I can't think of an album in past 10 years that has not used samples to make it a great album. Its a long list to find one that hasn't, maybe Master P but yeouch
Very true, and those albums with the least amount of samples will limit it to two or three songs. The only one that comes to mind right now is Lil' Jon.
You can also tell from listening to the albums and looking at the liner notes to see and hear which samples they think are important and which aren't. Drum breaks seem to get a pass, while something that reveals more melody doesn't.
It is confusing, because the guidelines are changed, revised, updated, removed on a regular basis.
Artists and labels don't only want the sampling fee, they also want a cut of publishing, because "the life of the song" will generate further income in the future than just that flat, one-time fee.
I do not know if length of the sample (i.e. how much of the song you sample) is involved.
Yeah, upfront sampling fees are small in comparison to today's sampling fees taken from the back end. I've heard some people getting as much as $0.25/second -- and keep in mind, that's on a per unit basis. So if it's a one-bar, let's say two second sample, you would be paying $0.50/per unit sold to whomever owned the rights/publishing of the sample. In some cases, it's just astronomical.
well, i think the laws that were cited were created in the 1800s or some shit though.
Here are the former and present copyright terms:
1790: 14 years + 14 years of renewal 1831: 28 + 14 1909: 28 + 28 1976: author's life + 50, 75 for works made for hire 1998 CTEA: author's life + 70, 95 for works made for hire
In addition to the now seemingly endless copyright terms, the recent George Clinton/NWA case (Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films, et al.383 F. 3d 390 (6th Cir. 2004) suggests that older recordings that sampled without clearance are still not in the clear.
The Constitution Of The United States:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited[/b] Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Clearly congress has perverted this clause to promote the wealth of the heirs of copyright and patent owners at the expense of progress.
If Congress was concerned with the promotion of "progress of Science and useful Arts" they would reduce the length of copyrights.
Or with the new majority on the Supreme Court leaning closer to a literal reading of the constitution, the word LIMITED should be reexamined. If not, you can freely sample music made today some time in the 22nd century!
Such is subject shouldn't be discuss publicly. With that said, you will never find universal rules since most countries have different ways to protect author and composers. The subject is tacky just because in some countries , people are using samples without clearing anything. United States is ahead of times because they always had problems due to heavy sampling (since Biz actually if im not wrong). But the rest of the world is raping catalogues freely. And it's been going on for years. Every body knows the deal but everybody shut up. As far as technically speaking...Take care with all the "jurisprudence" that can be pronounced in any particular case. For example, just the "funky drummer" heavy guitar lick will cost you if you get sued. I've heard that "georges" (let's call him georges for that matter) can even sue you if you use "impeach the president" without his permission since he bought the copyrights to it (i still don't know if this story is true, but i heard that when Nas used it for letter to Elise song, he had to payback). In some countries, you'll get away with sampling a bassline. In USA, the same sampled bassline will get you sued. Generally, judges will not accept a trial for drums (coz there's no partition) but the Impeach example proved me wrong.
I got a story about that, since it's now out.
Chronic 2001. Eminem and Dre. "What's the difference" track. Since i'm french and fan of Charles, i knew the song they used. Later on, Blu Cantrell and Sean Paul. 3 years after the release of Chronic 2001, the sample is still yet to be declared. Only samples spotters knows the deal so everything is safe basically. Then there comes Mr Charles nephew...Too young in 2001, he wasn't too young in 2004. He went back to Uncle Charles and tells him about this song. He heard it and wondered who was this "doctor drew". A couple of phone calls. Lawyers. Settlements. I still don't know how much he got. But i will know it one of these days...lol.
I've heard that "georges" (let's call him georges for that matter) can even sue you if you use "impeach the president" without his permission since he bought the copyrights to it (i still don't know if this story is true, but i heard that when Nas used it for letter to Elise song, he had to payback). In some countries, you'll get away with sampling a bassline. In USA, the same sampled bassline will get you sued. Generally, judges will not accept a trial for drums (coz there's no partition) but the Impeach example proved me wrong.
From what i know aaron fuchs is a prick. i did not take the time to read all 5 pages of this thread.... If one was to play the exact same pattern as impeach ( on a new drum kit tuned and mic'd identically) i doubt aaron could do shit. Music would come to a stand still if this were the case. a record i produced was actually sampled, the group had a clearing house contact me...i got paid for usage of the master and the pub...and i asked many questions regarding sampling laws....and i will continue to chop and NEVER pay for sampling drums...NEVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Clearly congress has perverted this clause to promote the wealth of the heirs of copyright and patent owners at the expense of progress.
If Congress was concerned with the promotion of "progress of Science and useful Arts" they would reduce the length of copyrights.
Honestly, mostly you can blame Mickey Mouse for this. Disney doesn't want Mickey Mouse to fall into the public domain so "magically" the length of copyright keeps extending. It's amazing what expensive high-powered lobbyists can do for you. Mickey Mouse made his debut in "Steamboat Willie" in 1928; before the 1998 copyright extension the copyright for something created with corporate authorship was 75 years, so Mickey would've entered public domain in 2003. Thanks to the 1998 copyright extension act Mickey is safe until 2023.
Such is subject shouldn't be discuss publicly. With that said, you will never find universal rules since most countries have different ways to protect author and composers. The subject is tacky just because in some countries , people are using samples without clearing anything. United States is ahead of times because they always had problems due to heavy sampling (since Biz actually if im not wrong). But the rest of the world is raping catalogues freely. And it's been going on for years. Every body knows the deal but everybody shut up. As far as technically speaking...Take care with all the "jurisprudence" that can be pronounced in any particular case. For example, just the "funky drummer" heavy guitar lick will cost you if you get sued. I've heard that "georges" (let's call him georges for that matter) can even sue you if you use "impeach the president" without his permission since he bought the copyrights to it (i still don't know if this story is true, but i heard that when Nas used it for letter to Elise song, he had to payback). In some countries, you'll get away with sampling a bassline. In USA, the same sampled bassline will get you sued. Generally, judges will not accept a trial for drums (coz there's no partition) but the Impeach example proved me wrong.
I got a story about that, since it's now out.
Chronic 2001. Eminem and Dre. "What's the difference" track. Since i'm french and fan of Charles, i knew the song they used. Later on, Blu Cantrell and Sean Paul. 3 years after the release of Chronic 2001, the sample is still yet to be declared. Only samples spotters knows the deal so everything is safe basically. Then there comes Mr Charles nephew...Too young in 2001, he wasn't too young in 2004. He went back to Uncle Charles and tells him about this song. He heard it and wondered who was this "doctor drew". A couple of phone calls. Lawyers. Settlements. I still don't know how much he got. But i will know it one of these days...lol.
Biz Markie, and let's not forget the one before that, the De La Soul/Turtles ordeal, and the story is a bit similar too. Mark Volman & Howard Kaylan were members of The Turtles, and when they left, they joined the Mothers (as in Zappa) and soon would become known as Flo & Eddie. I think it was Howard Kaylan (the one with the beard) who was made aware of it through his daughter, who happened to have a copy of 3 Feet High And Rising. She played the album for dad and then came "Transmitting Live From Mars". I don't remember if the daughter knew that it was her dad's song, or that she thought it was cool sounding. Either way, daddy recognized the song immediately, looked at the liner notes and noticed that neither he or the band were credited. Detecting the sample, even at that slow speed, was easy for him, since the song was a hit, and it came out as a 45. There was that silly game of yesteryear called "play your 45's on 33", so he may have knew about it like that. Then again, A Turtles B-side called "Umbassa And The Red Dragon" was nothing more than the instrumental of another Turtles song slowed down, so he was more than aware of the production technique. Kaylan made some calls, eventually contacted his manager and lawyer, and that became one of the first sampling cases. It was the end of the "anything goes" asthetic on a major level, but fortunately that did not stop anyone from pushing the limits in their productions.
If you clear a sample are you legally required to list that sample in your liner notes? After all, if you've already shelled out the dough, who cares if you list written credit or not?
That depends on the record label, the publisher, and sometimes the artist. You are not legally required to list it, but it does suggest that it was paid for, and labels want proper credit for everything, from the publisher, to the songwriting affiliation, etc.
You're not talking about dealing with the government here in regards to laws about citing samples. It's not a criminal offense - whoever owns the copyright can throw in whatever caveats they well please. Part of the deal for the use of the sample could be that you have a giant ballsac on your cover. It's whatever the two parties work out. It's just like if I go to Enterprise and rent a car, and I'm like, "Hey, Enterprise, this is a nice car here. I'd love to blow this fucker up when I'm done instead of returning it. What kind of compensation do you need?" If we could agree on it and write up the contract, then I could just as easily blow up the car instead of driving it and returning it. Same type of situation - they own the rights, they make the rules.
I can't think of an album in past 10 years that has not used samples to make it a great album. Its a long list to find one that hasn't, maybe Master P but yeouch
Very true, and those albums with the least amount of samples will limit it to two or three songs. The only one that comes to mind right now is Lil' Jon.
You can also tell from listening to the albums and looking at the liner notes to see and hear which samples they think are important and which aren't. Drum breaks seem to get a pass, while something that reveals more melody doesn't.
It is confusing, because the guidelines are changed, revised, updated, removed on a regular basis.
In regards to samples, I believe that's why Outkast has gotten so hip to studio musicians these days.
I can't think of an album in past 10 years that has not used samples to make it a great album. Its a long list to find one that hasn't, maybe Master P but yeouch
Very true, and those albums with the least amount of samples will limit it to two or three songs. The only one that comes to mind right now is Lil' Jon.
You can also tell from listening to the albums and looking at the liner notes to see and hear which samples they think are important and which aren't. Drum breaks seem to get a pass, while something that reveals more melody doesn't.
It is confusing, because the guidelines are changed, revised, updated, removed on a regular basis.
In regards to samples, I believe that's why Outkast has gotten so hip to studio musicians these days.
Outkast has been doing that since ATliens if not before that.
I can't think of an album in past 10 years that has not used samples to make it a great album. Its a long list to find one that hasn't, maybe Master P but yeouch
Very true, and those albums with the least amount of samples will limit it to two or three songs. The only one that comes to mind right now is Lil' Jon.
You can also tell from listening to the albums and looking at the liner notes to see and hear which samples they think are important and which aren't. Drum breaks seem to get a pass, while something that reveals more melody doesn't.
It is confusing, because the guidelines are changed, revised, updated, removed on a regular basis.
In regards to samples, I believe that's why Outkast has gotten so hip to studio musicians these days.
Outkast has been doing that since ATliens if not before that.
These are parts of a huge article on the web about copyright laws and so on. The whole 12 part article with such topics like "What Is Sampling?", "A Brief History of Recording", "A Brief History of Copyright", "Ethics of Sampling", "Licensing" and more can be found under:
Any sample is a copy so permission must be sought in order to use it- some people might say that 'if you can recognise a separate work within another then an infringement has been committed' or 'its not quantity but quality'. Ben Liebrand said 'If a drum loop is used in a record and is covered with other instruments it is quite easy to get away with it' he added 'Samples should be short, they should be sound effects or non-melodic' (MT, (March, 1992)). The fact that any sample must be paid for is thought to be so crucial that at Polygram there is a whole department whose job is to listen to records to check for unlicensed James Brown samples. James Brown who was himself sceptical about sampling and has become one of the most sampled artists, has now started sampling artists who have sampled his work previously and altered it in some strange way that amazes him. Because of the economic realities of going to court the case law in this area is quite sparse. The expense also means that copyright infringement does not usually become an issue until someone has made serious money from someone else's creation.
If you follow the rules things can be good for people using samplers e.g. P.M. Dawn obtained permission from Spandau Ballet to use samples from 'True', which helped them make their song 'Set Adrift On A Memory Bliss Of You'. Spandau Ballet even helped promote it. The music for the P.M. Dawn song was very similar to the original and instantly recognisable, as the main samples were a couple of bars repeated and arranged into a new sequence, so if a licence had not been obtained an infringement would certainly have been committed. The details of the licence meant that P.M. Dawn had to split the royalties/ earnings with Spandau Ballet 50%/50% . In the process the original 'True' was re-released and was a hit a second time around. Everybody was happy but things aren't always this simple or easy.
For example De La Soul's first single 'Plug Tuning' sampled Liberac?? which did not cause much of a problem, probably as it made very little money, but when they sampled Hall and Oates on 'Say No Go' and the song became a hit they encountered a law suit, and worse, at the end of 1989 the Turtles sued for $1.1 million for the use of an unlicensed sample from their 1969 single 'You Showed Me.'. However the case was settled out of court for a figure 'rumoured to be in the low five figures'. More recently (1988), rapper Biz Markie and his record label Warner Bros. Inc./ Cold Chillin' were cited for violation of US copyright laws and he was condemned for his use of an eight bar sample from Gilbert O'Sullivans 1972 song 'Alone Again (Naturally)' as well as the titled refrain, (published by Grand Royal Music).
The sample used is quite long in terms of samples and is what constitutes a 'Substantial' portion of the original piece. Biz Markie's song amounts to a rearrangement and parody of the original and as such one must expect to pay for the use of the composition and the sound recording sampled. The band claim that there was a mix up over sample clearance and that they would not have released the single or put it on the LP 'I Need A Haircut', if they had known that clearance had not been obtained. The judge ruled that the use was 'tantamount to theft' and referred the case for the consideration of criminal proceedings. This case is important as it is one of the first rulings in this area and many people use this judgement as a basis for their own. The record was barred from shops and has become a rare collectors item. Biz Markie's subsequent album is called 'All Samples Cleared'. Again in 1990 both MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice released records. MC Hammer sampled' Superfreak' after obtaining a licence and although he had to pay out a large but undisclosed amount of expenses to the original artist, the record was a hit and he encountered no problems. Vanilla Ice however sampled the most identifiable riffs from David Bowie and Queen's song 'Under Pressure' for his only hit from his LP entitled 'In The Extreme'. The samples however were not licensed or even credited. As it is generally accepted that readily identifiable riffs or hooks in a song are what generates the sales, the similarity of Vanilla's track to the original would lead it to compete directly. The case never went to trial, although it is believed that after a threatened law suit from 'Under Pressure's' copyright owners Vanilla Ice settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. When the single 'Under Pressure' was re-released in 1992 by Queen, notes on the sleeve credited David Bowie and pointed out that the piano and bass had featured on Vanilla Ice's single. It would seem that Queen do not want other people to profit from their work, but do not mind using other peoples work to promote their own. This just shows the low esteem the users of samplers are held in.
Other (Rap) acts using samplers such as Rob Base and the Beastie Boys have been reprimanded, and as far back as the early eighties Kraftwerk sued Afrika Bambataa for sampling a drum beat. In November 1992 Redman was taken to court by Bridgeport Music for sampling from the Clinton/ Parliament/ Funkadelic back catalogue without permission, but when they tried to sue Eric B. and Rakim for using one of their samples on 'Lyrics of Fury' the case was thrown out of court because their ownership of the back catalogue was in doubt. Big artists such as Marly Marl and L.L. Cool J. have been challenged for sampling 'Rappers Beware' an old drum track and even Michael Jackson has been in trouble for sampling 67 seconds of the Cleveland Orchestra's rendition of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Penalties are often shown to be excessive as A Tribe Called Quest supposedly had to give over 100% of their copyright in a deal negotiated with Lou Reed after the release of their single 'Can I Kick It?' when they sampled the bass line from his single ' Walk On The Wild Side'.
All the previous cases have been American examples, but in the UK a band called 'Shut Up and Dance' (comprised of two members- PJ and Smiley), and their small independent record label of the same name were put out of business by excessive fines after having been found guilty of using a sample from Mark Owens' 1974 hit single 'Walking in Memphis' in their 1994 single 'Raving, I'm Raving' without first gaining clearance. PJ said that MCPS had been watching the progress of the band and label, from being a large (but not very profitable) underground force and seemed to wait until the band had a large hit to make their move. Just two weeks prior to release MCPS demanded that all offending copies be returned and destroyed. However some copies reached the shops and surprisingly the single charted and still holds the record for the most sales in the shortest period of release. Mark Owens' hit single 'Walking In Memphis' was re-released but to PJ and Smileys delight, was a complete flop and points to the possibility that A) records using samples often appeal to a completely different audience to that of the original and that B) artists that use samples often add to or change the original sufficiently to create unique music.
MCPS went through the entire back catalogue of the Shut Up and Dance label and combed it for any uncleared samples that they could recognise, which unfortunately were liberally scattered on almost every release. Some of the artists sampled included Suzanne Vega and Prince, and Shut Up and Dance were made to pay for every one. As is often the situation in these cases the final settlement was made out of court and the sum
involved remains undisclosed. PJ also said that when he first started sampling he tried to clear the samples but nobody in the record companies really knew or understood what a sample was and so he was shifted from department to department and eventually could not obtain permission. He still maintains that relatively few people really understand the sampling process and that it is difficult and takes a long time to make ones records legal.
After a period of rebuilding and consolidation Shut up and Dance have relaunched last year and are finding that their fame and notoriety have helped them to obtain licences more speedily this time around.
However the results of court litigation are not all entirely going in favour of the owners of the original copyright, and one of the most recently publicised cases was that of the Two Live Crew, (who, with almost every release cause controversy and push the limits of acceptability. Being American they have also strengthened the law covering freedom of speech). In 1964, Roy Orbison and William Dees wrote the rock ballad 'Oh, Pretty Woman', which in 1989 The 2 Live Crew sampled as a basis to construct their own song. They took the distinctive bass line from the original, but drastically altered the lyrics, added turntable scratches, a different drum beat and solos in different keys. So although the music can be recognised as the original, it has been changed into something different. The 2 Live Crew song was released on the LP. 'As Clean As They Wanna Be' which was a collection of their least offensive tracks.
Probably purely coincidentally, shortly after the 2 Live Crew release the motion picture 'Pretty Woman' came out. This increased the problems as the sound track featured the Roy Orbison song but the film included the 2 Live Crew version. The film producers had to obtain a licence for the Roy Orbison song, but as titles cannot be copyrighted no permission was needed from anybody to use 'Pretty Woman' for the title of the film.
Acuff-Rose Music Inc. (the publishers owning the rights to the original 'Pretty Woman' song), took (Luther) Campbell to the Supreme court (USA) to sort out the ownership dispute. Luther Campbell is the owner of Luke Skyywalker records, the label, upon which the tune in question was released. He owns the copyright in the sound recording and is a member of the band. This case is interesting as previously the fair use law had been interpreted to mean that any commercial use was presumed to be an infringement i.e. illegal, but in this case the court reinterpreted it after looking at a previous case that has been used in many fair use cases:
"... in truth, in literature, in science and in art, there are, and can be, few, if any, things, which in an abstract sense, are strictly new and original throughout. Every book in literature, science and art, borrows, and must necessarily borrow, and use much which was well known and used before."
Emmerson v. Davies, 8 F.Cas. 615 (No. 4,436)(CCD Mass. 1845)
The court also paid equal importance to each of the factors put forewords in the fair use test suggested in the Copyright Act 1976 (USA) and looked at another previous case to see to what extent an infringement (if any) had occurred. This case determined that it was necessary to:
"... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work."
Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342,348 (No. 4,901)(CCD Mass. 1841)
The court also investigated whether the 2 Live Crew's version would dilute the market for the original. They were of the opinion that the buying audiences for each record were essentially different and therefore sales of either would not affect the other. The court also decided that although the copied material was used for commercial gain other factors overrode this and the parody was a protected fair use.
I see this as a key ruling because often music using samples, takes less of an original piece, and sounds less like the original than the 2 Live Crew's version does. Songs containing samples rarely borrow any of the lyrics (unless they sample a vocal phrase), let alone basing a song around the original. All this means that if the ruling made in this case is followed by more courts, less samplers should land up in trouble or have to pay for the use of the samples taken.
I am concentrating on audio sampling but as technology improves and the use of scanners and software packages such as Photoshop become more widespread the issues raised by audio sampling could increasingly apply to pictures and images. The poster for the film 'Pretty Woman' could also cause sampling controversy as the woman next to Richard Gere has Julia Roberts' face but uses an anonymous body double, so to obtain permission to duplicate the poster one would have to get a release from Richard Gere, Julia Roberts and the body double.
Conclusions.
There are several further questions to be asked such as, when somebody samples a record that uses samples - who does one talk to about clearance- the original artist or the artist who sampled the original? Also to whom should the royalties be paid, and would the fee be smaller because the sample used was second generation? This scenario is already happening and will increase the confusion in an already perplexing and bewildering topic. For example Mind Bomb sampled the intro. from EPMD's 'You're a costomer' on their 1995 album track 'The Mind Bomb'. EPMD inturn had sampled Captain Skyy as the basis for their 1988 track, they added drums from a Roland 808 to a one bar sample, but because of the environment at the time the sample was not licensed or even credited. The Mind Bomb sample is not licensed and will not be a problem due to the limited distribution, but if the record became a hit a whole can of worms would be opened. Mind Bomb might have to pay Beach House Music (the publishers of EPMD), if they were unlucky in a court case, but EPMD might not sue for royalties owed, as they obviously see nothing wrong with sampling. Would Captain Skyy's publishers have a case against Mind Bomb? or could they only try to recoup royalties from Beach House Music? Could they claim anything as the EPMD record was released before anyone even realised they had to license longer samples?
Another example is the drum beat at the beginning of 'Substitution' by Herb Rooney, published by Proboscis Music, which was first used by the Ultramagnetic MC's in 1987 on 'Ego Trippin'' published by STM Music/ Ultra Magnetic on Let's Go Records. The Ultramagnetic MC's credited nobody with supplying the original sound recording, but did not get sued. Subsequently many artists have sampled the Ultramagnetic version of the beat.
Nobody, as yet has been taken to court for sampling just a drum beat, even one two bars long, so it seems there is an unwritten rule stating that this use of percussion only, is permissible. On the other hand sampling whole melodies or vocal samples is risky. In the first case, under the current law Captain Skyy would have a viable case against EPMD and Mind Bomb. EPMD could also chase Mind Bomb for royalties, however unlikely. I believe that once an infringement has been allowed to pass any further sampling should also be permitted. It also seems reasonable to me that somebody who has used samples should be prevented from either, stopping their work from being sampled, or from claiming excessive royalties. Tuff City Records (New York) have purchased the rights to 'Impeach The President' by 'The Honey Drippers', because they knew many of their artists, and others as well would sample this tune, thus saving and earning them money at the same time.
It looks like some musical pieces have fallen unexpectedly into the public domain early simply because their use has become common practice. One of the most obvious examples is 'Funky Dr
ummer' by James Brown which has been sampled on countless modern tracks. Some artists have been sued and lost large amounts of money for using 'Funky Drummer', others obtained licenses, but the vast majority of people using the break get away with it completely as Polygram don't even notice the tracks.
The problem will not go away and as the price of high quality samplers falls their use will increase. With the booming success of the internet many people are now breaking the law by unwittingly including copyright sound material in their web pages and E-mail and then broadcasting it to a potential audience of billions. With the invention of being able to transmit audio data in real time using systems such as Cerberus, I-Wave and Real Audio direct to the consumer mean that this abuse of copyright materials over the internet is also set to increase. In November 1993 Frank Music took CompuServe (an on-line computer service) to court for providing recordings of copyright music to its customers to freely download, and won.
However there is technology such as SCMS (Serial Copyright Management System) which prevents somebody making a further digital copy from the first source and a new standard is appearing- the ISRC (International Standard Recording Code). If fully adopted ISRC will include non-audio data within sound recordings which will identify the source of each recording, enabling infringers to be traced and may eventually include a copy protection mechanism.
Protection will become increasingly important as digital broadcasting becomes a reality with the explosion in channels that this will bring along with direct digital distribution. The final means of distribution is not yet certain so a flexible approach to new legislation is necessary so as to afford protection now and so as to not stifle development of new technologies. It is possible that a separate new right will need to be created to identify Interactive and Multi-Channel Digital Diffusion (MCD) rights as present rights possibly will not be able to cope.
It seems to me (as with most things in life), that the power and ability to make the rules is in the hands of the and rich, i.e. the big record companies and music publishers. Most of the law in this area is edging towards the side of the owners of the original pieces and gives no ground to the user of samples especially the small, independent (and poor) musician. One of the most vital steps needed to protect the users of samplers is an industry accepted standard mechanical rate for the use of a sample. This would only work if the rate was set low enough so as to not take all the profits and took full account of the length, contextual use, amount of transformation, substantiality of the sample and the amount to which the two records would encroach on each others' market.
It seems paradoxical that in computer circles a copyrighted program in binary machine code compiled for a particular platform may be backwards compiled to object code and recompiled for another platform by a third party and the second code will qualify for its own independent copyright. This can be paralleled to taking a sample and recompiling into another song, where the new song is an infringement and does not receive its own copyright. The situation seems even stranger due to the fact that a computer program can be used to do the compiling automatically, meaning that not much work has been done by a human to earn the second copyright but no change is made to its validity. If these rules were applied similarly to sampling almost all sampling without licences could no longer be classed as theft.
You're not talking about dealing with the government here in regards to laws about citing samples.
Yes . . . Consider radio -- an artist gets exposure, the publisher gets a small amount set by the gov't and not by the copyright holder, and the public benefits. Sampling -- here maybe the recording artist should get a small amount set by the gov't rather than by the copyright holders and maybe the publisher would get nothing. This would clearly inspire creativity which is the original intent of the progress clause in the constitution. The public would also benefit -- the progress clause also sought to balance public and private interests. Sounds so simple.
if you sample a song that contains samples, do you have to clear both songs? let's say i want to use "stay fly" in a movie (or a beat), does anyone know if i also need to license "tell me why our love turned cold"?
It depends. Looking at liner notes, I have noticed that if an artist samples a rap song with a familiar sample in there, and that song credited the sample, then yes you have to give credit to how it is listed on that album. In other words, don't sample "Jenny From The Block" or you'll end up dividing the pie much thinner than you should.
Illest example of the above is when Abel Ferrara used Schooly D's Signifying Rapper in Bad Lieutenant. The song featured a replayed version of the Kashmir lick, and there was no publishing attribution on the original LP (What A Blackman Feels).
Apparently Page or Plant saw the flick on cable while chilling in a hotel, went ballistic, and called the law. The law won.
Subsequent DVD versions of the film had the song pulled off the soundtrack, which kinda destroyed the overall effect of the scene...
Abel's reaction to the whole situation:
"Oh, yeah. I'll strangle that cocksucker Jimmy Page. As if every fucking lick that guy ever played didn't come off a Robert Johnson album. "Signifying Rapper" was out for five years, and there wasn't a problem. Then the film had already been out for two years and they start bitching about it. And these pricks, when their attorneys are on the job, our guys are afraid to come out of their office. You're not gonna fight their fucking warriors, you know what I mean? Can you imagine, this was down at a federal court in New York, with a 70-year-old judge, and they're playing Schoolly D and Led Zeppelin to the guy? It cost Schoolly like $50,000. It was a nightmare. And meanwhile, "Signifying Rapper" is 50 million times better than "Kashmir" ever thought of being. And then, this prick [Page] turns around with Puff Daddy and redoes it for the Godzilla soundtrack. Here's Puff Daddy, where every other song this boy sang was King Of New York this and King Of New York that. And I would never even fucking think of suing these guys. Why sue? You should be happy that somebody is paying homage to your work. "
This thread should be forwarded to all IP law students!
Whoah, good thread, lots of knowledge being dropped. I find myself wondering about these things a lot. Two things - regarding the discussion about if you're obliged to list cleared samples in the liner notes, don't think so, since there's no sample information whatsoever in the Ghost Dog OST(not the japanese instrumental version, the one with mcs). I'm pretty sure RZA had to clear those long Curtis Mayfield and Bobby Womack loops. Also, if you want to sample Swedish artists, most of them are fair game. Bj??rn J:son Lindh and Janne Schaffer have both said they're ok with being sampled and won't sue. Pugh Rogefeldt, for instance, knows about DJ Shadow using "Love,Love,Love". He spoke about it in an interview, saying "He probably found my album in a shop in LA and thought I was dead or something. I haven't been paid, but I don't care". One should always be careful, but just so you know. Think Bo Hansson's cool with sampling too. If anyone knows about an american artist clearing a Swedish sample (not Madonna sampling ABBA or the like, more like lesser known artists), I'd like to know.
These 2 are not myths. They just aren???t exactly iron clad either. If you put out a record and it's full of samples but you only press like 2000 copies you will not get sued. It's not worth anybody???s time. Could they sue you? Sure. But it would be a waste of time so they aren't going to. You can be pretty sure of that and that???s good enough for most people.
You can never be sure. There was a German HipHopgroup sampling "Golden Brown" by the Stranglers. I think they only had 2000 copies made or so, maybe a bit more, but not much more. I don't think they had to pay very much, but they had to take back all the existing copies that were still in the shops
with sampling, it's never black and white. Just think about Josh and Bono going to dinner for talking about that "Bloody Sunday" Drumbreak.
Whoah, good thread, lots of knowledge being dropped. I find myself wondering about these things a lot. Two things - regarding the discussion about if you're obliged to list cleared samples in the liner notes, don't think so, since there's no sample information whatsoever in the Ghost Dog OST(not the japanese instrumental version, the one with mcs). I'm pretty sure RZA had to clear those long Curtis Mayfield and Bobby Womack loops.
A lot of Wu-related stuff lacks a lot of sample credits, whether they are cleared or not I don't know. Who is responsible for the Shaolin Soul[/b] boots?
Comments
Very true, and those albums with the least amount of samples will limit it to two or three songs. The only one that comes to mind right now is Lil' Jon.
You can also tell from listening to the albums and looking at the liner notes to see and hear which samples they think are important and which aren't. Drum breaks seem to get a pass, while something that reveals more melody doesn't.
It is confusing, because the guidelines are changed, revised, updated, removed on a regular basis.
Yeah, upfront sampling fees are small in comparison to today's sampling fees taken from the back end. I've heard some people getting as much as $0.25/second -- and keep in mind, that's on a per unit basis. So if it's a one-bar, let's say two second sample, you would be paying $0.50/per unit sold to whomever owned the rights/publishing of the sample. In some cases, it's just astronomical.
Or with the new majority on the Supreme Court leaning closer to a literal reading of
the constitution, the word LIMITED should be reexamined. If not, you can freely
sample music made today some time in the 22nd century!
But the rest of the world is raping catalogues freely. And it's been going on for years. Every body knows the deal but everybody shut up.
As far as technically speaking...Take care with all the "jurisprudence" that can be pronounced in any particular case. For example, just the "funky drummer" heavy guitar lick will cost you if you get sued. I've heard that "georges" (let's call him georges for that matter) can even sue you if you use "impeach the president" without his permission since he bought the copyrights to it (i still don't know if this story is true, but i heard that when Nas used it for letter to Elise song, he had to payback).
In some countries, you'll get away with sampling a bassline. In USA, the same sampled bassline will get you sued. Generally, judges will not accept a trial for drums (coz there's no partition) but the Impeach example proved me wrong.
I got a story about that, since it's now out.
Chronic 2001. Eminem and Dre. "What's the difference" track. Since i'm french and fan of Charles, i knew the song they used. Later on, Blu Cantrell and Sean Paul. 3 years after the release of Chronic 2001, the sample is still yet to be declared. Only samples spotters knows the deal so everything is safe basically.
Then there comes Mr Charles nephew...Too young in 2001, he wasn't too young in 2004. He went back to Uncle Charles and tells him about this song. He heard it and wondered who was this "doctor drew". A couple of phone calls. Lawyers. Settlements. I still don't know how much he got. But i will know it one of these days...lol.
From what i know aaron fuchs is a prick.
i did not take the time to read all 5 pages of this thread.... If one was to play the exact same pattern as impeach ( on a new drum kit tuned and mic'd identically) i doubt aaron could do shit. Music would come to a stand still if this were the case.
a record i produced was actually sampled, the group had a clearing house contact me...i got paid for usage of the master and the pub...and i asked many questions regarding sampling laws....and i will continue to chop and NEVER pay for sampling drums...NEVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Honestly, mostly you can blame Mickey Mouse for this. Disney doesn't want Mickey Mouse to fall into the public domain so "magically" the length of copyright keeps extending. It's amazing what expensive high-powered lobbyists can do for you. Mickey Mouse made his debut in "Steamboat Willie" in 1928; before the 1998 copyright extension the copyright for something created with corporate authorship was 75 years, so Mickey would've entered public domain in 2003. Thanks to the 1998 copyright extension act Mickey is safe until 2023.
Biz Markie, and let's not forget the one before that, the De La Soul/Turtles ordeal, and the story is a bit similar too. Mark Volman & Howard Kaylan were members of The Turtles, and when they left, they joined the Mothers (as in Zappa) and soon would become known as Flo & Eddie. I think it was Howard Kaylan (the one with the beard) who was made aware of it through his daughter, who happened to have a copy of 3 Feet High And Rising. She played the album for dad and then came "Transmitting Live From Mars". I don't remember if the daughter knew that it was her dad's song, or that she thought it was cool sounding. Either way, daddy recognized the song immediately, looked at the liner notes and noticed that neither he or the band were credited. Detecting the sample, even at that slow speed, was easy for him, since the song was a hit, and it came out as a 45. There was that silly game of yesteryear called "play your 45's on 33", so he may have knew about it like that. Then again, A Turtles B-side called "Umbassa And The Red Dragon" was nothing more than the instrumental of another Turtles song slowed down, so he was more than aware of the production technique. Kaylan made some calls, eventually contacted his manager and lawyer, and that became one of the first sampling cases. It was the end of the "anything goes" asthetic on a major level, but fortunately that did not stop anyone from pushing the limits in their productions.
You're not talking about dealing with the government here in regards to laws about citing samples. It's not a criminal offense - whoever owns the copyright can throw in whatever caveats they well please. Part of the deal for the use of the sample could be that you have a giant ballsac on your cover. It's whatever the two parties work out. It's just like if I go to Enterprise and rent a car, and I'm like, "Hey, Enterprise, this is a nice car here. I'd love to blow this fucker up when I'm done instead of returning it. What kind of compensation do you need?" If we could agree on it and write up the contract, then I could just as easily blow up the car instead of driving it and returning it. Same type of situation - they own the rights, they make the rules.
In regards to samples, I believe that's why Outkast has gotten so hip to studio musicians these days.
I use the term "these days" very loosely.
http://www.low-life.fsnet.co.uk/copyright/index.htm
Copyright Infringement (Examples).
Any sample is a copy so permission must be sought in order to use it- some people might say that 'if you can recognise a separate work within another then an infringement has been committed' or 'its not quantity but quality'. Ben Liebrand said 'If a drum loop is used in a record and is covered with other instruments it is quite easy to get away with it' he added 'Samples should be short, they should be sound effects or non-melodic' (MT, (March, 1992)). The fact that any sample must be paid for is thought to be so crucial that at Polygram there is a whole department whose job is to listen to records to check for unlicensed James Brown samples. James Brown who was himself sceptical about sampling and has become one of the most sampled artists, has now started sampling artists who have sampled his work previously and altered it in some strange way that amazes him. Because of the economic realities of going to court the case law in this area is quite sparse. The expense also means that copyright infringement does not usually become an issue until someone has made serious money from someone else's creation.
If you follow the rules things can be good for people using samplers e.g. P.M. Dawn obtained permission from Spandau Ballet to use samples from 'True', which helped them make their song 'Set Adrift On A Memory Bliss Of You'. Spandau Ballet even helped promote it. The music for the P.M. Dawn song was very similar to the original and instantly recognisable, as the main samples were a couple of bars repeated and arranged into a new sequence, so if a licence had not been obtained an infringement would certainly have been committed. The details of the licence meant that P.M. Dawn had to split the royalties/ earnings with Spandau Ballet 50%/50% . In the process the original 'True' was re-released and was a hit a second time around. Everybody was happy but things aren't always this simple or easy.
For example De La Soul's first single 'Plug Tuning' sampled Liberac?? which did not cause much of a problem, probably as it made very little money, but when they sampled Hall and Oates on 'Say No Go' and the song became a hit they encountered a law suit, and worse, at the end of 1989 the Turtles sued for $1.1 million for the use of an unlicensed sample from their 1969 single 'You Showed Me.'. However the case was settled out of court for a figure 'rumoured to be in the low five figures'.
More recently (1988), rapper Biz Markie and his record label Warner Bros. Inc./ Cold Chillin' were cited for violation of US copyright laws and he was condemned for his use of an eight bar sample from Gilbert O'Sullivans 1972 song 'Alone Again (Naturally)' as well as the titled refrain, (published by Grand Royal Music).
The sample used is quite long in terms of samples and is what constitutes a 'Substantial' portion of the original piece. Biz Markie's song amounts to a rearrangement and parody of the original and as such one must expect to pay for the use of the composition and the sound recording sampled. The band claim that there was a mix up over sample clearance and that they would not have released the single or put it on the LP 'I Need A Haircut', if they had known that clearance had not been obtained. The judge ruled that the use was 'tantamount to theft' and referred the case for the consideration of criminal proceedings. This case is important as it is one of the first rulings in this area and many people use this judgement as a basis for their own. The record was barred from shops and has become a rare collectors item. Biz Markie's subsequent album is called 'All Samples Cleared'.
Again in 1990 both MC Hammer and Vanilla Ice released records. MC Hammer sampled' Superfreak' after obtaining a licence and although he had to pay out a large but undisclosed amount of expenses to the original artist, the record was a hit and he encountered no problems. Vanilla Ice however sampled the most identifiable riffs from David Bowie and Queen's song 'Under Pressure' for his only hit from his LP entitled 'In The Extreme'. The samples however were not licensed or even credited. As it is generally accepted that readily identifiable riffs or hooks in a song are what generates the sales, the similarity of Vanilla's track to the original would lead it to compete directly. The case never went to trial, although it is believed that after a threatened law suit from 'Under Pressure's' copyright owners Vanilla Ice settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. When the single 'Under Pressure' was re-released in 1992 by Queen, notes on the sleeve credited David Bowie and pointed out that the piano and bass had featured on Vanilla Ice's single. It would seem that Queen do not want other people to profit from their work, but do not mind using other peoples work to promote their own. This just shows the low esteem the users of samplers are held in.
Other (Rap) acts using samplers such as Rob Base and the Beastie Boys have been reprimanded, and as far back as the early eighties Kraftwerk sued Afrika Bambataa for sampling a drum beat. In November 1992 Redman was taken to court by Bridgeport Music for sampling from the Clinton/ Parliament/ Funkadelic back catalogue without permission, but when they tried to sue Eric B. and Rakim for using one of their samples on 'Lyrics of Fury' the case was thrown out of court because their ownership of the back catalogue was in doubt. Big artists such as Marly Marl and L.L. Cool J. have been challenged for sampling 'Rappers Beware' an old drum track and even Michael Jackson has been in trouble for sampling 67 seconds of the Cleveland Orchestra's rendition of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Penalties are often shown to be excessive as A Tribe Called Quest supposedly had to give over 100% of their copyright in a deal negotiated with Lou Reed after the release of their single 'Can I Kick It?' when they sampled the bass line from his single ' Walk On The Wild Side'.
All the previous cases have been American examples, but in the UK a band called 'Shut Up and Dance' (comprised of two members- PJ and Smiley), and their small independent record label of the same name were put out of business by excessive fines after having been found guilty of using a sample from Mark Owens' 1974 hit single 'Walking in Memphis' in their 1994 single 'Raving, I'm Raving' without first gaining clearance. PJ said that MCPS had been watching the progress of the band and label, from being a large (but not very profitable) underground force and seemed to wait until the band had a large hit to make their move. Just two weeks prior to release MCPS demanded that all offending copies be returned and destroyed. However some copies reached the shops and surprisingly the single charted and still holds the record for the most sales in the shortest period of release. Mark Owens' hit single 'Walking In Memphis' was re-released but to PJ and Smileys delight, was a complete flop and points to the possibility that A) records using samples often appeal to a completely different audience to that of the original and that B) artists that use samples often add to or change the original sufficiently to create unique music.
MCPS went through the entire back catalogue of the Shut Up and Dance label and combed it for any uncleared samples that they could recognise, which unfortunately were liberally scattered on almost every release. Some of the artists sampled included Suzanne Vega and Prince, and Shut Up and Dance were made to pay for every one. As is often the situation in these cases the final settlement was made out of court and the sum involved remains undisclosed. PJ also said that when he first started sampling he tried to clear the samples but nobody in the record companies really knew or understood what a sample was and so he was shifted from department to department and eventually could not obtain permission. He still maintains that relatively few people really understand the sampling process and that it is difficult and takes a long time to make ones records legal.
After a period of rebuilding and consolidation Shut up and Dance have relaunched last year and are finding that their fame and notoriety have helped them to obtain licences more speedily this time around.
However the results of court litigation are not all entirely going in favour of the owners of the original copyright, and one of the most recently publicised cases was that of the Two Live Crew, (who, with almost every release cause controversy and push the limits of acceptability. Being American they have also strengthened the law covering freedom of speech).
In 1964, Roy Orbison and William Dees wrote the rock ballad 'Oh, Pretty Woman', which in 1989 The 2 Live Crew sampled as a basis to construct their own song. They took the distinctive bass line from the original, but drastically altered the lyrics, added turntable scratches, a different drum beat and solos in different keys. So although the music can be recognised as the original, it has been changed into something different. The 2 Live Crew song was released on the LP. 'As Clean As They Wanna Be' which was a collection of their least offensive tracks.
Probably purely coincidentally, shortly after the 2 Live Crew release the motion picture 'Pretty Woman' came out. This increased the problems as the sound track featured the Roy Orbison song but the film included the 2 Live Crew version. The film producers had to obtain a licence for the Roy Orbison song, but as titles cannot be copyrighted no permission was needed from anybody to use 'Pretty Woman' for the title of the film.
Acuff-Rose Music Inc. (the publishers owning the rights to the original 'Pretty Woman' song), took (Luther) Campbell to the Supreme court (USA) to sort out the ownership dispute. Luther Campbell is the owner of Luke Skyywalker records, the label, upon which the tune in question was released. He owns the copyright in the sound recording and is a member of the band. This case is interesting as previously the fair use law had been interpreted to mean that any commercial use was presumed to be an infringement i.e. illegal, but in this case the court reinterpreted it after looking at a previous case that has been used in many fair use cases:
"... in truth, in literature, in science and in art, there are, and can be, few, if any, things, which in an abstract sense, are strictly new and original throughout. Every book in literature, science and art, borrows, and must necessarily borrow, and use much which was well known and used before."
Emmerson v. Davies, 8 F.Cas. 615 (No. 4,436)(CCD Mass. 1845)
The court also paid equal importance to each of the factors put forewords in the fair use test suggested in the Copyright Act 1976 (USA) and looked at another previous case to see to what extent an infringement (if any) had occurred. This case determined that it was necessary to:
"... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work."
Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342,348 (No. 4,901)(CCD Mass. 1841)
The court also investigated whether the 2 Live Crew's version would dilute the market for the original. They were of the opinion that the buying audiences for each record were essentially different and therefore sales of either would not affect the other. The court also decided that although the copied material was used for commercial gain other factors overrode this and the parody was a protected fair use.
I see this as a key ruling because often music using samples, takes less of an original piece, and sounds less like the original than the 2 Live Crew's version does. Songs containing samples rarely borrow any of the lyrics (unless they sample a vocal phrase), let alone basing a song around the original. All this means that if the ruling made in this case is followed by more courts, less samplers should land up in trouble or have to pay for the use of the samples taken.
I am concentrating on audio sampling but as technology improves and the use of scanners and software packages such as Photoshop become more widespread the issues raised by audio sampling could increasingly apply to pictures and images. The poster for the film 'Pretty Woman' could also cause sampling controversy as the woman next to Richard Gere has Julia Roberts' face but uses an anonymous body double, so to obtain permission to duplicate the poster one would have to get a release from Richard Gere, Julia Roberts and the body double.
Conclusions.
There are several further questions to be asked such as, when somebody samples a record that uses samples - who does one talk to about clearance- the original artist or the artist who sampled the original? Also to whom should the royalties be paid, and would the fee be smaller because the sample used was second generation? This scenario is already happening and will increase the confusion in an already perplexing and bewildering topic. For example Mind Bomb sampled the intro. from EPMD's 'You're a costomer' on their 1995 album track 'The Mind Bomb'. EPMD inturn had sampled Captain Skyy as the basis for their 1988 track, they added drums from a Roland 808 to a one bar sample, but because of the environment at the time the sample was not licensed or even credited. The Mind Bomb sample is not licensed and will not be a problem due to the limited distribution, but if the record became a hit a whole can of worms would be opened. Mind Bomb might have to pay Beach House Music (the publishers of EPMD), if they were unlucky in a court case, but EPMD might not sue for royalties owed, as they obviously see nothing wrong with sampling. Would Captain Skyy's publishers have a case against Mind Bomb? or could they only try to recoup royalties from Beach House Music? Could they claim anything as the EPMD record was released before anyone even realised they had to license longer samples?
Another example is the drum beat at the beginning of 'Substitution' by Herb Rooney, published by Proboscis Music, which was first used by the Ultramagnetic MC's in 1987 on 'Ego Trippin'' published by STM Music/ Ultra Magnetic on Let's Go Records. The Ultramagnetic MC's credited nobody with supplying the original sound recording, but did not get sued. Subsequently many artists have sampled the Ultramagnetic version of the beat.
Nobody, as yet has been taken to court for sampling just a drum beat, even one two bars long, so it seems there is an unwritten rule stating that this use of percussion only, is permissible. On the other hand sampling whole melodies or vocal samples is risky. In the first case, under the current law Captain Skyy would have a viable case against EPMD and Mind Bomb. EPMD could also chase Mind Bomb for royalties, however unlikely. I believe that once an infringement has been allowed to pass any further sampling should also be permitted. It also seems reasonable to me that somebody who has used samples should be prevented from either, stopping their work from being sampled, or from claiming excessive royalties. Tuff City Records (New York) have purchased the rights to 'Impeach The President' by 'The Honey Drippers', because they knew many of their artists, and others as well would sample this tune, thus saving and earning them money at the same time.
It looks like some musical pieces have fallen unexpectedly into the public domain early simply because their use has become common practice. One of the most obvious examples is 'Funky Dr ummer' by James Brown which has been sampled on countless modern tracks. Some artists have been sued and lost large amounts of money for using 'Funky Drummer', others obtained licenses, but the vast majority of people using the break get away with it completely as Polygram don't even notice the tracks.
The problem will not go away and as the price of high quality samplers falls their use will increase. With the booming success of the internet many people are now breaking the law by unwittingly including copyright sound material in their web pages and E-mail and then broadcasting it to a potential audience of billions. With the invention of being able to transmit audio data in real time using systems such as Cerberus, I-Wave and Real Audio direct to the consumer mean that this abuse of copyright materials over the internet is also set to increase. In November 1993 Frank Music took CompuServe (an on-line computer service) to court for providing recordings of copyright music to its customers to freely download, and won.
However there is technology such as SCMS (Serial Copyright Management System) which prevents somebody making a further digital copy from the first source and a new standard is appearing- the ISRC (International Standard Recording Code). If fully adopted ISRC will include non-audio data within sound recordings which will identify the source of each recording, enabling infringers to be traced and may eventually include a copy protection mechanism.
Protection will become increasingly important as digital broadcasting becomes a reality with the explosion in channels that this will bring along with direct digital distribution. The final means of distribution is not yet certain so a flexible approach to new legislation is necessary so as to afford protection now and so as to not stifle development of new technologies. It is possible that a separate new right will need to be created to identify Interactive and Multi-Channel Digital Diffusion (MCD) rights as present rights possibly will not be able to cope.
It seems to me (as with most things in life), that the power and ability to make the rules is in the hands of the and rich, i.e. the big record companies and music publishers. Most of the law in this area is edging towards the side of the owners of the original pieces and gives no ground to the user of samples especially the small, independent (and poor) musician. One of the most vital steps needed to protect the users of samplers is an industry accepted standard mechanical rate for the use of a sample. This would only work if the rate was set low enough so as to not take all the profits and took full account of the length, contextual use, amount of transformation, substantiality of the sample and the amount to which the two records would encroach on each others' market.
It seems paradoxical that in computer circles a copyrighted program in binary machine code compiled for a particular platform may be backwards compiled to object code and recompiled for another platform by a third party and the second code will qualify for its own independent copyright. This can be paralleled to taking a sample and recompiling into another song, where the new song is an infringement and does not receive its own copyright. The situation seems even stranger due to the fact that a computer program can be used to do the compiling automatically, meaning that not much work has been done by a human to earn the second copyright but no change is made to its validity. If these rules were applied similarly to sampling almost all sampling without licences could no longer be classed as theft.
Peace
Hawkeye
Illest example of the above is when Abel Ferrara used Schooly D's Signifying Rapper in Bad Lieutenant. The song featured a replayed version of the Kashmir lick, and there was no publishing attribution on the original LP (What A Blackman Feels).
Apparently Page or Plant saw the flick on cable while chilling in a hotel, went ballistic, and called the law. The law won.
Subsequent DVD versions of the film had the song pulled off the soundtrack, which kinda destroyed the overall effect of the scene...
Abel's reaction to the whole situation:
"Oh, yeah. I'll strangle that cocksucker Jimmy Page. As if every fucking lick that guy ever played didn't come off a Robert Johnson album. "Signifying Rapper" was out for five years, and there wasn't a problem. Then the film had already been out for two years and they start bitching about it. And these pricks, when their attorneys are on the job, our guys are afraid to come out of their office. You're not gonna fight their fucking warriors, you know what I mean? Can you imagine, this was down at a federal court in New York, with a 70-year-old judge, and they're playing Schoolly D and Led Zeppelin to the guy? It cost Schoolly like $50,000. It was a nightmare. And meanwhile, "Signifying Rapper" is 50 million times better than "Kashmir" ever thought of being. And then, this prick [Page] turns around with Puff Daddy and redoes it for the Godzilla soundtrack. Here's Puff Daddy, where every other song this boy sang was King Of New York this and King Of New York that. And I would never even fucking think of suing these guys. Why sue? You should be happy that somebody is paying homage to your work. "
This thread should be forwarded to all IP law students!
Also, if you want to sample Swedish artists, most of them are fair game. Bj??rn J:son Lindh and Janne Schaffer have both said they're ok with being sampled and won't sue. Pugh Rogefeldt, for instance, knows about DJ Shadow using "Love,Love,Love". He spoke about it in an interview, saying "He probably found my album in a shop in LA and thought I was dead or something. I haven't been paid, but I don't care". One should always be careful, but just so you know. Think Bo Hansson's cool with sampling too. If anyone knows about an american artist clearing a Swedish sample (not Madonna sampling ABBA or the like, more like lesser known artists), I'd like to know.
You can never be sure. There was a German HipHopgroup sampling "Golden Brown" by the Stranglers. I think they only had 2000 copies made or so, maybe a bit more, but not much more. I don't think they had to pay very much, but they had to take back all the existing copies that were still in the shops
with sampling, it's never black and white. Just think about Josh and Bono going to dinner for talking about that "Bloody Sunday" Drumbreak.
A lot of Wu-related stuff lacks a lot of sample credits, whether they are cleared or not I don't know. Who is responsible for the Shaolin Soul[/b] boots?