anyone here Copyright law savvy? $150,000 fine threat

[VirtualMark]

this is all a load of BS. after asking them nicely and getting a response like that, i think i would have told them to fuck off and released it anyway. but to be honest, i probably wouldn't have told them anyhow, i saw a thread like this a few months back on DOA. the guy had asked nicely and been offered a shitty contract by the record company, which basically took all his rights to his own tune away.

i say sample anything you like, and do it smartly so as to not get caught. if busted, then lie. say you played it yourself and the notes might be similar. i doubt they'll want a legal battle over an unreleased soundcloud tune.

[JBE]

The funny thing about this whole thing is that if you did go back and re-record the piano from scratch yourself, it's not illegal. Technically you can not copyright notes, or a grouping of notes, it's actually the recording that is copyright which is why sampling is such a huge thing, but covers aren't. Lyrics on the other hand can be copyright protected as words don't seem to follow the same rules that musical notes do.

Really, sampling is a double edged sword. I do sample, and maybe it's hypocritical to say that I do understand both sides, but I get both points trying to be made. However, I also believe that as a culture we continuously borrow from our past to create our future. As a matter of fact, most of what you will sample, will have probably been "borrowed" from something else, they just don't want to admit that. Just take some time searching on google about all the lawsuits against well known artists about song stealing. It's remarkable how much of that gets buried and no one knows about it. A good example is Metallica. After numerous articles I've come to realise that it's possible Metallica's entire catalogue of music consists of stolen leads and lyrics from several unknown artists from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. It doesn't make me dislike their music, but it did turn me on to a lot of artists/bands I had never heard of that I found out that I really enjoyed. Sampling doesn't hurt the person that made it in anyway. You're not preventing them from making money on their creation simply because you sampled it. If anything, it actually brings light to what they created and in some cases can actually help them. But there's no money in that for the label that originally released it.

For the most part Licensing fees for samples were created by labels, or in the case of movies it's the big Studios. Artists and actors/actresses don't actually receive any money from the licensing fees that are paid to have those samples cleared. All that money goes into the pockets of the people who own the copyrights to the masters, which for the most part are NEVER the artists. Chances are the email you received came from a band Representative which works exclusively for the label, not the band or the people in it. No matter what you do you will never get permission to use a sample without paying for it. That's how the system works. The copyright system as it is now is "The Life of the creator plus 70 years". Which pretty much means anything after 1930 is illegal to use without the licensing fee. Which by the way, you can thank Walt Disney for. He basically changed the entire copyright system by himself to prevent anyone from ever profiting off of the content that he stole from other people when it was still legal to do so.

[cloak and dagger]

I just want to reiterate that the idea that they can't do anything legally if you're not making a profit off of it is completely wrong. It's not a matter of if you make money off of it, but rather if they feel that they can lose money off of it. Like someone else pointed out, copyright and licensing laws are extremely strict, they're just not often enforced (e.g. you can't copy your CDs, you can't play records in a venue without paying licensing fees, you can't alter a song or sample it and expose it to the public without the expressed written consent of the NFL, etc.). Mixes are illegal, so are rappers' mixtapes. It's just that it's generally not worth the time, money, and effort to bring someone to a civil court regarding things like this. Culture also plays a part to an extent (e.g. there's a lot of people involved in hip hop that have no problem with their beats, rhyme schemes, etc. getting reused for a mixtape, and it can even be taken as a compliment).

[paradigm_x]

Well, following on from what C&D just said, the jamaican riddims, which arguably started it all, is a huge free for all...

Im not saying dont do it, in fact im a firm beleiver in sampling, i use samples in everything i do. Pure sytnh stuff, except maybe some techno, somes horrible. Some real grit, extra textures, funk, groove and other priceless things come from sampling. But do it cleverly and dont ask for permission ever. And i dont necessarily mean chop it into a million peices either. At risk of spammage, check out afrael on youtube, thats pretty much 100% samples, as is WBAL.

[B-Frank]

Skipped half of this thread but I think you should send them an email back asking them to suck on your left testicle. You done the decent thing and they were up their own assholes so now its time to tell them how it is.

Seeing as you are not commercially releasing it, there is literally nothing they can do. This is done literally all the time. Now please put that bunch of goth pricks back in their dark-black make up-self harming place.

/End rant.

[JBE]

Skipped half of this thread but I think you should send them an email back asking them to suck on your left testicle. You done the decent thing and they were up their own assholes so now its time to tell them how it is.

Seeing as you are not commercially releasing it, there is literally nothing they can do. This is done literally all the time. Now please put that bunch of goth pricks back in their dark-black make up-self harming place.

/End rant.

That's actually not true. Just because it isn't being commercially released that does not mean there is nothing they can do. They can force a cease and desist and have you remove it from whatever sites are used to give the public a chance of getting it. Whether you are making money on it or not has nothing to do with copyright infringement. They could also choose to take it to a court in which case a judge could fine you quite a bit of money. However, the fact that you are making no money on it makes it much less beneficial to pursue it that far. It's not really a financially sound idea to pay lawyer fees on a lawsuit against someone who is not making any money. Can't really get something from someone if they don't have it.

I would definitely not suggest writing them back and insulting them or doing anything to try and agitate them any further. Chances are their label has some money, and the last thing you want to do is piss off the dudes that have the money to punish you just out of spite. It definitely sucks that you did the right thing and asked permission and in return were threatened, but like I said before, chances are the email you received was not a response directly from the band or someone in it. Usually their personal emails are not advertised to the public, but rather a seperate public email is setup and monitored by representatives of the band and label, and this response was most likely the same response everyone gets who asks permission to sample.

I think it would be better to just sit on this for a bit. Wait it out a month or 2 and let things die down a bit, and then upload it and maybe they'll have forgotten about you. There's a pretty good chance that they are going to be keeping a close eye on you for now so I wouldn't put it up on anything that you can be easily identified on like Soundcloud. Maybe upload it on a secondary soundcloud page under a different name.

[oWLinDaylight]

The funny thing about this whole thing is that if you did go back and re-record the piano from scratch yourself, it's not illegal. Technically you can not copyright notes, or a grouping of notes, it's actually the recording that is copyright which is why sampling is such a huge thing, but covers aren't. Lyrics on the other hand can be copyright protected as words don't seem to follow the same rules that musical notes do.

This is very true, look what these assholes get away with and they actually sell their tracks. http://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/tribu ... d362163213

[JBE]

This is very true, look what these assholes get away with and they actually sell their tracks. http://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/tribu ... d362163213

With covers it usually requires the artist(s)/band to be involved in the complaint for it to go anywhere. Labels usually only own the rights to the recordings not the actual music and lyrics. I think a rather large majority of artists are not as hard on these types of things as the labels are. A good example of this would be when Radiohead released "In Rainbows" independently for a "choose your own price" digital release. The moment it went up for download there was a guy that decided to remix the entire album track for track. EMI then issued a Cease and Desist order and tried to threaten him with a hefty lawsuit if he continued. Radiohead had to step in and pretty much tell EMI to back off as they had absolutely no rights what-so-ever to this album as it was a complete independent release, and EMI had no choice but to abide. That right there shows you just how bad a lot of Labels are when it comes to this stuff. They'll try to sue you for stuff they don't even own themselves. Whereas the actual creators of the music had absolutely no problem with the remixes and they actually ended up endorsing the remixes and even had links to them on their own website as they were posted.

[Lichee]

Unless you commercially release the track without cleared samples, you cannot be taken to court over using a sample, fact!

With the track being online - its up to the licensors weather they allow your track to have an online presence via a streaming website or not (I.E the record label or the band but who this is depends on their contract).


Don't be scared; you'll just have to give it out free or record the piano yourself, note for note and switch a note or two.



p.s - concerning your mate who read that article; again it depends on which legal act the track/album/band is binded too; if they're (for instance) Dutch, they will be binded by Dutch copyright law and you will be sued by the international Dutch courts (which means they can sue people who are not in Holland via dutch law if you infringe something to do with a matter in that country).

You really do have to be careful with sample clearing these days as there is no "one" law.

this, record it yourself and switch it up, if this wasn't allowed there would be very little dance music around

[blinx]

id actually try to resequence the entire emo song lol switch up a few parts and then release that send them a link to purchase your sweet new track lol

[-[2]DAY_-]

i would ignore them, they probably just can't make any money nowadays in music so they take every shot they can to prey on little folks. If you re record it note for note, its violating the composition rights, if you nick the sample its also that as well as the master recording rights.. you'd have to change a couple notes. Remember, you can't copyright a chord progression though, only a melody.

anyway if it has an uncleared sample i wouldn't release it on an LP. But i'd give it away and just keep quiet about it, don't contact them any further

Its not worth their time to litigate plus you have precedent and fair use on your side as long as its not for profit. I'd consider it a compliment to be sampled. They're stnuc.

[accordionfan]

p.s - concerning your mate who read that article; again it depends on which legal act the track/album/band is binded too; if they're (for instance) Dutch, they will be binded by Dutch copyright law and you will be sued by the international Dutch courts (which means they can sue people who are not in Holland via dutch law if you infringe something to do with a matter in that country).

You really do have to be careful with sample clearing these days as there is no "one" law.

sooooo does this mean that we can sample artists from hong kong and other areas with super lax copyright laws without worry?

[B-Frank]

The funny thing about this whole thing is that if you did go back and re-record the piano from scratch yourself, it's not illegal. Technically you can not copyright notes, or a grouping of notes, it's actually the recording that is copyright which is why sampling is such a huge thing, but covers aren't. Lyrics on the other hand can be copyright protected as words don't seem to follow the same rules that musical notes do.

Not trying to sound like Mr Argumentative... But didn't Joe Satriani try suing Coldplay for stealing the general chord progressions and melodies for Viva La Vida? To be fair I didn't hear that he won his case so maybe he had no grounds.

[dubbyconqueror]

Don't be scared; you'll just have to give it out free or record the piano yourself, note for note and switch a note or two.

^^^
I forgot about this option - re-record the piano bits yourself. I've had friends do that when they had a big commercial release that they didn't want to have to sample clear. The original track had samples, the track got signed, they re-recorded the sampled bits.

Indeed!

When speaking in notation purposes, its usually the final master which has been copyrighted not the actual sequence of notes them self.

With vocal its a bit different (as a lot of singers lyrics get copyrighted separately if the label can afford it) but there is companies out there who you can hire to sing popular songs and they pick singers out of their roster who has the closest they can get to the original artists but again; people have been known to be sued from this.


Samplin' can be a mugs game these days unless you're crate digging and sampling things which are not attached to a label anymore.

That's only if you leave the source recognizable

[hxczach]

I'd say just go to their next show and cut their tour bus brake lines. That outta keep anyone from suing you.

[Kilo beats]

Some good advice and info here, but im twice as confused now than when i asked the question, haha

i did email them saying i was trying to do the right thing by asking and i stupidly dropped the quote "good art borrows, great art steals" to which they replyed that was the dumbest thing they heard, saying that DaVinci and Michelangelo never stole ideas and they were brilliant artists. (which i think was kind of funny coz i think it was pablo picasso who said "good art borrows great art steals")

I tryed explaning to them that a LOT of EDM is based around samples, i even gave them some refrences to the amen break, the think break, etc to which they replyed

"Talentless people like rappers and DJ's steal from actual musicians. They don't create art, they regurgitate other people's art"

they went on to say

"Try sampling a Beatles song and see how long it takes before you're being sued for everything you own. Stealing is what scumbag thieves do, not what true artists do. Don't aspire to be a scumbag."

this really made me laugh, coz as we all, being dubstep of course theres going to be a dubstep remix of a beatles track.... so i decided to look on youtube, i found a remix of "come together" that had 549,000 views and 3,000 likes. so i was very tempted to reply and tell them this, but insted i bit my tounge and thought better of it.. i still havent replyed

i wanted to say the remixer of the beatles track gained popularity for his remix, and in turn probley introduced the sound of the beatles to a whole load of dubstep loving kids who otherwise would never of heard it. the argument being that some of those people who listend to the song liked it enough to seek out the original track. thus giving more sales to the beatles, and recognition to the remixer. win win if you ask me.

anyway i give up. im going to bite the bullet and keep the tune for myself, mayb just as a tune i can drop in my sets.. if im feeling spitful ill drop it in my filth.fm set on saturday, haha.

anyway, cheers for all the replys guys, i think i learnt my lesson.. if i use a sample in future ill either mangle it up so bad that it will be impossible to proove that the sample was stolen, or just re-write the melodys myself.

again, thanks for the positive support and advice guys, big up

cheer up goth

[VirtualMark]

"Talentless people like rappers and DJ's steal from actual musicians. They don't create art, they regurgitate other people's art"

what the actual fuck. and you let them get away with that comment. they're now dissing an entire genre, and the people that play music too. you should have mentioned other genres that are based around sampling, such as dnb. or what about the prodigy? i suppose they're talentless too? and all of the talentless people on this website: http://www.whosampled.com/

but what would have been the point, they've made their view clear.

please, please lets set up another soundcloud or youtube account and post the shit out of this tune, everywhere we can. then send them an email telling the to go fuck themselves. i'll do it!

[cloak and dagger]

i wanted to say the remixer of the beatles track gained popularity for his remix, and in turn probley introduced the sound of the beatles to a whole load of dubstep loving kids who otherwise would never of heard it.

um...

[B-Frank]

Which Goth band is it by the way? So I can reserve them some extra special hatred.

[oWLinDaylight]

"Try sampling a Beatles song and see how long it takes before you're being sued for everything you own. Stealing is what scumbag thieves do, not what true artists do. Don't aspire to be a scumbag."

Haha apparently they've never heard of Danger Mouse:

"The Grey Album is a mashup album by Danger Mouse, released in 2004. It uses an a cappella version of rapper Jay-Z's The Black Album and couples it with instrumentals created from a multitude of unauthorized samples from The Beatles' LP The Beatles (more commonly known as The White Album). The Grey Album gained notoriety due to the response by EMI in attempting to halt its distribution, despite the fact that both Jay-Z and Sir Paul McCartney said they felt fine with the project."