simplification: Simplifying or reducing sourced material in new compositions can influence listeners to perceive it as a less sophisticated derivative. This can heighten the risk of a plagiarism judgment.
- Example: If a piece takes only the most basic features of an original work without adding complexity or creative changes, it may be more likely viewed as plagiarised. In classical music, sophisticated and original orchestrations of piano works are often revered as innovative instead of as derivative such as Ravel’s popular orchestration of Mussorgsky’s Pictures at an Exhibition piano suite.
The Role of Familiarity: Listeners who are familiar with a specific genre or style can detect subtle differences more accurately. Plagiarising from niche or less common styles may increase the risk, as only the smaller, more knowledgeable audience may spot similarities that others might miss.
- Example: A listener deeply familiar with free jazz might quickly identify unique elements, while the same details might go unnoticed by a mainstream pop listener.
🎯 Key Takeaway: To lessen the perception of plagiarism, it is beneficial to expand on the source material with cultural & musical sophistication. This can help the composed work be seen as original. Awareness of this bias can help composers avoid accusations of plagiarism.
STRATEGIES
Building on the prior preparation and multiple perspectives presented, implementing specific strategies can help identify and lessen plagiarism risks before a sonic branding asset is released. These strategies should each involve a thorough analysis across different layers of the composition:
- Analyse the Entire Audio Track: Evaluate the full composition to assess the overall sound and structure, ensuring it is distinct from temp tracks.
- Examine Individual Audio Stems: Break down the track into its stem parts (e.g., melody, harmony, rhythm) to pinpoint any potentially similar features. Working with stems allows for a focused comparison, making it easier to identify and adjust problematic sections.
- Review the Score or MIDI Data: Analysing the score or MIDI file provides a visual representation of the musical structure, which can reveal similarities that may not be immediately apparent when listening to the audio alone.
Using these methods provides a comprehensive understanding of the composition, allowing sonic branding agencies to make targeted adjustments that reinforce originality while maintaining the desired branding impact.
Expert Musicologist Analysis
Expert musicologists play a crucial role in assessing potential music plagiarism by offering in-depth comparisons of key musical features, which are essential in court cases.
Types: Musicologists can specialise in various subfields relevant to different aspects of music analysis:
- Forensic Musicology: Focuses on the intersection of music and law, essential for detailed analysis in court cases.
- Genre-Specific Expertise: Involves understanding popular music, digital media, or specific genres, which aids in contextually relevant analysis.
- Music Psychology: Examines how listeners perceive music, providing insights into how similarities might be perceived by the public.
Implications: The involvement of expert musicologists ensures that the analysis receives a detailed comparison of musical pieces. Their input highlights the nuances of melody, harmony, rhythm, and other musical features that are often overlooked by non-specialists. Choosing a musicologist(s), without embracing expertise in all three subfields, can risk an unsophisticated analysis, as different specialisations bring unique strengths to the table.
Future Prospects: As the field of music analysis continues to evolve, musicologists may incorporate more advanced methodologies, such as AI-assisted analysis or innovative music perception studies, to provide more accurate and comprehensive reports. This evolution could further lessen risk as the legal framework shifts to broader definitions of plagiarism.
🎯 Key Takeaway: For sonic branding agencies and composers, consulting with an expert musicologist early in the creative process is beneficial. This proactive step helps new sonic logos stand up to legal scrutiny by identifying potential overlaps with existing works before release.
Algorithmic Analysis
The rapid development of AI has opened new avenues for computational analysis in music plagiarism detection, offering tools that provide support in identifying potential copyright infringements.
Types:
- Melody Detection Tools: Platforms like Mippia (mippia.com) identify potential melody plagiarism.
- Audio Recognition Services: Tools such as Google’s “Hum to Search” (blog.google/products/search/hum-to-search), Deezer’s SongCatcher (deezer.com/explore/features/songcatcher), and Shazam (shazam.com) help recognise songs and can flag potential similarities.
- Contour Search Tools: Musipedia (musipedia.org) offers a contour search feature that helps identify shared melodic structures.
- Advanced Analytical Software: Musicology-focused tools like MIRToolbox provide deeper analyses, although they are usually customised algorithms developed within academic or research contexts.
Implications: While these tools provide new methods for detecting potential plagiarism, many remain limited in scope because of their catalogue size or the specificity of their algorithms. Tools focusing on unidirectional plagiarism (e.g. note contour, pitch, rhythm) may fail to capture high-level melodic structures or broader musical similarities. This limitation can reduce their effectiveness in complex cases involving nuanced comparisons.
Future Prospects: The advancements in AI technology for music composition may soon be adapted for plagiarism detection. This could result in more robust tools capable of measuring multidimensional plagiarism and identifying broad similarities more accurately. However, the practicality and acceptance of such AI analyses in court remain unproven, as biased algorithms may provide “statistical similarities” that oversimplify and may be incorrectly seen as authoritative.
Practical Applications: Sonic branding agencies and composers can incorporate these algorithmic tools into their creative process for preliminary checks on originality. Using platforms like Mippia (https://mippia.com/) or Musipedia (https://www.musipedia.org/) allows for an initial analysis to catch obvious similarities. Advanced tools like MIRToolbox can be reserved for more in-depth studies when high-risk factors are identified.
🎯 Key Takeaway: Algorithmic tools provide valuable initial detection of potential plagiarism in music, their limitations—such as narrow catalogues and single-dimensional analysis—highlight the continued need for human oversight. Combining technological solutions with expert interpretation and creative adjustments ensures a more comprehensive approach to lessening plagiarism risks in sonic branding.
The Ordinary Observer Test
In music plagiarism cases, the judge and jury ultimately make the final decision, with an approach known as the “Ordinary observer test” playing a significant role in determining outcomes. This can be replicated prior to release of the sonic branding.
Blind Testing: Conducting blind tests with focus groups or target audience members to evaluate if the new sonic logo or audio asset is perceived as distinct from the reference or temp track. These non-musician participants may notice similarities that professionals might overlook, providing a different perspective on perceived originality.
Implications: The ordinary observer test is critical because it relies on the perception of non-musicians. This can influence the final ruling in a plagiarism case, highlighting the importance of ensuring that audio assets do not share noticeable similarities with existing works.
Future Prospects: Implementing more standardised audience testing as part of the creative process can offer a valuable tool for agencies and composers. This approach can potentially become a regular part of pre-launch evaluations to pre-emptively address potential plagiarism concerns.
🎯 Key Takeaway: Sonic branding agencies can use blind tests not only to identify risks of perceived similarities but also as an opportunity to gauge audience preference for the sonic logo or jingle. This feedback can inform adjustments that align better with brand identity and evoke the desired emotional response.
Redesign & Repeat
When substantial similarity to an original piece is identified, particularly of non-common place musical features, a thorough redesign or rework is essential to lessen plagiarism risk. This revision process should prioritise creativity over simple, formulaic adjustments. For example, reversing or inverting a melody may obscure similarity but may not effectively eliminate it. Instead, refer to the perspectives previously discussed to assess how and why the similarity exists.
Avoid superficial changes that merely alter other musical features (e.g., changing the instrument that plays the melody) without addressing the core issue of similarity (e.g. the melodic similarity). Instead, consider creating multiple distinct variations of the at-risk material, experimenting with influences from various mixes of works, styles & genres for greater originality.
Testing these variations with stakeholders and performing additional analysis will help determine which version best aligns with the brand’s objectives while reducing legal risk. This stage also presents an opportunity to remind clients of the potential risks of music plagiarism, encouraging them to allocate additional time and resources toward finalising a legally sound, distinctive sonic asset.
🎯 Key Takeaway: When substantial similarity is identified, prioritise creative redesigns that address high risk musical features over superficial changes to lessen plagiarism risks. Develop distinct variations, test with stakeholders, and strive for originality by drawing from diverse influences
MUSICAL FEATURES TO FOCUS ON FIRST
This framework highlights the musical features most often scrutinised in plagiarism cases, particularly melody, which has historically been the primary focus in court. In contrast, multidimensional aspects, such as the overall “Feel” or vibe of a piece (as in the Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up” vs. Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines”), have seen less attention but are increasingly relevant in sonic branding.
When evaluating a composition, prioritise these musical features individually, but consider how their combination might influence the perception of similarity. The context in which features are shared—such as tempo, key, arrangement, or style—can amplify the risk of perceived plagiarism if multiple dimensions overlap with an existing work.
Each musical feature includes common and uncommon examples, guiding composers to align creative direction with legal safeguards. These principles apply to both influence from temp tracks and the development of original material.
Common Examples:
- Lower Risk: Common features are harder for plaintiffs to claim as original.
- Higher Risk: Altering or composing with common features may still lead to disputes if the sonic branding is not substantially distinct.
Uncommon Examples:
- Higher Risk: Copying unique features is easier to identify as infringement.
- Lower Risk: Creating new material with uncommon features offers stronger differentiation from temp tracks.
🎯 Key Takeaway: Prioritise avoiding unique elements of references while creatively utilising common features to reduce plagiarism risks and maintain originality.
Highest Priority
Melody remains the most scrutinised element in music plagiarism cases, with pitch contour and interval patterns posing the highest risk. Courts often focus on these features due to their simplicity in visual representation, accessibility for non-musicians, and the robust analytical techniques available for assessing them, especially within Western classical music traditions. Algorithmic tools used for plagiarism detection also prioritise these features, as they capture the essence of a tune that listeners recognise most readily.
Pitch: Contour & Intervals
This musical feature, often referred to as “the part you hum,” includes the primary vocal melody or instrumental hook, but may also extend to supporting features like bass lines or rhythmic stabs. A well-known example of pitch-based plagiarism involves In Flame’s “Joyful Noise” (2008) vs. Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse”, where the melodic contour in the bass line raised legal concerns.
- Common Examples: Stepwise motion, such as the sequence in “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star,” and consonant intervals like perfect fifths or major thirds
- Uncommon Examples: Unstable or dissonant intervals, such as tritones or minor ninths, and disjunct motion involving large leaps between notes
🎯 Key Takeaway: Given the number of court cases related to melodic contour and intervals, composers should approach these musical features with care. Ensuring originality in melody and pitch patterns can reduce the risk of similarity with existing works and minimise the potential for legal challenges.
High Priority
Note placement refers to the specific positions and durations of both notes and silences within a phrase’s timeline. Note placement plays a crucial role in shaping melodies, intertwined with contour and interval information. While it is slightly less critical than pitch contour, note placement remains a significant consideration in plagiarism cases. Similar to pitch, note placement is easy to represent visually, accessible for non-musicians, and analysed effectively using classical music techniques. However, copying the placement of notes in a melody while altering pitches is more challenging to detect, both for listeners and through algorithmic tools.
Duration: Note Placement, Syncopation, Accenting & Feel
This musical feature encompasses the timing of notes, including their length, syncopation, accents, and how they align with the beat. It applies not only to melody but also to rhythmic components, shaping features like groove and flow. Duration is essential in creating a distinctive rhythmic identity for a piece, influencing how recognisable and original it appears.
- Common Examples: Simple syncopation patterns, like basic offbeats or pop rhythms, and common accents on beats 1 and 3.
- Uncommon Examples: Complex syncopation, such as offbeat 16th notes, and irregular subdivisions, like quintuplets.
🎯 Key Takeaway: Note placement and rhythm can define the character of melodies, so composers should carefully consider these features for originality. Unique choices in syncopation, accenting, and rhythmic feel can differentiate a sonic branding asset from existing works, reducing the likelihood of perceived similarities and plagiarism risks.
Moderate Priority
Harmony, or the vertical relationship between pitches, is a moderate priority in plagiarism cases. While less scrutinised than melody and rhythm, harmony can still be significant, especially when it features distinctive or unusual combinations. Common chord progressions (such as I-V-vi-IV) are unlikely to be considered unique enough to pose a plagiarism risk. However, harmonies that incorporate more unique or complex structures may draw attention.
Pitch: Harmony
Harmony involves the vertical arrangement of pitches through chords or arpeggios, often played on instruments like the piano or guitar. It also includes how multiple instruments or voices combine to create a harmonic texture, such as in a four-part vocal arrangement or implied harmony within an instrument solo.
- Common Examples: Diatonic harmony, common progression (e.g. I-IV-V), simple triads (major or minor); and dominant seventh chords.
- Uncommon Examples: chromatic harmonic progressions, diminished or augmented chords, extended chords, and atonal harmony.
🎯 Key Takeaway: Whilst lower risk than melody, harmonic similarities have been the basis for music plagiarism court cases. Common chord sequences are generally safe and incorporating unusual harmonic features can add originality to sonic branding.
Lower Priority
Certain musical features are less likely to be primary factors in plagiarism cases unless they are highly distinctive. Often, these features are used as secondary evidence to support cases focused on more critical musical features like melody, rhythm, or harmony. If these features don’t align between two pieces, they may be altered or ignored in court, as they can obscure the listener’s perception of similarity in more significant features.
Timbre: Instrumentation
Instrumentation refers to the choice of musical instruments or synthesised sounds in a piece. While rarely the focus of plagiarism claims, unique or unusual instrument choices can add to a work’ originality.
- Common Examples: Standard pop instrumentation like guitar, piano, bass, and drums; traditional string quartets in classical music.
- Uncommon Examples: Distinctive choices like sitar in rock music, prepared piano in classical, electronic bass drops in folk, or non-Western instruments in Western contexts.
Timbre: Play style, Techniques & FX
This musical feature includes the specific performance techniques and effects applied to instruments, which can affect a piece’s sound profile without determining its originality.
- Common Examples: Basic techniques like plucking, strumming, legato, or light distortion on electric guitar.
- Uncommon Examples: Techniques like slap bass, harmonics, multi-phonics on wind instruments, or unique effects like the DigiTech wah-wah pedal or bowed guitar.
Pitch: Scale & Mode
The choice of scale or mode defines the set of pitches used, creating the tonal foundation of the music.
- Common Examples: Major and minor scales, pentatonic scales, blues scale, and Dorian mode.
- Uncommon Examples: Chromatic or atonal scales, and whole-tone scales, which are less common in popular music.
Pitch: Register & Range
This musical feature refers to how high or low the pitches are within the composition.
- Common Examples: Mid-range vocal and instrumental registers, typical in pop or folk songs.
- Uncommon Examples: Extreme high registers, like a piccolo or soprano sax, or wide-ranging octave spans, such as Mariah Carey’s whistle tones.
Duration: Time Signature
The time signature organises the rhythm and beat, affecting the piece’s overall feel and groove.
- Common Examples: Common time (4/4), 3/4 for waltzes, 6/8, and 2/4.
- Uncommon Examples: Complex time signatures like 11/8, 7/8, or mixed meters, which alternate between different time signatures.
Duration: Tempo
Tempo affects the speed and energy level of a piece, but is rarely unique enough to constitute plagiarism.
- Common Examples: Moderate tempos like andante or allegro, within the 80-120 BPM range.
- Uncommon Examples: Extremely slow (<60 BPM) or fast tempos (>140 BPM), or pieces with rapid tempo changes (e.g., metric tempo modulation).
Loudness: Dynamics & Variability
Dynamics refer to the volume level and changes in volume throughout the piece.
- Common Examples: Moderate dynamics, like mezzo-forte and mezzo-piano, and gradual changes in volume.
- Uncommon Examples: Extreme dynamics, such as fortissimo (fff) or pianissimo (ppp), or sudden shifts in loudness (subito piano).
🎯 Key Takeaway: These lower-risk musical features are yet to be the primary focus in plagiarism disputes. However, incorporating distinctive choices within these features can enhance the overall originality of sonic assets, providing an additional layer of protection that supports creative integrity. This is particularly important when similarities are shared between high priority musical features.
Lowest Priority
The following musical features are rarely a primary focus in plagiarism court cases, as they are challenging to represent visually, explain to non-musicians, or directly identify as distinctive. These features, may often be found more in popular music than classical, typically serve as supplementary evidence in court, supporting a case rather than driving it.
Spatial Location: Panning Width & Position
Panning defines where sounds are positioned in the stereo field, affecting the listener’s perception of where instruments are “located” (e.g., left, centre, or right).
- Common Examples: Centred panning (e.g., vocals or bass centred), slight stereo spread, and natural room ambience.
- Uncommon Examples: Extreme panning, like hard left/right separation, ping-pong effects (sound bouncing left to right), or automated panning.
Spatial Location: Reverberation & Delay
Reverb and delay are used to create a sense of space, suggesting how close or far a sound is from the listener.
- Common Examples: Short reverb, such as room or hall settings, slap back delay, and standard plate reverb.
- Uncommon Examples: Reverse reverb, infinite reverb, or long delays with feedback, which create unique spatial effects.
Texture: Phonic (Interaction of Instruments)
Phonic texture describes how musical instruments or voices interact, influencing the density and complexity of a piece. Note this is more of a focus for classical music & traditional music than popular music.
- Common Examples: Homophonic textures, like a melody with chords, and monophonic textures, where there’s a single melodic line.
- Uncommon Examples: Polyphonic canons or complex counterpoint (e.g. Bach fugues), which add intricate layers of musical interaction.
Texture: Layering
Layering refers to the vertical placement of instruments, shaping the depth and richness of the sound.
- Common Examples: Standard layering, like a voice carrying the melody with a bass line supporting harmony or a typical chord progression using guitar, keys, and bass.
- Uncommon Examples: Creative layering choices, like a bass playing the melody, voice handling the bass line, or shifting layers across extreme registers.
🎯 Key Takeaway: These musical features contribute to a distinctive sonic identity but are less likely to be central in plagiarism cases. Experimenting with panning, reverb, texture, and layering can enhance originality and set a branding apart.
CONCLUSION
Summary
In the evolving landscape of sonic branding, the increasing demand for concise and memorable audio assets presents both opportunities and significant risks, particularly in the realm of plagiarism. As legal precedents extend beyond melodic similarities to encompass the overall “feel” of compositions, agencies and brands face heightened exposure to lawsuits that could jeopardise financial stability and reputational integrity. To navigate this landscape, a proactive and comprehensive approach is essential—one that balances creative freedom with rigorous safeguards against imitation.
Lessening these risks begins with structured preparation, fostering originality from the outset through plagiarism avoidance plans, diverse musical references, and early client involvement. By addressing the risks associated with temp tracks and mood boards, agencies can align creative direction with brand identity while minimising the chance of replicating existing works. Employing multiple perspectives—considering how judges, juries, and non-musicians might perceive similarities—further fortifies this process, closing the gap between expert-level musical analysis and public perception.
Strategic multi-layered evaluations, from full track analysis to breakdowns of stems and MIDI data, provide critical insights into potential overlaps. Engaging forensic musicologists and leveraging algorithmic detection tools enhance this process, though technology alone cannot replace human oversight. Audience testing, through blind focus groups, replicates the “ordinary observer” test used in legal settings, offering valuable feedback on perceived similarities and informing final revisions. Where substantial likeness is detected, agencies must prioritise creative reworking of high-risk features like melody and rhythm, steering clear of superficial alterations.
Focusing on the musical features most scrutinised in court—such as melody, pitch contour, and interval patterns— so the foundation of a sonic asset remains legally sound. While lower-risk features like timbre, instrumentation, and spatial effects rarely form the crux of plagiarism claims, they add crucial layers of originality and can serve as differentiators. By creatively manipulating these musical features and emphasising unique combinations, sonic branding agencies can craft distinct compositions that resonate with audiences while standing up to legal scrutiny.
Ultimately, safeguarding sonic branding assets requires a blend of creativity, foresight, and diligence. Through careful preparation, multi-perspective analysis, and strategic redesigns, agencies can strike a balance between innovation and legal protection for audio identities to remain both compelling and uncompromised.
About the Author
Dr. Thomas Dickson (PhD) is an Australian musicologist with a specialisation in the psychological impact of music on listeners. His expertise spans music research, popular and film music composition, and marketing, providing a unique perspective that merges academic insight with practical application. Dr. Dickson works closely with music production houses and sonic branding agencies, offering evidence-based guidance that enhances the effectiveness and originality of their audio assets.
If you’re interested in elevating the impact of your sonic branding projects or require expert analysis for your audio assets, Dr. Dickson is available for consultations and research projects.
For more information or to schedule a consultation, visit sonicbranding.com.au or reach out via email at thomas@sonicbranding.com.au.
GLOSSARY
Legal Terms
Cease and Desist: A legal order to immediately stop using a potentially infringing work, with possible legal consequences if ignored.
Deposit Copy: The sheet music or written representation of a song submitted to the U.S. Copyright Office (for USA) or National Library of Australia (for Australia) as part of the copyright registration process. Often used in court as evidence of originality.
Forensic Musicologist: An expert in music analysis who evaluates potential plagiarism and musical similarities in legal cases. This title is not regulated and does not require formal qualifications, such as a doctorate, published academic work, or membership in professional organisations.
Plagiarism: Copying or closely imitating someone else’s work and presenting it as original. In music, this often involves recognisable features like melody.
Plaintiff: The individual or entity that initiates a legal action by filing a complaint, alleging harm or infringement caused by another party. In music-related cases, the plaintiff is often a songwriter, composer, or rights holder claiming unauthorised use of their work.
Substantial Similarity: A legal threshold used to determine whether one work has copied enough of another to constitute infringement. It examines overall impression, not just note-for-note replication.
Ordinary Observer Test: A legal standard to determine if an average listener would recognise similarity between two works, used in assessing plagiarism.
Music Terms
Accenting: Emphasising specific beats or notes to give the piece a particular feel.
Algorithmic Analysis: Software-assisted analysis of musical features to detect similarities, often focusing on melody, pitch, and rhythm.
Chord Progression: A sequence of chords, such as the common I-V-vi-IV pattern in pop music.
Contour: The shape or direction of a melody, such as ascending, descending, or static.
DAW: A digital audio workstation such as Pro Tools, Cubase, Logic Pro, Ableton etc.
Delay: An effect that repeats the sound after a brief period, creating an echo effect.
Duration: The length of time each note or silence lasts, contributing to the timing and rhythm.
Dynamics: The volume level and changes in volume within a piece, from soft (piano) to loud (forte).
“Feel”: The overall mood or character of a piece, created through musical features like rhythm, tempo, and harmony.
FX (Effects): Audio effects like reverb, delay, and distortion that alter a sound’s timbre.
Grace Note: A musical ornament, a short note played quickly before the main note, adding expression without affecting the melody’s structure.
Instrumentation: The selection of instruments in a piece, like guitar, piano, or drums.
Interval: The distance between two pitches, with examples including thirds, fifths, and octaves.
Harmony: The vertical arrangement of pitches in chords, supporting the melody and adding depth.
Layering: The arrangement of different musical parts or tracks on top of each other for depth.
Mashup: A combination of two or more pre-recorded songs or musical elements, often used as evidence to highlight similarities in court.
Melody: A recognisable sequence of notes that forms the main musical line.
Mode: Variations of scales creating different moods, such as Dorian or Mixolydian.
Note Placement: Similar to rhythm but does not necessarily define the beat or flow (for example the timing and placement of notes and silences for melody does not necessarily impact the beat or flow).
Ostinato: A short, repeating musical phrase or rhythm, often found in bass lines or melodic motifs.
Panning: Positioning sounds in the stereo field (left, right, or centre), creating spatial depth.
Phonic Texture:
- Monophonic: A single melodic line.
- Homophonic: A melody supported by chords.
- Polyphonic: Multiple independent melodies.
Pitch: The perceived frequency of a note, determining its highness or lowness.
Play style: The specific technique for playing an instrument, such as plucking, strumming, or bowing.
Register: The pitch range in which a sound is performed (high, mid, low).
Rhythm: The timing and placement of notes and silences, defining the beat and flow.
Scale: A sequence of notes in a specific order that forms the basis of melody and harmony, like major or pentatonic scales.
Syncopation: A rhythmic feature that places emphasis on normally weak beats or offbeats.
Tempo: The speed or pace of the music, measured in beats per minute (BPM).
Texture: The layering of sounds or musical lines within a piece, from simple (monophonic) to complex (polyphonic).
Timbre: The unique quality or colour of a sound, shaped by the instruments or effects used.
Time Signature: Defines the beat count per measure (e.g., 4/4 or 3/4).
Transposition: Shifting a piece of music to a different key while maintaining the relative relationship between notes.
Reverberation (Reverb): An effect that simulates natural echo, adding depth and spatial quality.
Reverse Engineering: The process of recreating the feel or components of an existing track without directly copying it, which can carry risks of perceived similarity.
Sonic Branding Terms
Sonic Branding: The use of sound to reinforce a brand’s identity, including jingles, logos, and other audio elements that create memorable connections.
Sonic Logo: A short, memorable audio clip associated with a brand, often used in advertising.
Sonic Mood Board: A collection of audio references used to establish a specific mood or direction for a project, offering creative guidance.
Temp Track: A reference audio track typically an existing composition, that helps align the composer’s direction with the client’s vision, guiding the mood or style.
Temp Love: Refers to a client’s attachment to temporary (reference) tracks used during the creative process, often leading to requests for final compositions that closely resemble the temp track.