Ask a search engine or AI what to do when someone steals your song, and you’ll find a bunch of useless information written by people who’ve never analyzed music professionally. I just looked myself, and they all say the same things: “Document everything. Collect your original files, your demos, and make sure everything is time-stamped so you can prove you created the song first. Then call a lawyer!”

That advice is not great. None of them tells you what actually matters. If you searched for that phrase — or its mirror image, “did I steal someone’s song?” — here’s a real answer from someone who actually does this work.

I’m a forensic musicologist. I analyze music for copyright infringement cases. I’ve been retained by plaintiffs who think they were ripped off and defendants who swear they never heard the other song. I’ve served as an expert witness. I know what holds up and what doesn’t.

These are better answers — not legal advice, I’m not your lawyer — but you’re trying to figure out first steps and whether you have a case or whether you’re in trouble, or maybe you’re just curious about the whole subject.

1. Find an Attorney

Yes, you’ll eventually want a good lawyer — not a generalist, but an attorney who specializes in intellectual property. If you make attorneys your first call, they’ll tell you the next two good bits of advice: you’re going to need your copyright registration, and you’re going to need a forensic musicologist’s opinion.

2. Copyright Registration

Everyone seems to know that copyright just exists from the moment you create something. That’s fine as far as it goes. But to actually sue someone in federal court, you need registration — the real kind. It’s not a “you should,” it’s a “you must.” The Copyright Office has to process your application and issue a registration certificate before you can file suit. This is not optional.

Creators, consider making registration part of your process, because if you ever think somebody has stolen your song, this part may sting. When you registered matters almost as much as that you registered at all. If you registered before an infringement occurs, you’re eligible for statutory damages and attorney’s fees. If you registered after that window, you can only recover actual damages and profits. It’s a big deal. Statutory damages are a significant weapon for an IP lawyer — up to $150,000 per willful infringement, roughly ten times the amount available for innocent infringement.

Timestamps on your demo files, like those other websites suggest? Small potatoes compared to a registration certificate. And besides, most of the time “which came first” isn’t the dispute anyway. If the defendant could have heard your song in the first place, that’s called access, and it’s the necessary second concern after registration. You can search google for “access” and “musicologize” and find plenty on why it’s usually the first real battle in an infringement case.

Many infringement claims fall apart here. Either there’s no registration, or there’s no plausible way the defendant heard the plaintiff’s song. The rest rely on step three.

3. Find a Forensic Musicologist

A musicologist will analyze the music and evaluate the significance of any similarities. You already know the two pieces sound similar to you. But your attorney is probably not a music expert, and a forensic musicologist will help you both understand what the notes say about the underlying composition and the veracity of a claim.

Both your lawyer and the courts care about specific musical elements that can be identified, isolated, and compared: melody, harmony, rhythm, structure, lyrics, if any. Courts also care about the “total concept and feel” and “ordinary observer” test. Both matter. Forensic musicology work deals primarily with the former. We call that the “extrinsic test.”

And here’s the part that trips everyone up. Similarity alone, even when noticeable, is not necessarily infringement. The standard is substantial similarity of protectable elements. Both parts of that phrase matter.

Not every part of your song is protected by copyright. Common chord progressions? Not protected. Standard song structures? Not protected. Genre conventions? Not protected. A blues turnaround, a four-chord pop progression, a typical verse-chorus form — these are all what courts call scènes à faire. It means “scenes to do,” as in: you’re not going to get very far writing songs without these commonly available tools. Say it with me: “not protected.” They’re basic building blocks. Nobody owns them.

What may be protected and even significant, however, is the original way you combined and expressed those elements — your particular melody, specific lyrical phrases, the way you shaped something that makes it yours.

Ears hear two songs that sound similar and assume infringement. But when I analyze them, I sometimes find completely different melodies over completely different chord progressions — the only similarity being that they’re both mid-tempo pop songs in 4/4 time with verse-chorus structure and similar production. Just two songs in the same genre.

One axiom of mine that confuses people at first: someone may deliberately copy your work and infringe nothing, if they copy only what nobody owns. It’s not copying that gets you into trouble. It’s copying what’s protectable. More on how that analysis actually works at Musicologize.

Another is: “Some notes are worth more than others.” In any familiar melody some notes are doing more work than others. Musicologists are doing math to some extent. More on that another time.

Semi-briefly.

Obviously enough, especially if you pay attention to, say, copyright blogs, because you’re a forensic musicologist, generative AI continues to blur the edges of authorship, originality, and the boundaries of copyright law. The headlines arrive daily from, again say, Law Professor Edward Lee’s superb chatgptiseatingtheworld substack that keeps track of every single case that’s out there. Through it all, though, the legal landscape, especially where music copyright is concerned, remains largely familiar. So, we can indeed cover it fairly briefly.

The same basics have guided music copyright disputes for decades. They will continue to do so, regardless of the tech: a clear understanding of substantial similarity, protectable expression, and how courts treat evidence. That said …

Training vs. Output: Phase one and phase two?

Across the current wave of lawsuits, the critical distinction remains the same:

Using copyrighted works to train a model is being treated as one question. Evaluating similarity in an AI-generated output is treated as another. And we’re very much stuck on the first for now.

Courts have not yet decided whether model training is infringing. My money is on “it’s not,” or at least “not very.” But I’m still persuadable otherwise, and with fifty different lawsuits out there, why would we expect them to be aligned or clear? I certainly expect it will be clear enough though that when an AI system produces an output, the analysis will default to the traditional copyright framework: protectable expression and substantial similarity.

Nothing about machine learning alters that. It can’t.

Patience is a virtue, or something.

We may have to take the long road. Maybe it’s best. When I see where things are going, I question the efficiency of starting from square one and insisting that square two be the next step. Recently, I wrote an analysis of the Ninth Circuit’s revival of Ambrosetti v. Oregon Catholic Press, a decade-old dispute, not because of the musicological merits, which I find lacking, but because of procedural wrangling. That piece is here: detailed analysis of Ambrosetti. In that article, I noted that, “the similarities are trivial, so access is irrelevant.” (One of the musicologists in the case expectedly argues otherwise, but they’re wrong.) And I went about complaining that copyright cases often drift into process over substance, just as Ambrosetti shows you can revive a lawsuit without reviving a viable claim. The access phase here gets a new look, thereby reviving the should-be-doomed-anyway extrinsic test part. Here, again, I’m open to being persuaded that this is how it needs to go and not a waste of time. Still, when the courts fixate, rightly or wrongly on threshold questions and allow weak similarity claims to advance, the entire ecosystem absorbs the cost.

In all these AI litigations, the first phase consumes all the energy so far:

The state of play, real quick:

1. Training is being evaluated through fair-use principles.

Is model training “transformative”? Does it create market substitution? Courts are testing these questions, but no final answers exist yet.

2. Output liability remains conventional.

If an AI-generated musical work resembles a copyrighted piece in a protectable way, the analysis is a substantial similarity test. No new doctrine has replaced it, nor can I imagine what might.

3. Very generally, courts, some at least, seem to be losing patience with speculative harm.

I’m showing my hand a little here, but the courts are increasingly expecting concrete, not hypothetical, examples of copying or market displacement.

For Artists and Rights-Holders: What’s so new about any of this?

• AI outputs can infringe if they copy protectable expression.
• Training may be an infringement, it’s undecided, and is the battleground for now. Has been for a while. Hey Polymarket, make a market, I’ll vote with my dollars.
• Creators are and would do well to integrate AI tools into their workflows. That’s a good place for this energy.

What This Means for the Coming Years

Eventually, we’ll have a lot of music that we know was trained on existing music. Is that new? No. I’m training on existing music nearly every time I sit at a piano in some sense. But an algorithm doesn’t sit at a piano. So it’s different. Or not. It could be a better mousetrap; good old competition.

For the AI Moment

The law is unchanged for now. These cases are young. And substantial similarity may yet be the only test that resolves anything.

For now we’re in the procedural, early, “isn’t this just plain wrong?” phase, but the real stuff lies ahead.

The pace of music creation has never been faster. AI tools now help composers generate ideas, producers shape soundscapes, and creators deliver music for commercials, streaming, and film on tight deadlines. But with this acceleration comes a parallel rise in copyright disputes. Increasingly, the question is not just who wrote what, but how do we know if one song infringes on another? This is where forensic audio and the expertise of a forensic musicologist matter more than ever.

What is Forensic Audio?

Forensic audio is the application of analytical methods to recorded sound for investigative or legal purposes. In the context of music copyright, it includes:

• Detailed waveform and spectrogram analysis.
• Time-stamped comparison of melodies, harmonies, and rhythms.
• Identification of sampling or interpolation.
• Technical assessments that separate coincidence from copying.

While the term often overlaps with forensic musicology, forensic audio leans toward the scientific examination of recordings themselves, rather than purely compositional analysis. Together, these disciplines give courts and clients a clearer picture when originality is in dispute.

Why AI Raises the Stakes

Artificial intelligence complicates copyright in two ways:

1. Volume of output. AI music generators enable creators to produce hundreds of tracks quickly, increasing the odds that something resembles prior art.
2. Opacity of process. When AI draws from training data, it is difficult to determine whether its outputs are “inspired by” or “reproducing” existing works.

This has already triggered high-profile lawsuits. Creators and companies need experts who can untangle whether a similarity is substantive, coincidental, or unprotectable. A music plagiarism expert witness with forensic audio skills bridges that gap.

The Role of the Forensic Musicologist

A forensic musicologist functions as both translator and analyst:

• Translating technical findings into language courts and clients understand.
• Providing opinions on song similarity—are the notes, rhythms, or structures substantially alike?
• Distinguishing between common musical building blocks and distinctive, protectable expression.

In litigation, the forensic musicologist may serve as an expert witness, offering testimony that helps judges and juries weigh evidence. In the preventative context, the same expertise applies to copyright clearance—evaluating whether a track is safe to release before risk becomes litigation.

Case Trends

Recent copyright cases illustrate why forensic audio is becoming essential:

• Ed Sheeran cases highlighted the tension between musical commonality and originality.
• Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven” reaffirmed that basic building blocks are not protected, but expert analysis was central to clarifying why.
• In the AI space, disputes are already brewing as generative systems create outputs that mimic established artists.

Each case underscores the importance of evidence grounded in both musical understanding and technical analysis.

Practical Value for Creators and Brands

For brands, agencies, and labels, forensic audio and song similarity analysis provide:

• Risk reduction: Avoiding costly disputes before launch.
• Due diligence: Demonstrating proactive steps if challenged.
• Strategic clarity: Knowing when to fight a claim versus settle.

This isn’t just about avoiding lawsuits—it’s about enabling creativity with confidence.

Where to Turn

Independent analysis from a forensic musicologist ensures that disputes are addressed with authority. For creators facing a challenge, or companies commissioning new works, engaging an expert in forensic audio and song similarity analysis offers both clarity and protection.

---

Further reading: For deeper analysis and examples of music copyright disputes, see Musicologize.com.

Why it matters now:

AI-assisted music creation is moving from experiment to everyday reality — and naturally, it’s raising real conversations about ownership, originality, and ethics. Questions about copyright, authorship, and fair use are playing out in courtrooms and creative communities alike.

These debates matter — but they don’t stop the forward motion. AI, like any other tool, depends on the human hand that wields it. It can be used brilliantly or lazily. Preset jockeys are nothing new; every wave of transformative technology — from synthesizers to DAWs — has separated those who innovate from those who merely press play. AI will be no different.

Creators who treat AI as raw material, not a shortcut, will keep authorship firmly in their hands. And those who stay thoughtful about how they use these new tools will not only protect their rights, but push their music to new places that were unimaginable a few years ago.

In this article, we’ll look practically at how AI is reshaping the creative process, what it means for ownership today, and how smart strategy — not fear — can help future-proof your work.

Let’s break it down and chart a smarter path forward.

The New Collaboration: You + AI

Today’s creators are working with co-writers, bandmates, engineers, and also collaborating with machine learning models. AI can:

• Suggest chord progressions and melodies
• Generate full backing tracks
• Create stems, beats, or soundscapes based on a vibe prompt
• Even assist with lyrics, toplines, and vocal effects

But there’s this catch:
Copyright law wasn’t designed for machines. It assumes a human author. And that’s where things get tricky: if part of your track was materially generated by an AI, your rights — and protections — could look different than if you made it all yourself.

What Happens to Ownership When AI Gets Involved?

Generally speaking (and always evolving), here’s the current landscape:

Scenario	Likely Ownership Situation
You use AI as a tool (e.g., chord suggester, beat builder, effects) but compose final work yourself	You own it, just like any other instrument or DAW plugin
You heavily rely on AI outputs (e.g., entire melody generated and used without changes)	Ownership may be challenged or legally uncertain
You incorporate AI-generated material trained on copyrighted works without permission	High risk for infringement claims

👉 Key takeaway:
The more creative control you exercise, the stronger your claim to ownership.

Practical Strategies for Creators Using AI

You don’t need to fear AI — you just need to be smart about how you use it. Here’s how:

1. Keep a “Human Touch” on Every Track

• Edit, transform, and creatively manipulate any AI-generated elements.
• Treat AI outputs like raw material, not finished products.
• Maintain a clear record of your human contributions (e.g., project notes, session files).

Why? Copyright is going to continue to favor human-driven creativity within this new AI-driven world.

2. Choose Your AI Tools Wisely

• Prefer platforms that explicitly guarantee you can own and commercially use the outputs.
• Be cautious with “black box” models that might be scraping copyrighted music without authorization.

Tip: Reputable tools usually have clear Terms of Service addressing rights.

3. Document Your Process

• Save versions of your sessions showing how you modified or built upon AI suggestions.
• Keep receipts or logs of the tools and services you used, in case ownership questions arise later.

It sounds tedious, but in a world where AI can become part of your “band,” you want to be able to show you’re still the lead artist.

4. Think Ahead About Licensing and Collabs

• If you’re creating for clients, agencies, or sync libraries, they may start asking about AI use.
• Be ready to explain (and contractually affirm) that your music is clear for commercial exploitation.

Looking Forward: Smart Creators Will Lead the AI Revolution

The future belongs to creators who can blend the best of human artistry with AI’s expanding capabilities — without getting tangled in ownership disputes.

By keeping creative control, choosing smart tools, and documenting your process, you’ll not only protect your rights — you’ll be better positioned to leverage AI as a true creative amplifier.

Final thought:
Treat AI like any new instrument or studio technology: master it, don’t outsource your soul to it.

If the music or the situation warrants extra care, consider this other SoundComet article about preventative musicology — essentially forensic screening for originality and mitigating the risk that your work might infringe on a prior work.

And if you want to go deeper into the evolving intersection of music, copyright, and AI, you’ll find expert insights and forensic analysis at Musicologize.com.

Better than a pound of cure afterward, forensic musicological analysis prior to campaign launch offers a strong value proposition for advertisers and creative agencies by addressing copyright liabilities and reducing the risk of infringement accusations. “Musicologizing” insures against catastrophic future events and when we consider the scale of the catastrophe, when the risks are understood, and the musicological step is streamlined and easy, the value proposition is plain.

The basics are widely understood. Forensic analysis can identify similarities between original advertising music and pre-existing works, helping agencies ensure the music doesn’t inadvertently infringe on existing copyrights. By catching the potential issues early, agencies avoid costly legal battles or the need to pull campaigns after launch. But when you look at it from different angles, it becomes essential and obvious. So, here is a breakdown and some different viewpoints:

1. Creative Integrity and Reputation Protection
   • Avoidance of Copycat Claims: A thorough analysis helps protect agencies and brands from accusations of copying, safeguarding their reputation.
   • Originality Assurance: Verifying the originality of the music reassures clients and creatives that their work stands apart in a crowded market.
2. Legal and Financial Savings
   • Litigation Avoidance: Identifying risks before launch saves time, legal fees, and potential settlements or damages.
   • Clear Documentation: A forensic report provides a defensible position if a dispute arises, demonstrating due diligence in avoiding copyright infringement.
3. Confidence in Campaign Execution
   • Client Assurance: Advertisers gain confidence knowing their campaign music has been vetted for potential legal risks, strengthening trust in the agency.
   • Seamless Production: Avoiding copyright pitfalls prevents delays or disruptions to the campaign timeline.
4. Strategic Insights for Creative Direction
   • Guidance for Modifications: A forensic musicologist can suggest changes to the music that maintain creative intent while mitigating risk.
   • Understanding Industry Norms: Their expertise ensures the music aligns with legal and creative standards in advertising.
5. Competitive Advantage
   • Agencies that proactively hire forensic musicologists demonstrate a commitment to quality, originality, and legal compliance, distinguishing themselves from competitors.

Preemptive or preventative analysis by your musicologist not only protects against legal risks but also strengthens client relationships by showing diligence, professionalism, and respect for intellectual property.

And if you’ve ever seen a filed lawsuit, you know the list of plaintiffs is usually very short, and the list of defendants is usually very long. You might as well sue everyone. Preventative musicology is an obviously win-win for advertisers and creative agencies, and it extends to countless other players in the published music arena, for example:

---

1. Film and Television Production Companies

• Why They Benefit:
  Film and TV projects often use original scores or licensed music. Preemptive analysis ensures that compositions or soundtracks don’t inadvertently infringe on existing works, avoiding costly post-release legal battles or reshoots.
• Use Case:
  Reviewing a film score or theme song for potential copyright risks before production or release.

---

2. Video Game Developers and Publishers

• Why They Benefit:
  Original music is a key part of the gaming experience, and soundtracks often become integral to branding. Ensuring these compositions are free of copyright conflicts protects the game and its creators from lawsuits.
• Use Case:
  Pre-launch evaluation of game soundtracks or sound design for originality and legal compliance.

---

3. Music Licensing and Publishing Companies

• Why They Benefit:
  These companies frequently deal with sync licensing for commercials, films, and shows. A forensic musicologist can verify whether new compositions are sufficiently distinct to avoid conflicts, protecting their catalog and client relationships.
• Use Case:
  Analyzing newly signed works before adding them to a catalog to mitigate liabilities.

---

4. Brands and Corporations

• Why They Benefit:
  Brands using original music for product launches, events, or internal marketing want to avoid legal risks that could tarnish their reputation.
• Use Case:
  Evaluating custom brand jingles, event soundtracks, or promotional content for originality.

---

5. Music Producers and Recording Artists

• Why They Benefit:
  Artists creating tracks for sync or independent projects need assurance that their work doesn’t unintentionally copy existing music, especially in highly competitive or derivative genres.
• Use Case:
  Checking whether a new track inadvertently shares too much similarity with a popular song before release.

---

6. Digital Content Creators and Influencers

• Why They Benefit:
  Content creators producing videos, podcasts, or livestreams often rely on original or commissioned music. Ensuring that this music is unique protects their content and brand from copyright strikes or takedowns.
• Use Case:
  Pre-upload checks for podcast theme music or YouTube video soundtracks to avoid platform penalties.

---

7. Legal and Intellectual Property Law Firms

• Why They Benefit:
  Law firms advising clients on intellectual property matters can use forensic musicologists to strengthen cases, whether to preemptively avoid risk or provide expert analysis in disputes.
• Use Case:
  Engaging a forensic musicologist to audit works before licensing negotiations or to prevent lawsuits.

---

8. Event Planners and Live Entertainment Producers

• Why They Benefit:
  Events often feature custom music for ceremonies, live performances, or branded experiences. Verifying the originality of compositions used in such events protects against public backlash or legal issues.
• Use Case:
  Reviewing theme music or soundscapes for large-scale public events or corporate showcases.

---

9. Streaming Platforms and Distribution Services

• Why They Benefit:
  Platforms that host original music, videos, or podcasts may face liability for content created by their users or partners. Preemptive checks on commissioned works ensure compliance and reduce risk.
• Use Case:
  Vetting content before distribution to avoid takedown notices or DMCA complaints.

---

10. Educational Institutions and E-Learning Providers

• Why They Benefit:
  Schools, universities, and e-learning platforms producing their own multimedia content want to avoid legal issues related to unintentional music copyright infringement.
• Use Case:
  Reviewing original compositions or scores for educational videos or online courses.

---

11. Advertising and Marketing Technology Companies

• Why They Benefit:
  Companies providing tools for generating or distributing music-based ads benefit from ensuring their AI or user-generated content tools don’t result in infringing works.
• Use Case:
  Pre-launch checks of AI-generated or algorithmically composed music.

---

12. Nonprofits and Advocacy Organizations

• Why They Benefit:
  Nonprofits creating campaign videos, PSAs, or event music often work with limited budgets, making it critical to avoid potential legal fees from copyright disputes.
• Use Case:
  Reviewing music commissioned for high-visibility campaigns.

These stakeholders, across various industries, have a vested interest in avoiding copyright infringement and ensuring the originality of their musical content. By engaging forensic musicologists, they can protect their investments, reputations, and creative endeavors.

Not only should it be painless, it should seem obvious forever afterward.

One example, Musicologize, provides this sort of preventative analysis; turnaround time is rarely greater than 48 hours in parallel with finalizing your campaign. When you engage a skilled musicologist, expect them to work directly with your composer and audio team. Don’t imagine throwing sheet music back and forth over a fence, and angry or defensive creatives. The advice, where necessary, should create a straight path to a better standing, as musically specific and tactical as necessary. They should be as concerned about your timelines as they are with your potential liability. In the rearview, the engagement should look like a no-brainer and become a part of your process. If it’s not a friendly and smooth process, find a better musicologist.

Musicology, musicologists, ethnomusicologists, and forensic musicologists are slightly different things, and they are often confused. So we will clear this up.

Musicology is the study of music in all its forms, from classical to contemporary. It encompasses the history, theory, and cultural significance of music, as well as its place in society.

One of the key aspects of musicology is the study of the historical development of music. This includes tracing the evolution of different musical styles and genres, as well as the cultural and social context in which they emerged. For example, the rise of opera in the Baroque period can be understood in the context of the artistic and intellectual movements of the time, as well as the political and economic realities of the era.

Another important aspect of musicology is the study of musical theory and composition. This includes understanding the technical elements of music, such as harmony, melody, and rhythm, as well as the way in which these elements are used to create meaning and expression in music. This can include analyzing the structure and form of a piece of music, as well as the use of specific compositional techniques.

In addition to these more traditional areas of study, musicology also encompasses the study of the cultural and social significance of music. This can include exploring the role of music in different cultures and societies, as well as its relationship to other forms of art and expression. For example, the use of music in religious rituals and ceremonies can reveal important insights into the beliefs and values of a particular culture.

Finally, it is also important to understand the impact of technology and industry on music. The way music is produced, distributed, and consumed has changed dramatically in recent years, and musicologists must be able to navigate these new developments in order to understand the current state of the music industry fully.

Overall, musicology is a rich and diverse field that offers a variety of opportunities for study and research. Whether you are interested in the historical development of music, the technical aspects of composition, or the cultural and social significance of music, there is a place for you in the field of musicology.

Musicology is a scholarly field. Some of the most highly regarded programs are at University of Oregon, UCLA, University of Rochester, Northwestern, Penn, Cornell, Boston University, Brown

What can you do if you’re concerned your song sounds too much like an existing song?

If you’re creating original music, it’s obviously important to ensure that you’re not infringing on the copyright of another song. And there are innumerable circumstances when you might want some assurance.

For the songwriter, there are some basic steps you can take to try to ensure your song is original:

1. You can conduct your own search: Use online search engines to search for the title and lyrics of your song. This will help you identify any existing songs that have similar titles or lyrics.
2. Try music recognition software: Use music recognition software such as Shazam to identify any existing songs that sound similar to yours.
3. Check the copyright office: Search the copyright office’s database to see if there are any existing songs that have similar titles or lyrics.
4. Get a musicologist’s opinion: Musicologists are asked to offer “clearance” opinions all the time. A site like Musicologize.com offers “preventative musicology” which is just that sort of service. A musicologist will analyze your work, along with the work you’re concerned about, and provide a professional opinion about the originality of your work and whether it includes “protectable expression” from other works, including specifically the one you’re concerned about.

Remember, creating original music is important, not just for legal reasons, but also for artistic integrity.

There are several ways to find a musicologist:

1. Online directories: Websites such as LinkedIn, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate have directories of musicologists and their contact information.
2. Professional organizations: Join or search the website of a professional organization such as the American Musicological Society (AMS) or the Society for Music Theory (SMT) to find musicologists.
3. University departments: Many universities have musicology departments that you can contact to find musicologists.
4. Networking: Attend conferences, workshops, and concerts to meet musicologists and build your network.
5. Recommendations: Ask colleagues, friends, or family members for recommendations of musicologists they may know.

It’s important to distinguish the different sorts of musicologists that are out there. Usually when someone is looking for a musicologist, they mean either an ethnomusicologist or a forensic musicologist. Here’s the difference:

Musicology in general is a scholarly pursuit that looks at music as an academic discipline, including its history, theory, composition, and performance. Musicologists may focus on a particular musical style, genre, or historical period, and may use a variety of methodologies to analyze musical works and the cultural, social, and historical context in which they were created. Most musicologists are ethnomusicologists who study music in a cultural context — the music of different societies, ethnic groups, and communities, as well as the relationship between music and cultural practices, beliefs, and values, analyzing musical traditions and the cultural role and impact of music.

A forensic musicologist is a musicologist who concentrates on matters of copyright infringement. Forensic musicology, according to Musicologize.com, is the application of musical expertise most often involving the analysis of melody, harmony, rhythm, form, and orchestration, to illuminate the relevant truths in matters of civil law. (Musicologize is a forensic musicology services provider in the San Francisco Bay Area.) Forensic musicologists are the sort of music experts who assist in cases of plagiarism like Taylor Swift’s Shake It Off or Ed Sheeran’s Thinking Out Loud. In both of those cases, Swift and Sheeran were sued for copyright infringement. The Sheeran case is ongoing. Forensic musicologists help clients determine if copying has taken place and if that copying is substantial enough to amount to an infringement.

Forensic musicologists’ impartiality depends upon the role and the circumstances. For example, preemptive musicological analysis is intended to prevent infringement, or even the perception of plagiarism. And in this case, the musicologist can identify and help mitigate risk. The forensic musicologist is serving the best interests of the client.

Advertisers hire forensic musicologists to ensure that the music that goes into an advertising production will not be an infringement on the copyright of another existing work. Musicologists use specialized software and techniques to analyze the composition and the audio and determine if it is an original composition or if it contains any elements that are substantially similar to those found in other works. This helps advertisers avoid any potential legal issues and ensures that they are using music in a legally compliant manner. Forensic musicologists can also recommend compositional changes that would mitigate the similarity and the likelihood of even mistaken claims of substantial similarity and copying. To the extent that the forensic musicologist is actively trying to help reduce the client’s risk, the musicologist is acting in the best interests of the client. So yes, the interests of the client are paramount in preemptive musicology.

This differs somewhat from litigation consulting. When asked to comment on the originality and susceptibility to a claim where the client is a potential plaintiff or litigant, forensic musicologists aim to be neutral and impartial when conducting their analysis. Their role is to provide objective and evidence-based conclusions about the use of music in a particular case, without any bias or personal opinions influencing their findings. They use specialized software and techniques to examine audio content and compare it to known copyrighted works to determine if any rights have been violated. The goal is to provide accurate and unbiased information that can be used by clients to make informed decisions amidst any legal issues.

Forensic musicologists often provide services to prevent infringement, especially helpful in advertising and broadcast music (music for television or streaming). Musicologists analyze audio content to identify any copyrighted music or elements that may be present. They use specialized software and techniques to examine the audio and compare it to known copyrighted works to determine if any rights have been violated. If any infringement is found, they might assist in securing the necessary licenses or more often, removing the infringing content, sometimes just by making compositional suggestions. Musicologize’s Brian McBrearty says, “I absolutely change the notes! It happens all the time to be honest. Sometimes certain notes are asking for trouble, so we change them. I work directly with the composer and help rewrite the music. I’ve been asked, “Isn’t that like helping your client to infringe?” But that doesn’t make any sense. Why would my client want to infringe? The question itself indicates a misunderstanding both morally and legally. If the notes are perceptively similar to something else, and you write different ones instead, that’s helping the client to NOT infringe! There’s no other reasonable way to look at it.”