Just because it sounds similar doesn't mean it's plagiarism.
There's something called sampling.
If the original artist sells the sound as a sample, then you can buy it and make your own music with it.
And if it's been cleared as a sample like that,
you don't have to credit it separately.
Some people foolishly claim it's plagiarism just because it's not credited. Yeah.
-Wow, even the first track is fascinatingㅋㅋㅋ
-It means that whether it's plagiarism or not depends on whether the original artist sold it as a sample.
-But since those who accuse of plagiarism don't listen to this explanation, we might as well make it mandatory to credit.
-I'm saying this just in case people blindly accuse of plagiarism again, it's all sampling!!!
-At the point where almost all possible melodies have been used, sampling is practically essential in the music industry now.
-If you buy a sample for sale and create new music with it, the copyright belongs entirely to the new music.
-So Love Dive was sampled? No wonder the beat was crazy.
-Yeah, even artists globally recognized for their musicality like Kanye West, Daft Punk, frequently utilize sampling. Nowadays, how well you incorporate original samples into your songs is also seen as a composer's skill.
-Composers really can't argue against sampling, considering it's part of human and music history coexisting, how can you think that pure creation is possible until 2024? Korea tends to demonize sampling and lacks understanding about it...
-Even designers use templates, so why wouldn't music be the same? It's really frustrating.
-Fascinating.
-Sampling is recognized as a form of re-creation, so unless it's used illegally without clearance, it's natural for the original artist's name not to be credited in the credits.
-Ah, it's really frustrating, so if you can't differentiate between sampling/referencing/plagiarism, just shut up, damn.
-In other words, is sampling like buying images from Getty Images to use in design...? Interesting.
