Copyright

hardware, software, tips and tricks
Forum rules
By using this "Production" sub-forum, you acknowledge that you have read, understood and agreed with our terms of use for this site. Click HERE to read them. If you do not agree to our terms of use, you must exit this site immediately. We do not accept any responsibility for the content, submissions, information or links contained herein. Users posting content here, do so completely at their own risk.

Quick Link to Feedback Forum
User avatar
stappard
Posts: 1529
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:56 am
Location: se5

Re: Copyright

Post by stappard » Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:55 am

continuumdnb wrote:
stappard wrote: There's some fair use guidelines that apply to recordings shorter than 10 seconds or something.. Obviously you can't go around sampling the riff from Thriller and saying its only short but nobody will get sued for taking a snare, no matter how popular the resulting song.
This couldn't be further form the truth. Under UK copyright law, any sample used needs copyright paid on it, "regardless of the recognizability or length of the sample".

Which means if you sampled an 808 kick from someone else, cut 5ms out of it, looped it, reversed it, distorted it, put a 24db LP on it and synced your filter to the lfo and synced your lfo to an lfo...

...you'd still have to pay copyright if the person you'd sampled found out what you'd done.


I stand corrected. I was thinking of the mashup artist Girl Talk who has released albums commercially with hundreds of blatent samples in, without being sued. His defence (and its one that industry lawyers take seriously or they would have hung him out to dry by now) is that hes transformed the things he's sampled enough that they constitute non-infringing fair use.

User avatar
joekool
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:07 am

Re: Copyright

Post by joekool » Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:15 pm

stappard wrote:
continuumdnb wrote:
stappard wrote: There's some fair use guidelines that apply to recordings shorter than 10 seconds or something.. Obviously you can't go around sampling the riff from Thriller and saying its only short but nobody will get sued for taking a snare, no matter how popular the resulting song.
This couldn't be further form the truth. Under UK copyright law, any sample used needs copyright paid on it, "regardless of the recognizability or length of the sample".

Which means if you sampled an 808 kick from someone else, cut 5ms out of it, looped it, reversed it, distorted it, put a 24db LP on it and synced your filter to the lfo and synced your lfo to an lfo...

...you'd still have to pay copyright if the person you'd sampled found out what you'd done.


I stand corrected. I was thinking of the mashup artist Girl Talk who has released albums commercially with hundreds of blatent samples in, without being sued. His defence (and its one that industry lawyers take seriously or they would have hung him out to dry by now) is that hes transformed the things he's sampled enough that they constitute non-infringing fair use.
i think UK and US copyright law are VERY different, i.e. it's much easier to get away with this kind of stuff in america.. i might be wrong though... someone correct me if i am?
power electronics and dancehall and rap

thierry_le_dj
Posts: 1617
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:14 am
Location: sydney/australia
Contact:

Re: Copyright

Post by thierry_le_dj » Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:34 pm

yea i always notice heaps of people on scloud had track they made a remix then made it free download i never knew if that was legal or not...

User avatar
wirez
Posts: 2370
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:54 am
Location: South UK, near Brighton
Contact:

Re: Copyright

Post by wirez » Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:37 pm

thierry_le_dj wrote:yea i always notice heaps of people on scloud had track they made a remix then made it free download i never knew if that was legal or not...
It is illegal, but in reality if the original copyright owner found you giving away a bootleg remix of their content then all they could really do would be to order you to take it down.
If you were selling the remix though, they could order that all further sales are stopped, possibly destroyed and maybe even that all money earned is paid back to the original copyright owner.

I've actually heard loads of different stories about the outcome of court cases over copyright breaches for remixes etc. The outcome seems to be random, you could either get really lucky and have them agree to continue distribution with a percentage cut going to them, or the complete opposite happens and they go completely out of their way to completely fuck your life over...

Either way, if the remix is good enough it should grasp enough attention for you to be able to make a living after paying back all of your court debts :twisted:
Image

http://whyrez.com

Newest track uploaded -

Soundcloud

Newest Release -

Soundcloud

User avatar
nowaysj
Posts: 23281
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:11 am
Location: Mountain Fortress

Re: Copyright

Post by nowaysj » Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:28 pm

joekool wrote:i think UK and US copyright law are VERY different, i.e. it's much easier to get away with this kind of stuff in america.. i might be wrong though... someone correct me if i am?
I don't believe this is accurate.
Join Me
DiegoSapiens wrote:oh fucking hell now i see how on point was nowaysj
Soundcloud

fhsueh
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:03 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Copyright

Post by fhsueh » Thu Apr 22, 2010 8:41 pm

DSF posts about intellectual property issues come in cycles. I am a lawyer, and I'm writing this because I have gained so much from DSF and wanted to give something back. I am licensed to practice in NY/CA (voluntarily inactive in CA), but I'm neither an intellectual property expert nor is that my main area of practice. I have, however, taken IP classes in law school, worked in the intellectual property group at an internationally known NY firm, and have helped various clients (including my own) with their intellectual property issues. There is no magic to being a lawyer, but the profession does teach you one thing: how to research and find answers.

Here's my attempt to try and make some things clearer, and maybe provide/confirm some basic understanding, without closing off any further insight/corrections that others on DSF might have (and there must be at least one other legal professional here). Last thing I want is to watch fellow producers get caught up in any legal quagmire, or to waste precious time worrying about legalities. Trust me, from a lawyer's perspective, much of the worrying is pointless for reasons I'll explain. And there are plenty of successful producers and labels here that have even more practical experience than I do, from a client's perspective, and I must defer to them for the realities on the ground.

Let me also say that even though I am trained as a lawyer, it does not mean that I subscribe to the policies behind all of our laws. For instance, I firmly support the art of sampling and believe a middle ground ought to be found between the framework against sampling and the high cost (time, legal costs, barriers) of sample clearance (which involves publishers and labels). I don't necessarily know what that would look like though.

Sorry I have to insert this: This is not meant to be actual legal advice, but rather a short, general summary of the legal environment/issues in the US, addressing some issues that consistently pop-up on the forum. Please do not contact me with legal questions. That is my day job - what I do so that I can support me and my family and pursue my true passions late at night. Compared with learning about production and making my tunes, it is also incredibly boring. But I did want to pay back the DSF community in some way by at least offering some of the knowledge I have gained from my other vocation. I'm a little sorry as I write this, because I may forever be branded as "the lawyer". Oh well, I may just come back under another alias. For those in other countries, sorry, I have nothing to contribute about your local situations, except that, we'll sue you too if there's a reason to.

Copyright in General and Our Music

The moment you finish something, call it complete, done, whatever, you own the copyright to that piece of music. If you can claim that it was entirely original, you will have complete ownership over it. What is it that I own now? The underlying composition, and the actual master (let's say "Brostep.wav"). It's important to understand that your ownership consists of a bundle of rights that you retain, or divide up as you see fit. I can give a license to Indie Record Label to include the track in a compilation. I can give a license to Artist to sample part of it and incorporate it into their new track. Or I can give a license to a concert promoter who wishes to play my track over the PA during intermission (performance license). All of these involve fees negotiated for both the composition and the master recording. You can see how complex and confusing this can become if you have an entire catalog of released material.

A very practical implication of the above: when Kanye wants to sample from another artist's work, he must get permission to use both the underlying composition AND the master recording. If he can get rights to the composition (which is typically held by a music publisher), but not the recording (often held by a label) then he hires someone like Ken Lewis to recreate the passage so that it sounds like the recording (http://www.protoolsmixing.com/2008/01/y ... -year.html). Or, if I get clearance from a label to sample the master recording, but forget to contact the publisher, I could still get sued by the publisher for infringing the copyright to the underlying composition. What practical relevance does this have here for DSF? Almost none. But what if your track contains a passage similar to Skream's arpeggios from MRL and you started selling that track and actually making money? There is no assurance that Skream would not hire a lawyer to at least send you a Cease & Desist letter.

All copyright actions hinge upon a simple act: the moment you allegedly COPIED something. Did you play a line that's identical to the opening phrase of Stairway to Heaven? (opens you to an infringement action by the publisher) Or did you copy/paste a 3 second clip from Rihanna's latest? (opens you to an action by both the publisher and the owner of the master recordings, if different). There are lots of different scenarios that you can google. Important thing is to understand the regime out there, and how you might fit into it.

A common copyright question on DSF is "how do I protect my track(s) before I send them out?" At this point, "poor man's copyright" ALWAYS comes up. But it is a MYTH (google "poor man's copyright myth"). If you put a CD of your tracks in an envelope and mail them to yourself, then promptly put it in a drawer without opening it, this does nothing. At most, it can help show that you created the tracks, but it does not allow you to access the courts. The only way you can bring a copyright suit to protect yourself is if you register the track(s) with the Copyright Office. So before you send your demos out, register them with the Copyright Office. It's cheap. Be diligent about archiving your works too so that you have unquestionable evidence that you built the tracks. Of course, the flip side to this question is, what are the legal ramifications against me when I send demos out, which I address below.

Sampling
"What if I send out tracks containing uncleared samples?" I cannot speak from personal experience about this, because I have never sent any demos out. But you should be careful to whom you send them. If you send anything out with uncleared samples, it opens your work and your reputation up to the world's scrutiny. Besides the normal risk taken by an artist when sending demos out, there is the risk (albeit remote) that the original sampled artist might hear it. At that point, you've moved from "exciting new artist" to "alleged thief". Not to mention what that record label might think of you. This depends on the label of course, but I've never heard of a label that welcomes lawsuits. Take what you want from this.

All of this brings to mind the legal process or the "fear of the unknown" which is at the heart of many DSF posts. Of course, most issues can be avoided if you don't sample other works. But if your tracks have samples in them, and they are good enough that someone is considering releasing them for you, or you are trying to self-release, someone will have to attempt to clear the samples. This is possible to do on your own. There are plenty of online services that claim to facilitate it. But overall, expect this to be a time-consuming process. And unless your tracks are going to drop like bombs (like you have 10,000 plays on Soundcloud without a single free space in the timed comment bar), don't expect anyone to eagerly help you out in this respect.

Of course, the ramifications of sampling completely depend on who you are, who the original artist is, and whether any money is being made. If you are a complete nobody who sampled from a Rihanna track, you will either never be heard (because you are a nobody and you didn't use a highly identifiable sample), or it will be all over the internet despite being a nobody because your track contains a ridiculously famous piece of a Rihanna track.

So what if you are the latter case? Well, the famous artist's team of lawyers may look you up, do some searches to find out if you are selling the track, and to see if your track is being performed anywhere. Most importantly they want to know if you are making any money. They may even strategize about how to exploit what you've done. Realistically, though, you probably aren't making any money off of it, and so there could be little to no damages (besides statutory damages - google this), and so you may just receive a C&D in the mail, warning you to remove all instances of the track or else risk a lawsuit. And most likely, you will cave, because let's face it: it's much cheaper to take it off youtube (is that even possible?), then to hire a lawyer to defend you. Now if you've already offered it for sale, and it's not easily removeable from different outlets, then they could proceed with the lawsuit and win rights to all proceeds going forward.

Now some folks reading this will say that the obvious lesson is this: if you sample, make sure it's not easily recognizable, and do not offer it up for sale. I did not say that. But what are the chances that you will be accused of sampling if no one, including the original artist, can recognize that the sampled work is theirs? Then it becomes a personal issue of how you view the discrete act of "sampling" in your bedroom.

But truly, where would any of us be be without sampling?

My own personal opinion is that if you are sampling, try to keep in mind the sample clearance process, and do not make your track completely dependent on any one sample, especially if it may be easily recognized. Then if you cannot get clearance for a particular sample, your track could possibly still survive without it. Of course, Burial comes to mind. I have no idea what kind of clearance is involved, but most of his tracks (which are not heavily dependent on a particular vocal) could still work minus any of the few identifiable samples he incorporates in each track. The wiki pages show which samples have been used. You can bet that if that information is public, then Hyperdub managed to clear those samples, or they have already received C&D letters or have been sued. Also, I have the suspicion that his relative fame has complicated the clearance process, which could partly explain the lengthy silence since Untrue.

This is the reality of the modern music environment, at least in the U.S. Imagine, there was a time when sampling was not on anybody's radar.

Remixing
This is an issue that comes up regularly as well. Remixing typically involves taking elements of a released track and turning it into a new track, featuring your unique take or spin on it. For some, it can be an easier way of getting heard than by writing completely original tracks. When you remix something, it necessarily entails COPYING parts of that track and creating a new piece of music. This means your remix is now a "derivative" work of that original piece. This is a type of work that often commands fees, paid by the original artists to the remixer (either upfront, or in the form of a percentage of sales, or some combination, etc.). But the remixer is given the right to make a derivative work (part of the bundle of rights owned by the original author) which in most cases shall remain completely owned by the original artist. Of course, often the remixer's compensation will be completely up to the original artist subject to negotiation. Practically speaking, there is little difference between incorporating an uncleared sample in your work, and producing an unauthorized remix. Both are infringing on someone's copyright. So whether you make it available for download, or sale, or whatever, makes no difference. If it's heard (and recognized), you will likely be accused of infringing their copyright. Keep an eye out for the C&D letter.

Trademarks
This is an area less likely to come up for most of us producers. But trademarks serve to identify/distinguish our goods and services. If I have a unique production name (not just my real name) and/or logo for my production, and it somehow creates confusion in the marketplace as to the real "DJ Brostep", etc., then you may enter into a little fight about it, possibly resulting in a lawsuit. But this is really unlikely. Just google possible production names to remain unique.

I'm now rushing to complete this so apologize for any major omissions. Again, my apologies for not being willing to engage in a back and forth about the legalities of what we are doing. But even if we had a 100 page discussion, it would only be possible to convey how complex the legal situation has become here. The federal courts do not all rule the same way on fine copyright issues, and there is a sense that the laws are terribly outdated. If there are major questions/conflicts that come up because what I've written I'll try to respond generally.

Peace.

User avatar
Sinisterbeats
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Copyright

Post by Sinisterbeats » Thu Apr 22, 2010 9:45 pm

great post above, however Im still slightly unclear. For example the track in my sig contains a vocal sample from Half Life, and also some of the percussion sounds were taken from the Half Life sounds. I have recently been contacted by a small label who are interested in me and this tune, would it be best to remove the sample from the tune before it gets released or will it be easy to get clearance to use the sample, or, do I not need to worry as it will probably never make a huge amount of money and probably wont be heard by anyone that cares?

slothrop
Posts: 2655
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:59 am

Re: Copyright

Post by slothrop » Thu Apr 22, 2010 10:26 pm

Great post there. Thanks!
fhsueh wrote:Let me also say that even though I am trained as a lawyer, it does not mean that I subscribe to the policies behind all of our laws. For instance, I firmly support the art of sampling and believe a middle ground ought to be found between the framework against sampling and the high cost (time, legal costs, barriers) of sample clearance (which involves publishers and labels). I don't necessarily know what that would look like though.
I've thought for a while that things would look a lot more sensible if you had rules along the lines of:
1) Single sounds are always fair game - where 'single sound' means some combination of 'under a given length', 'no rhythmic or melodic content' and so on
2) Any sampling at all is fine for non-commercial releases (provided the tune doing the sampling is clearly different from the sampled tune, not just an excuse to pirate stuff) - where 'non-commercial' has a broad enough definition to allow for free downloads and also for the fact that a lot of small labels press and sell vinyl to break even rather than make a significant profit (but probably rules out use for advertising and political promotion).

Then you allow creative types room to manouevre (which is good for the financial health of music as a whole, as well as its artistic state) while avoiding the "what happens if someone jacks my beat and has a worldwide number one and I don't get any credit" issue.

User avatar
nowaysj
Posts: 23281
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:11 am
Location: Mountain Fortress

Re: Copyright

Post by nowaysj » Fri Apr 23, 2010 12:04 am

slothrop wrote: 2) Any sampling at all is fine for non-commercial releases (provided the tune doing the sampling is clearly different from the sampled tune, not just an excuse to pirate stuff) - where 'non-commercial' has a broad enough definition to allow for free downloads and also for the fact that a lot of small labels press and sell vinyl to break even rather than make a significant profit (but probably rules out use for advertising and political promotion).
All well and good, but artists should also have moral rights to their work. If I write a banging toon, I would be extremely upset if the non-commercial tea party used it at their rallies. Gnaw what I'm sayin?

sue's post should be incorporated into something and sticked.
Join Me
DiegoSapiens wrote:oh fucking hell now i see how on point was nowaysj
Soundcloud

User avatar
stappard
Posts: 1529
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:56 am
Location: se5

Re: Copyright

Post by stappard » Fri Apr 23, 2010 12:17 am

fhsueh wrote:DSF posts about intellectual property issues come in cycles. I am a lawyer, and I'm writing this because I have gained so much from DSF and wanted to give something back. I am licensed to practice in NY/CA (voluntarily inactive in CA), but I'm neither an intellectual property expert nor is that my main area of practice. I have, however, taken IP classes in law school, worked in the intellectual property group at an internationally known NY firm, and have helped various clients (including my own) with their intellectual property issues. There is no magic to being a lawyer, but the profession does teach you one thing: how to research and find answers.
Brilliant post - clearly outlines the complicatedness of it all (ironic :lol: )


Interesting point about Burial too. Given that any major release will get some significant attention (at least on a national level) Hyperdub must have to step up its game in terms of clearing samples.

staticcast
Posts: 908
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 12:08 pm
Location: Berlin

Re: Copyright

Post by staticcast » Fri Apr 23, 2010 1:13 am

Sinisterbeats wrote:great post above, however Im still slightly unclear. For example the track in my sig contains a vocal sample from Half Life, and also some of the percussion sounds were taken from the Half Life sounds. I have recently been contacted by a small label who are interested in me and this tune, would it be best to remove the sample from the tune before it gets released or will it be easy to get clearance to use the sample, or, do I not need to worry as it will probably never make a huge amount of money and probably wont be heard by anyone that cares?
(great post fhsueh, def +1 on stickying it)

@Sinisterbeats: For a start, I would advise the label that there are uncleared samples in the tune. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't speak on the technicalities. But really, what I'm most curious about isn't the absolute legality of sampling in specific cases, but rather "how much would xyz label/publisher/artist care if a small-time EDM producer sampled my track and put out a 12 that would in all likelihood make a maximum of a few hundred quid, if not a substantial loss?"

As I say, I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect this would be a vastly different case to a commercial artist sampling an old RnB track. The disco/slow house scene for example is rife with re-edits, many of which are commercially available and uncleared therefore effectively bootlegs, but since you're talking maybe a few hundred units (often in one limited pressing) it's not often an issue. After all, pressing to vinyl is generally a labour of love unless you're a sizeable name and can sell loads of copies. (And once you're a sizeable name you should probably re-evaluate your position when it comes to putting out music with uncleared samples...)
o b j e k t


User avatar
wirez
Posts: 2370
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:54 am
Location: South UK, near Brighton
Contact:

Re: Copyright

Post by wirez » Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:55 pm

nowaysj wrote:
slothrop wrote: 2) Any sampling at all is fine for non-commercial releases (provided the tune doing the sampling is clearly different from the sampled tune, not just an excuse to pirate stuff) - where 'non-commercial' has a broad enough definition to allow for free downloads and also for the fact that a lot of small labels press and sell vinyl to break even rather than make a significant profit (but probably rules out use for advertising and political promotion).
All well and good, but artists should also have moral rights to their work. If I write a banging toon, I would be extremely upset if the non-commercial tea party used it at their rallies. Gnaw what I'm sayin?

sue's post should be incorporated into something and sticked.
I'd love it... If it was a good remix and I knew about it, it would give me some amazing new music to listen to INSPIRED BY YOURSELF, or if it was a shit remix somebody would say to them 'I don't really like it, but I like this part...' and the remixer would then reply, 'oh, I sampled that part from Whyrez's track :( ' Hahahaha.
Image

http://whyrez.com

Newest track uploaded -

Soundcloud

Newest Release -

Soundcloud

User avatar
wirez
Posts: 2370
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:54 am
Location: South UK, near Brighton
Contact:

Re: Copyright

Post by wirez » Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:57 pm

stappard wrote:
fhsueh wrote:DSF posts about intellectual property issues come in cycles. I am a lawyer, and I'm writing this because I have gained so much from DSF and wanted to give something back. I am licensed to practice in NY/CA (voluntarily inactive in CA), but I'm neither an intellectual property expert nor is that my main area of practice. I have, however, taken IP classes in law school, worked in the intellectual property group at an internationally known NY firm, and have helped various clients (including my own) with their intellectual property issues. There is no magic to being a lawyer, but the profession does teach you one thing: how to research and find answers.
Brilliant post - clearly outlines the complicatedness of it all (ironic :lol: )


Interesting point about Burial too. Given that any major release will get some significant attention (at least on a national level) Hyperdub must have to step up its game in terms of clearing samples.
I think it's time that fucking Burial revealed himself, came on DSF and gave some fucking answers. What a wanker.
Image

http://whyrez.com

Newest track uploaded -

Soundcloud

Newest Release -

Soundcloud

User avatar
Isturite
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:13 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Copyright

Post by Isturite » Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:12 pm

marshy wrote:

wirez wrote:I recommend reading the last two chapters of 'Dance Music Manual by Rick Snoman' for detailed but easily digestible info on this subject



Is the whole book worth getting? Looks interesting.

If there's anywhere to sample or read the last two chapters too it'd be great, would help me on coursework.



Mate get the book, it's a gem!

GET IT!! The best computer music book i've ever seen, let alone read... Highly recommended for any producer of any genre, is what my MIDI teacher said, and i agree with him all the way... he even tells you how to program a fairly large number of classic synth patches for leads, drums, bass, percussion etc...

User avatar
Isturite
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:13 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Copyright

Post by Isturite » Fri Apr 23, 2010 5:15 pm

and btw slothrop... I like your idea!!

slothrop
Posts: 2655
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:59 am

Re: Copyright

Post by slothrop » Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:23 am

nowaysj wrote:
slothrop wrote: 2) Any sampling at all is fine for non-commercial releases (provided the tune doing the sampling is clearly different from the sampled tune, not just an excuse to pirate stuff) - where 'non-commercial' has a broad enough definition to allow for free downloads and also for the fact that a lot of small labels press and sell vinyl to break even rather than make a significant profit (but probably rules out use for advertising and political promotion).
All well and good, but artists should also have moral rights to their work. If I write a banging toon, I would be extremely upset if the non-commercial tea party used it at their rallies. Gnaw what I'm sayin?

User avatar
nowaysj
Posts: 23281
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:11 am
Location: Mountain Fortress

Re: Copyright

Post by nowaysj » Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:53 pm

Can't deny a form of speech to a political group that is available to everyone else.
Join Me
DiegoSapiens wrote:oh fucking hell now i see how on point was nowaysj
Soundcloud

User avatar
upstateface
Posts: 2607
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:02 pm
Location: New York, New York (Harlem)

Re: Copyright

Post by upstateface » Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:06 pm

Cool idea guys, it's called DISREGARD FO' DA MOFUCKIN' LAW MANG! Get me?
knell wrote:i have the weirdest boner right now

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests