›

same ruling, different court

girgir 329 Posts
edited August 2005 in Strut Central
Court says any sampling may violate copyright lawBy John Gerome, Associated PressNASHVILLE ??? A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that rap artists should pay for every musical sample included in their work ??? even minor, unrecognizable snippets of music.Lower courts had already ruled that artists must pay when they sample another artists' work. But it has been legal to use musical snippets ??? a note here, a chord there ??? as long as it wasn't identifiable.The decision by a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati gets rid of that distinction. The court said federal laws aimed at stopping piracy of recordings applies to digital sampling."If you cannot pirate the whole sound recording, can you 'lift' or 'sample' something less than the whole? Our answer to that question is in the negative," the court said."Get a license or do not sample. We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way."Some observers questioned whether the court's opinion is too restrictive, especially for rap and hip-hop artists who often rhyme over samples of music taken from older recordings."It seems a little extreme to me," said James Van Hook, dean of Belmont University's Mike Curb College of Entertainment and Music Business. "When something is identifiable, that is the key."The case at issue is one of at least 800 lawsuits filed in Nashville over lifting snippets of music from older recordings for new music.The case centers on the NWA song 100 Miles and Runnin, which samples a three-note guitar riff from Get Off Your Ass and Jam by '70s funk-master George Clinton and Funkadelic.In the two-second sample, the guitar pitch has been lowered, and the copied piece was "looped" and extended to 16 beats. The sample appears five times in the new song.NWA's song was included in the 1998 movie I Got the Hook Up, starring Master P and produced by his movie company, No Limit Films.No Limit Films has argued that the sample was not protected by copyright law. Bridgeport Music and Westbound Records, which claim to own the copyrights for the Funkadelic song, appealed the lower court's summary judgment in favor of No Limit Films.The lower court in 2002 said that the riff in Clinton's song was entitled to copyright protection, but the sampling "did not rise to the level of legally cognizable appropriation."The appeals court disagreed, saying a recording artist who acknowledges sampling may be liable, even when the source of a sample is unrecognizable.Noting that No Limit Films "had not disputed that it digitally sampled a copyrighted sound recording," the appeals court sent the case back to the lower court.Richard Busch, attorney for Westbound Records and Bridgeport Music, said he was pleased with the ruling.Robert Sullivan, attorney for No Limit Films, did not return a phone call to his office.

  Comments

  • Deep_SangDeep_Sang 1,081 Posts
    My favorite part is that they refer to the samples in question as "unrecognizable," so how they gonna sue if they don't recognize it?
  • BigSpliffBigSpliff 3,266 Posts
    My favorite part is that they refer to the samples in question as "unrecognizable," so how they gonna sue if they don't recognize it?

    They're working on it.
  • Sun_FortuneSun_Fortune 1,374 Posts
    but the sampling "did not rise to the level of legally cognizable appropriation."

    huh??? I wonder what Chomsky would say about this....


    The appeals court disagreed, saying a recording artist who acknowledges sampling may be liable, even when the source of a sample is unrecognizable

    Dont ask dont tell.
  • billbradleybillbradley You want BBQ sauce? Get the fuck out of my house. 2,906 Posts
    That article is almost a year old. Has anyone been sued for using an unrecognizable sample since then? I kind of doubt it.
  • luckluck 4,077 Posts
    Westbound/Bridgeport lawyers have got to be some of the busiest folks around; Parliament/Funkadelic have been sampled thousands of times. The worst part is that I'm sure that George Clinton and Co. don't give a shit. This reminds me of Aaron Fucks and his Tuff City lawyers getting all litigious 30+ years after the fact.

    Just cats making money, is all.
  • djdazedjdaze 3,099 Posts
    Rodney O got hit by Bridgeport HARD a couple years ago. fucked him up for a hot second. shit was real lame.
  • girgir 329 Posts
    That article is almost a year old. Has anyone been sued for using an unrecognizable sample since then? I kind of doubt it.

    actually it's an appeal of the case that was decided over a year ago. the appeal case that took place last year happened in nashville.
  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    "If you cannot pirate the whole sound recording, can you 'lift' or 'sample' something less than the whole? Our answer to that question is in the negative," the court said.

    "Get a license or do not sample. We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way."

    In further news, a court in LA has said that if someone has used a note, that note is property of the copyright owner.

    "If Irving Berlin used a G# in a copyrighted the song then it is his property. If you cannot pirate the whole song, can you 'lift' or 'reuse' something less, say one note? Our answer to that question is in the negative," the court said.

    "Get a license or use different notes. We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way."
  • GrafwritahGrafwritah 4,184 Posts
    The appeals court disagreed, saying a recording artist who acknowledges sampling[/b] may be liable, even when the source of a sample is unrecognizable.

    Suspect what? Me? Sampling. Nooooo.
Sign In or Register to comment.