Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Court Rules That Samples Must Be Paid For

Recommended Posts

With artists dicing up smaller and shorter samples these days-- lathered in treatments no less-- I dont understand how this can be enforced.

Edited by coltrane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, is this really that different from current practices? Hip-hop albums are always delayed because of legal issues, people always talk about having problems "clearing samples" and whatnot. I was under the impression that most artists/producers who are on the up and up are already obtaining the proper licenses. Although I'd imagine part of the fun of picking through old record collections for samples is seeing how much you can get away with...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It falls under the "performance" copyright. So, I wonder if they simply recorded the same thing themselves (as long as it wasn't the hook) then it would be their performance, therefore no right infringed upon. Or course, this defeats the art of sampling. I say,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plus, is this really that different from current practices?

A little. Samples usually only need to be cleared if a recognisable hook, riff or beat is lifted from one song to another. The court in question has ruled that any, any bit of sound which comes from another recording needs to be paid for, no matter how unrecognisable, short or treated it may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plus, is this really that different from current practices?

A little. Samples usually only need to be cleared if a recognisable hook, riff or beat is lifted from one song to another. The court in question has ruled that any, any bit of sound which comes from another recording needs to be paid for, no matter how unrecognisable, short or treated it may be.

Artists and performers do have "performance copyright" for their protection the difficulty is attempting to prove their performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The court in question has ruled that any, any bit of sound which comes from another recording needs to be paid for, no matter how unrecognisable, short or treated it may be.

Unthinkable! Can you imagine? These hip hop and one man laptop samplers might actually have to start --egad!-- playing their own instruments!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now how is this different than print art and painting? Many people use magazine pictures, newspaper print and such in their artwork but this isn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These hip hop and one man laptop samplers might actually have to start --egad!-- playing their own instruments!

Are you trying to say that a laptop, sampling software and sequencers aren't the instruments which these musicians have spent a long time mastering and coaxing to their limits? biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait for someone to pull out the "Vanilla Ice" defense during a lawsuit trial.

(In case you have no idea what I'm talking about - When Vanilla Ice released Ice Ice Baby, it contained a noticable sample from Queen's Under Pressure. After the song caught on in the States, Queen sued Vanilla Ice for the illegal use of the bass line. When MTV pressured Vanilla Ice about it, he said "Well, their bass line goes 'duh duh duh duh de-duh duh duh ", my song goes "duh duh duh duh de-duh duh duh tink". See? There's an extra beat in there." Needless to say, he lost.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you trying to say that a laptop, sampling software and sequencers aren't the instruments which these musicians have spent a long time mastering and coaxing to their limits? biggrin.gif

I guess I am. The argument has been around as long as sampling. The skill, artistry and discipline neccesary to actually play like say, Rashied Ali or Elvin Jones, is a quantum leap beyond what is required to cut and paste beats from old jazz records in Cool Edit. At the same time, I do believe the good samplers are artists and that laptop music in general is a viable art form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A DJ friend of mine told me years ago that James Brown had made most of his money from suing artists that sampled him, as he's probably the most sampled artist about (or at least was then). He had a team working for him at one stage listening to all hip hop releases listening for samples from his records.

My friend's take was that if artists wanted to sue his band for every penny they could as it would still be virtually nothing. Can't see that th new legislation will change that much to be honest. Smaller bands aren't worth suing, larger bands will be able to afford to pay for them in advance.

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×