Preezy wrote:How do these companies get around copyright infringement on these? Some of them are basically the exact same melody
Derivative work is itself protected by most copyright law, whether or not it is ever found to be derivative, it just has to be adequately "transformed or represented in a new light", in other ways embellished or "annotated" and other nebulous statements based on for example US case law (where a lot of ideas are formed because the culture is so litigious). There is also arguments as to whether or not it presents something of value to the general public, whether its done for personal or commercial gain, or whether it constitutes fair use, for example in forms of criticism.
No copyright test really exists until it goes to court. It depends how litigious the original copyright holder is and it's such a mixed bag as to whether a copyright claim will actually hold up in court that the vast majority don't bother. And then it is heavily dependent on the opinion of expert witnesses and sometimes random members of the public, and may come down to what the jury thinks (if it's a jury trial). You also need documented evidence of the original version of something, because the performance by itself isn't protected. You need a recording or a manuscript etc and proof you produced that first (which is often missing when people steal stuff from poor or little known musicians etc.)
Also I like to think most artists aren't giant banana splits and freely except that serendipity is a thing and the notion of total originality is fundamentally impossible.
In other words its a whole load of gooseberry fool. You can make derivative work that may or may not pass the "test" for constituting an original work, but you run the risk of being sued. Of course, you can get sued regardless of whether or not you've actually broken the law, and will have to pay legal costs for the offending party as well as your own if you lose, as well as financial "damages" (which often reach ludicrous sums) and punitive ones (literally a made up sum by a court judge to act as a deterrent for future infringements by you or other people).
In my opinion this stifles creativity instead of protect it but, yeah, there's infringement strawberry floating everywhere, what matters is whether the copyright holder actually cares it's happening. In my opinion they should spend more time making new work instead of trying to capitalise on the ability for people to do similar gooseberry fool, which is usually a bit pathetic or done by creatives or inherited copyright holders / holding companies who are way past their prime or lack any talent to begin with.
There's even been cases where a copyright claim has been upheld despite the original work being obviously based off something else, but errr yeah we don't talk about that, or it was public domain or legally licensed or whatever. (So if you're going to "steal" a creative work get permission to do so first, because you might make a lot of money in the future evene though your work is totally unoriginal.)
There's even people who've willingly given away their copyright (some Russian authors have famously given their copyright away in their will to the "the people" etc. so that their families inherited no royalties), or been tricked into doing so. If you sell your "copyright" in its entirety to somebody else, they own everything you ever make for the rest of your life. Yeah, don't do that.