(copyright threads are always very popular and still OT)

Some while ago a Norwegian TV advert had music that was made to sound like the title music from a popular and almoste eternally running German crime series. Because of the similarity it fooled me for about a second. After that it annoyed me it was posing as something it were not. People may have different annoyment tresholds (mine is rather low) but still, if your composer is below the John Williams level, you may just end up annoying people when you try to copy without copying.
Tor

>>>The Jaws theme use in Airplane was actually the turning point for that theme's use in 3rd party projects. After that, it was all "no.<<<

It has been used since 1980 - I already cited Sixteen Candles. It was also used in the 2000 Olympic closing ceremony. While one can obtain a public performance license for the music the fact that that same performance is broadcast on television crosses over the line into sync license territory. And I have seen many a "Boston Pops" performance on TV where they play the theme from Jaws, of course many of those also had John Williams conducting as well. One of those special cases that would allow for it's use I am sure.

Just finished a session with a musician client, as a performer / composer he kind of thought this was all pretty wierd. Just about everything he writes / performs references someone elses work, many of his works (mostly satirical) reference multiple works of others and as he said he sure isn't alone doing that and as has been pointed out before this sure isn't something unique to the digital age, it's been going on before recording was invented.
As a funny aside he mentioned an associate playing a piano bar gig who was so digusted at the way some obese patron was eating he played 'those few notes' on the piano, sadly I'm told the joke was lost on said dinner.
Now this guy is pretty particular about paying his dues to those whose works he references, they all get due credit either in the intros or on the liner notes but this is still his work.
What I see as being a cause for some concern is that I was under the impression that the original intent of the idea of copyright was to protect the rights of the creators so that they could derive financial reward for their work, the hope was to encourage the arts. Now as art is an evolutionary process one could well argue that we've now reached the situation where copyright is being used to prevent that process and this doesn't just apply to music, is a scene with a woman having a shower with any unsettling music a no no?
Where is the line in the sand, so to speak.
The first piece of advice I give to anyone that'll listen is "don't steal the work of others" and "the best way to learn is to study the works of the greats". Suddenly I'm thinking that's not such good advice!
Perhaps next time someone asks me what's the best camera to make a movie with, instead of saying, don't worry about the camera, worry about the script I should say, first find a good legal team.
No wonder the legals are taking up more and more of the credits on movies.
Bob.

farss,

Much of current legal hysteria is just that, hysteria. There have been a few, high profile cases involving copyright infringement, but the fact is, that unless you're reaping enormous financial gain or publicity from stealing from other's work, no one is going to bother to sue you. The legal precedents are too vague, and the artistic practice of quoting, satirizing and being influenced by others is too well established to risk the legal costs, unless there are substantial gains to be made. You can't get blood from a stone, and John Williams won't have an incentive to sue you or your client unless you're making millions.

From what you've described, you're clearly in the "artistic license" camp, not the "ripping off someone else's work to make a huge profit" camp. Stick to your guns. Your advice about "don't steal" but "learn from the greats" seems to me to be exactly the right balance.