Sampling and copyrights: max length not considered as a stea

A:

I can only speak of US copyright law. I'm not sure of the laws in your country.

As far as the US goes, there was a pretty famous one concerning the rap group NWA and the funk artist George Clinton. It was filed in September 2004 by the US Court of Appeals - 6th District. It pretty much states that ANY sample must be cleared or it is an infringement.

A lot of music news sites picked up on this because it was considered legal before this ruling. Here are a few articles on in:

Wired News: http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,64884,00.html
Downhill: http://www.downhillbattle.org/3notes/sampling_rights.php
MTV: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1490830/20040908/index.jhtml?headlines=true

If you're really into it, here's the actual opinion from the court themselves: http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0297p-06.pdf


Have fun.

Joe

-------------------------------------------
Gear: Does it really matter?

Thanks for the info!

No, I am not into it, of course. I am a sound designer and I would never need anyone's sounds.

I just wanted to know the details. E.g. there is a nice orgain sound in one Led Zeppelin song, and I could sample one period of it to make a cool synth sound. Okay, now I won't do that


A.

I think, personally, that sampling a single note or wave period of a sound should be totally OK. Reductio ad absurdum -- at what point does a sound become 'unique'?

There was a good article in Sound On Sound (or was it Future Music?) profiling a studio in the UK that does nothing but re-create sounds that artists can't get clearance for.. ranging from re-creating individual synth patches, to entire band loops, vocal passages etc. They even go so far as to set up a whole studio and get session musicians to do the entire riff, making it sound as close as possible to the sample that they otherwise would have used.

It's a silly legal distinction. If you go to all the trouble of re-creating, from scratch, an audibly identical version of a song riff, it's legal -- but if it sounds exactly the same, what's the difference from sampling it? It's still somone else's sound, you just took a complicated path to re-using it

Error 144 - Reboot y/n?

Joe is absolutely right. ANY sample is infringement if not cleared first. But this doesn't really come into play at all unless your song is being offered for commercial sale. There are countless examples of artists that have sampled previous artist's work, have suddenly become popular and now have to get legal clearance before their CD goes to market. Usually is just involves money.

Mike

doesnt this only come to bare when you be come comercial?
i mean.. a dj who plays other peoples songs doesnt have to pay a licence for parts of the song... and if he does a mix and does not claim ownership of the song, does this not all then come under performance rights..

Now if we extend this to the sampling, you could claim that the tune is the song and perform under performance writes then if its commercial then let the record companies worry about that if they want your work, unless you try to do it through your own record company then you have to seek permission..

am i making any sense here!??

Results not Excuses



QuinnX universal tranlator below:-
(lets not be misunderstood)

!!!!!! ephasis not anger
!!?? confusion or Stupidity
ABC are you getting the point
&*$% Anger (but rarely seen)

i beleive that fair use in the US allows you to sample a sound and synthesize it to fit your needs. I beleive that if it is not audibly the same sound then you are not infringeing

looking for cheap sound modules/analog synths

JC THE MC...

It's basically if you're trying to make money with that audio sample or not.

For instance, this isn't quite regarding a sample, but it is legal to make, say a mix CD with all the chart songs on it and GIVE it away for promotional purposes, but you can't SELL the CD to anybody and make a profit for yourself with someone else's work.

I heard that back in the day, you could sample up to I think 7 seconds and not get in trouble, but yeah, it's anything now.

Really all these entities want is money for their work. I don't think anyone who samples should have a problem cutting their sample's author in on the money. If they do, then that is quite unethical.

Smoke Club!

As far as I know this is very complicated to judge. If you want to sample a sinth wave, wherethere from a recording or from the original sinth, I don't think it can be copyrighted otherwise we all would be paying for using our boards in original recordings. Therefore the sinth sounds are free of copyright. Now if you sample a specific sinth line that certanly is another matter 'cause you're not only sampling the sound (say sonic caracteristics of a specific instrument) but also the music idea or concept (say de duplication of a certain note sequence with exact interval and duration).
So for example when Steph3dfx says he sampled the metalic hit from his, by the way bery nice, Flock of Seaguls cover (on fantomized "show your music" ) I believe that if that sound came originaly from a sinth or rhythm box, steph3dfx can freely use it but when he re-creates the same note sequence of that song (well, its a cover) is doing it illegally if he intends to have profit with it - say, use his cover to someway make money.

I think it is all to do with taking other people songs and claiming it as original and at the same time trying to claim complete ownership of the work.

However there are mechanical rights to, where any part of any song that is owned by another must be paid that percentage of the song.

You get into trouble if you try to claim complete ownership.
So you’re probably going to get to a point of percentages in the work.

Who owns what?
You own the composition of the track; where as others own what is part there’s and must be paid.

The difference between playing a sequence similar to and using a sample is obvious.

Playing a sequence will not always be the same as the original and there for is yours as long as you didn’t set out to copy the others work, its usually clear its only similar and especially if your using other sounds or instruments to play the sequence and maybe the timing is different.

However, using a sample is deliberately taking someone else’s work and using it to produce something of your own and must be paid their percentage, assuming it has not been altered to sound completely different to the original.

Results not Excuses



QuinnX universal tranlator below:-
(lets not be misunderstood)

!!!!!! ephasis not anger
!!?? confusion or Stupidity
ABC are you getting the point
&*$% Anger (but rarely seen)

In the U.S. a karaoke dj, a dj, a bar owner that uses a juke box and/or a band does have to buy permission from bmi and ascap. Many get away with it for a long time without doing so but eventually bmi/ascap catches up and will levy a hefty bill on them. I know personally of one guy who lost his entire bar business for failing to pay his bmi/ascap "dues". Usually bmi/ascap doesn't come after the individual dj they go after the bar owner that hires them. The next time you go into a legitimate bar you will see the bmi/ascap license displayed somewhere, usually right along with their business license. JMIO.

Signed, "Nature is hard enough on us, let's not be hard on each other."

WOW....arent we becoming a Greedy society.

In my opinion, sampling sounds should be okay. Its not until you sample a whole riff from a song(i.e. "cant touch this" by McHammer with its obvious "Superfreak" by Rick James loop) that I feel copyright laws should come into play. But it seems laws dictacte otherwise these days.
I know that ALOT of us sampler owners bought them for the ability to take existing sounds and alter or recreate them to make new patches and compositions out of.
All these new laws stiffle creative and artisitc freedoms. It gives supreme rule back over to corporations and ensures only established artists with large incomes flourish in todays commercial market.
Whole songs and albums have been scrapped due to a few small samples. The last Conjure One (one of my faves) album was held from release for over 2yrs due to legal issues. He even had to go back and rewrite songs and remove a few in order to get it out on the market.
Corporate America and all these silly laws have really sucked the fun out of being an electronic musician. I miss the old days.

Fixthemix wrote: "If you want to sample a sinth wave ...I don't think it can be copyrighted otherwise we all would be paying for using our boards in original recordings. Therefore the sinth sounds are free of copyright."

Actually, the owner's manual for the SRX expansion boards contains language (under "Important Notes") that, by my reading, implies that you might need written consent from Roland in order to use any of the sounds on the board in the creation of any "other product" ... say any recording that could be either sold or given to another person. The note states that although no additional license fees are required for either commercial or non-commercial use, "you must strictly adhere to the following crediting guidelines."

By my reading of the so-called "crediting guidelines," it appears that Roland might actually be able to prosecute for simply using a patch or wave (either as preset, or altered) in any recording ("product") that you either sell or even give to another person ... if you don't have written permission from the company.

I took a quick look at the X8 manual and didn't see anything similar there....

What does everybody think about this? Am I misreading the legal language, or does Roland somehow give us express permission as the primary user (purchaser) to use the sounds without further written permission when we distribute our works?

Absolutely ridiculous, yes ... but the legal language is there, no?

ncsteff

Some SRX boards include samples produced by other sample companies, like Ueberchsall (featured on Platinum Trax SRX) and Spectrasonics (Dynamic Drums SRX and parts of other boards). AFAIK, Ueberschall do limit your rights in use of this material - you cannot, for example, use their waves to create and sell beat loops. You can write and sell your music, but not the so-called "library" material.

Roland's own waves (such as those found in the S/X ROM and on Roland-only SRX baords) indeed can be used to create "library" material.


A.

i can see that specific motifs / tunes are covered by copyright
and use of them will need permission.
But ithe idea that sound is also covered is absolute RUBBISH.
If the sound is covered by copyright
Then ALL sample cds are ILLEGAL
As well as expansion cards.
The new SRX 11 card is a sample of a non roland piano
So even roland is in breach of the copyright act