Sample Clearance Question (RR)
mrmatthew
1,575 Posts
I've seen quite a few threads on here about Sample Clearance, or lack thereof, on certain albums. So my question is, say for example, on the new Quasimoto, just because the sample clearance info is not printed on the liner notes, do we assume that the samples were NOT cleared? I noticed the co-writting credit to Melvin Van Peebles on quite a few songs that his stuff was used on, but what about the other stuff on the record (Fischer, Buckley, etc)? Any industry "insiders' around here that might satisfy my curiosity? If you get it cleared, do you HAVE to print it somewhere on the work? Or is it up to the samplER what to acknowledge? Or is it different with every work? Is there an "industy standard" for this?
Comments
Mentioning something like this only asks for trouble. Not sure if that was your intention.
It is safe to say that the Quasimoto album isn't going to sell on the same level as 50 Cent. But it is getting a lot of attention, more than the first Quasimoto album ever did. That may open up a few wounds.
The new Lyrics Born albums has a few samples I recognize, but those aren't acknowleged in the liner notes. Hell, let's go directly to Mary J. Blige's recent albums. Quite a bit of samples on that one, but they weren't listed, OR the wrong sample was listed. Kanye West regularly doesn't mention his samples, partly one reason why he stopped releasing instrumentals of his work.
It's been like this for 15 years ago. Generally if it's not listed in the liner notes, then there's a reason for it.
I think these days, if a song is sampled and is paid for, the publisher and/or artist would like some kind of acknowledgement somewhere. It isn't mandatory, but is done as a courtesy.
this isn't necessrily the case.
labels are required to put music publishing on cd's and records. obvious white labels and test presses are not exempt but under the radar enough to not get fucked with.
if in the sample clearance process the original publisher of the music who owns the publishing requires to be included as one of the new compositions writer's than that is a bargaining chip and many folks ask for a large percentage of publishing, why not right?. for example on joe budden's pump it up cut from a couple years ago. the publishing credits have the original kool and the gang members as publishers along with budden and probably whoever produced the track.
now i am willing to wager that the members of kool and the gang who wrote "soul vibrations" probably own somewhere around 50% of the publishing of "pump it up".
If you sample the Bee Gees, Barry Gibb states that he gets 100%.
Barry White's rates were higher than most in the early 90's, I am sure the rate went higher as time went along up until his death.
I do wonder if you sample a Bee Gees cover, would you still have to give up full publishing? I have a cover of "Jive Talking" from one of those cheapy Hustle '76[/b] albums, where all of the songs are "as performed by". It's really good for what it is and, I don't know.
2 Jobete songs on the first Beatles lp. They went to Gordy and asked if he would take 50% his publishing. Gordy said ok. Still gets 50%. He's not upset, he says 50% of something is more than 100% of nothing.
I was chatting with Steve Ferrone recently (drummer for AWB,Brian Auger,Chaka too many to list) about the sampling question, as his breaks have been used in a lot of tracks and what i find is a bit rough is that as a drummer he does not receive any royalties from any tracks he played on.Just the songwriter/composer recieves royalties if cleared. This seems a little unfair if the only thing sampled from the track is a 4 second drum break.
As fucked as it sounds that's HIS problem, why was he never credited as cowriter by his band? Doesn't matter if they credit the weed guy, whoever "wrote" the song gets credit.
As for being listed on the album liner/12" or what have you, it's the sampled artist's request and has nothing to do with whether or not the rapper/producer wants to keep it on the low.
Pretty much everyone clears their samples, except the smallest of indie artists.
Sheyiiit, you can't blame the guy for not having the foresight to predict that his drums would be sampled a couple decades later. Also, you can't blame the guy for trusting his band mates and allowing them to take full credit of the writing. Whoever is making that dough should be splitting it with him. They're the ones at fault if they ain't doing that shit.
Can't blame dude for not being a psychic.
Hindsight is 20/20.
-e
Not blaming the guy for not thinking about sampling. But why would you let your buddies in the band claim all the credit? AWB is not a drum-neutral band... that's royalty money too, fuck the sampling. With all the radio play "Person To Person" and "Pick Up The Pieces" got he's missing out on some hefty checks.
Every band I've ever been in split the credit between everyone on any given cut.
Your bands are the rareity.
US copyright law only recogineses melody & lyrics. I assume UK is the same.
Artists make no $ from radio play, only writers and publishers.
There should be no copyright issues in sampling drums, as they are not the part that is copyrighted. (That's opinion not legal advice.)
I too would like to know what are the rules regarding listing of samples.
The copyright issue comes into play because the sampling artist using either the master tape or a copy (vinyl or cd) which is the exclusive property of the owner of the master (which is usually the original label).
There are standard and negtiable rates for royalties for intellectual properties (melody and lyrics - owned by the writers/publishers), and no publisher can flat out deny that someone use this property (be it a cover version or sample) as long as they agree to pay the statutory rate (something like $.09 per song per unit sold)
The rates for licensing the use of a master recording are completely negotiated by the master owner and the sampling record label. Since there is no statutory rate for master licenses, an owner can flat out refuse the license, like The Who did, until recently when they decided to get some of that car company dough.
As far as what's printed on the lable or liner notes, I believe an artist can work out a deal with the publishers or master owners for the right NOT to list them.
That's the answer I was looking for.
A while back I was talking to an artists who sampled some strings. They talked to the pop singer whos record the strings were on, she said cool. Then they talked to the songwriter (actual sat down to lunch with her I think) she said No Way! She hates hip hop and sampling and does not allow her songs to be sampled.
All three share a label. Bobbie Gentry is the song writer. Yes I know the song (drums) has been sampled lots of times.
Yep, only the proprieter of the master can deny the sample. At least that's the way it is in the US.
All three were on Capitol. It's a mystery to me why they couldn't work it out. The artists decided to recreate the sample and hired a string section. Bobbie Gentry was still able to block them because her melody was recognisable.
I think Capitol might go over the top in what they clear, and what control they give original artists.