Sampling Forbidden
Dig that Sample? No Pay, No Way
XLR8R magazine #81
Text: Jialin Luh
A federal appeals court in Cincinnati, Ohio ruled early this month that artists must pay for every musical sample included in their work, even if the snippets used are
unrecognizable.
This ruling sprang from federal laws passed to curb piracy of digital recordings; a
three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that those laws apply to
digital sampling.
Though lower courts previously ruled that artists had to pay when sampling others’ work, samples were defined as recognizable pieces; it was legal to use musical snippets (note, chord etc) as long as it wasn’t identifiable. This recent decision nullifies the distinction. The reason behind the decisioning is this: If you can’t pirate a whole sound recording, you should not be permitted to sample less than the whole either.
Many think this will have a chilling effect on creativity, as, for example, hip-hop
artists have often rhymed over samples of music taken from an old jazz, funk, or soul track.
The case at issue here dealt with NWA’s song “100 Miles and Runnin,” which sampled a three-note guitar riff (totaling two seconds) from “Get Off Your Ass and Jam” by George Clinton and the Funkadelic. Appearing five times in the new song, the sampled guitar pitch was lowered, looped, and extended to 16 beats. Clinton himself was not opposed to sampling- having produced the albums Sample Some of Dis and Sample Some of Dat, which explicitly encourage artists to sample without legal scrutiny.
Bridgeport Music and Westbound Records claimed copyright ownership of the Funkadelic song, taking it to court in 2002. Initially lower courts ruled that the riff in Clinton’s song was entitled to copyright protection, but the sample had been altered beyond legal recognition. The appeals court disagreed, saying that a recording artist who intentionally uses a sample may be liable even when the source of the sample is unrecognizable.
XLR8R magazine #81
Text: Jialin Luh
A federal appeals court in Cincinnati, Ohio ruled early this month that artists must pay for every musical sample included in their work, even if the snippets used are
unrecognizable.
This ruling sprang from federal laws passed to curb piracy of digital recordings; a
three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that those laws apply to
digital sampling.
Though lower courts previously ruled that artists had to pay when sampling others’ work, samples were defined as recognizable pieces; it was legal to use musical snippets (note, chord etc) as long as it wasn’t identifiable. This recent decision nullifies the distinction. The reason behind the decisioning is this: If you can’t pirate a whole sound recording, you should not be permitted to sample less than the whole either.
Many think this will have a chilling effect on creativity, as, for example, hip-hop
artists have often rhymed over samples of music taken from an old jazz, funk, or soul track.
The case at issue here dealt with NWA’s song “100 Miles and Runnin,” which sampled a three-note guitar riff (totaling two seconds) from “Get Off Your Ass and Jam” by George Clinton and the Funkadelic. Appearing five times in the new song, the sampled guitar pitch was lowered, looped, and extended to 16 beats. Clinton himself was not opposed to sampling- having produced the albums Sample Some of Dis and Sample Some of Dat, which explicitly encourage artists to sample without legal scrutiny.
Bridgeport Music and Westbound Records claimed copyright ownership of the Funkadelic song, taking it to court in 2002. Initially lower courts ruled that the riff in Clinton’s song was entitled to copyright protection, but the sample had been altered beyond legal recognition. The appeals court disagreed, saying that a recording artist who intentionally uses a sample may be liable even when the source of the sample is unrecognizable.
5 Comments:
Please notice that it´s not clinton who´s suing. The record-company...
It´ll never work. People will look for more and more obscure samples.
What do you record-label owners think of this? Would you let people sample your stuff?
Ett slag i luften. Why even bother?
On the last mix cd by KID 606 and CEX "So now you fuckers wanna dance", they´re using a track from the Osso Bucco / Ljudbilden & Piloten. It sounds mentally nice.
Hmm.... don´t know how that reply should be considered. That I see myself and Nosordo as huge multinational label that are nice enough to give away copyrighted material or just bragging and boasting about bullshit.
Or that I´m sick of my job today...
The samples might not have to be recognisable by listening for them to know the source. They can put an inaudible tag thingy. Or perhaps they already do - anyone know about this?
Of course, a progamme to wipe it will be on the internet.
Then again....companies could use their own tags and change them all the time - as long as they can prove that their watermark (or inaudible tag thingy if you prefer the technical term) is in there.
I guess they could an inaudible tag thingy on there, which will send signals to Spectre where that dude with the cat will delegate an order to kill the guy who samples. Odd Job or the Shark...
You been thinking a lot about this? What are you doing in Hong Kong anyway? Working on new anti-copy techniques? I always thought there were something fishy about Andy and his magical laptop.
Post a Comment
<< Home