The worry is familiar. You finish a track, but you’ve been feeling weird all along — or someone in the room points it out — and there it is. Your melody, or that progression, or even just the feel of the thing reminds you of something that already exists. Maybe you can put your finger on it. Maybe you can’t. Maybe it’s a song you were listening to while you were writing. Maybe it’s a coincidence. Maybe you knew it all along but were just trying to be inspired, not copy. Maybe it’s neither.

Either way, you’re wondering if you have a problem.

When you do, knowing early is what protects you best.

What Music Copyright Actually Cares About

Sounding similar to another song is not, by itself, copyright infringement. That’s worth repeating, because the music press and some high-profile verdicts have created the impression that any resemblance invites significant risk. It really doesn’t; not necessarily at least. Exposure is its own consideration, subtly different. Musicologize considers risk and exposure together and separately.

Copyright protects original expression — a specific melody, lyric, harmony, form. It’s often said copyright doesn’t protect chord progressions, but that’s an oversimplification. It can be said that it generally does not protect rhythmic feel or grooves, but this too can be oversimplified. It does not protect genres, tempos, production aesthetics, or the general emotional quality of a song. The vast majority of what makes one song remind you of another is not protectable, because protecting it would mean protecting musical building blocks that no one can own.

We actually don’t want 100% “original” music all the time. It would be too hard to appreciate. We want originality within a framework we can understand and enjoy, partly because it draws from the familiar and adds something new.

What courts actually examine: whether there’s a plausible connection between the creation of two works — access (you heard song A before you wrote song B) or, in some cases, a striking similarity so obvious it implies access. And then it requires copying of protected expression. Both prongs have to hold. A shared chord progression that appears in thousands of songs doesn’t satisfy either one. It doesn’t strongly imply access, and even if access is there, you could’ve gotten it from lots of other places.

When the Worry Is Worth Taking Seriously

Even a legally baseless claim costs money to defend. The past decade of music copyright litigation has demonstrated that the economics of filing a claim are attractive even when the underlying theory is weak. Settlements happen sometimes not because claims are meritorious but because trial is expensive and unpredictable. Anyone who reads Musicologize regularly knows this is an ax we grind around here. It’s unfortunate that so many cases make it to court and aren’t dismissed swiftly and cost-effectively. On the other hand, copyright has a job to do, and the courts are there for a reason.

If you’re releasing commercially — particularly if there’s a sync placement, a licensing deal, or a label involved — an unresolved similarity question is a liability that may surface at the worst possible moment: after the release, after the placement, after the investment.

The other reason: the similarity is real. Not vibes-real (that’s a given; it’s already been observed; good enough for me) but legally real. There are cases where a writer genuinely absorbed a protected melody and reproduced it without realizing it. That happens. Knowing before release is categorically different from knowing after. It can be fixed. There’s nothing wrong with fixing it, and then there’s nothing wrong with putting it out once you’ve fixed it. So let’s fix it.

What a Pre-Release Analysis Does

An originality clearance analysis examines your work for its own originality and against specific songs of concern and answers the question the law actually asks: what is the susceptibility to a claim of copying and misappropriation of protected expression; in other words, is the observed similarity located in protectable expression, or in musical common ground the law treats as unowned?

The analysis goes beyond automated percentage scores. These tools you find don’t work. Not today at least. Someday they will. At best, similarity tools measure what’s there; they can’t evaluate whether what’s there is legally meaningful. Two songs can share melodic intervals and still have no protectable overlap. Two songs can have a relatively small quantitative similarity score and still share the one thing that matters, which is, of course, an original expressive element that’s identifiable and protected.

A forensic musicologist works through the music analytically and tests any overlap against prior art — meaning the question isn’t just whether your song resembles Song A, it’s that along with whether Song A had any claim to that material in the first place. Common elements don’t become protectable because one song uses them before another. It’s also a question of degree. “Significant similarity” is a phrase you’ll hear in music copyright. Insignificant similarity can still refer to similarity, but it doesn’t contribute much to an infringement claim.

The outcome of preemptive originality clearance is a written opinion from Musicologize. That document has two functions: if the work is cleared, it establishes that you took deliberate steps to evaluate the risk before release. That can be significant. Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2), (I don’t have it memorized and I’m not a lawyer; I need to look it up every time.) such documented due diligence can be a factor in whether a court can award enhanced statutory damages which run as high as $150,000 per work for willful infringement. Musicologists If you’ve got a written clearance opinion, the willfulness argument one can reasonably argue is much harder to make. If the work is not clear, you find out and hopefully fix it before the release date, before the sync deal, before the press run. “Fix it” sounds like chicanery to someone looking to sue, but that’s wrong. You fixed it so that you’re in the right.

When to Get One

Not every similarity concern warrants a formal analysis. If the similarity you’ve identified is similar to many other works, you’re probably looking at an unprotectable banality in music, common to all, unprotectable, a building block. There are countless articles on Musicologize that explore that line, often using actual court cases, familiar songs, famous recording artists.

It’s worth getting an analysis when:

• Your song shares what appears to be a specific melodic phrase with an identifiable earlier work
• You were consciously inspired by a specific track and the result is too close for comfort
• A collaborator, publisher, music supervisor, or attorney has flagged a potential issue
• The release has significant commercial stakes — a label deal, sync placement, advertising use, or wide distribution. Musicologize does these all day. Increasingly, brands like Google, Meta, Chipotle, Starbucks, and Coca-Cola are asking their agencies and composers to get an originality clearance as a matter of course before a campaign launches. Standard procedure.

The analysis costs a fraction of what a single letter from opposing counsel costs. The documentation it produces is worth having. You fix any issues we identify AND you get a written record that you took the question seriously before anyone else raised it. Ask a lawyer what that’s worth. All those brands do it for a reason.

Get an Originality Clearance Analysis

To discuss a matter or ask a question — call, email, or schedule a preliminary call.

☎︎ Call: (212) 217-9512   ✉ Email: brianmcbrearty@gmail.com   📅 Schedule: Book a free preliminary call