Copyright?

[bailees7irish]

Okay, so I had a question that I really wanted to ask in another thread, but unfortunately Meffy's trigger finger was itching...

What is the harm in sampling something that has a copyright if, in fact, you are not selling it. The law is that you cannot use it for your own personal tracks?? That seems absurd. Sure, I'm very ignorant when it comes to this subject, so my opinion means squat, but...I just find that stupid. Why would it be an issue for anyone if I wasn't making money off of it?

Note: this is being asked out of curiosity, nothing more. I guess I've always wanted to discuss this, but it took seeing that other thread for me to come out and ask it here on KVR.

[ntom]

Well technically Copyright exists to remove the damages done by someone stealing another persons intellectual properties. If you release tracks for free (that only minutely samples bits of the artists music), it's not technically damaging their revenues from the use of their intellectual property, and would probably not mean anything to the owner of the source material. Unfortunately Copyright is not black and white, and there are those money-hungry out there that may find some sort of way to claim that your music is damaging, however, the whole thing about it being pretty grey: Well under copyright there are some rules that say that as long as it's less than 30 seconds or that the sample is otherwise unrecognizable from the source material it is legal, but this is kind of grey as I have seen people get busted for less than 30 seconds of sampled material, and I have heard of people getting busted for material that - imo, seemed unrecognizable from the source material.

It's pretty hard to say, really.
For example, an artist by the name of Pretty Lights does very sample heavy music, in fact it seems that almost 90% of his tracks would be comprised entirely of samples, he would simply add maybe a solo synth for some spice, layer some drums in for emphasis on the samples, and maybe add a bass and that was it. I can't say for certain, but considering he releases a lot of music and they all take samples from all over the place, some songs use samples from more than one song, I doubt there is any way he gets rights for every single bit he samples. And as far as I know, he gets away with it just fine.

[sprnva]

I've wondered about this too. Girl Talk made a few albums by just sampling and mashing up a whole bunch of songs.

Yet he claimed fair use and as far as I know is neither broke or in jail. Maybe because he released his music under Creative Commons licence?

[bailees7irish]

Well technically Copyright exists to remove the damages done by someone stealing another persons intellectual properties. If you release tracks for free (that only minutely samples bits of the artists music), it's not technically damaging their revenues from the use of their intellectual property, and would probably not mean anything to the owner of the source material. Unfortunately Copyright is not black and white, and there are those money-hungry out there that may find some sort of way to claim that your music is damaging, however, the whole thing about it being pretty grey: Well under copyright there are some rules that say that as long as it's less than 30 seconds or that the sample is otherwise unrecognizable from the source material it is legal, but this is kind of grey as I have seen people get busted for less than 30 seconds of sampled material, and I have heard of people getting busted for material that - imo, seemed unrecognizable from the source material.

It's pretty hard to say, really.
For example, an artist by the name of Pretty Lights does very sample heavy music, in fact it seems that almost 90% of his tracks would be comprised entirely of samples, he would simply add maybe a solo synth for some spice, layer some drums in for emphasis on the samples, and maybe add a bass and that was it. I can't say for certain, but considering he releases a lot of music and they all take samples from all over the place, some songs use samples from more than one song, I doubt there is any way he gets rights for every single bit he samples. And as far as I know, he gets away with it just fine.

Interesting. Thanks, man. Yeah, I have Pretty Light's free album A Color Map of the Sun and it's remix album on my hard drive. I like some of the stuff he does, but I agree. He uses a s__tload of samples and I'd bet money he doesn't have clearance for them. Maybe he's just really smart (or lucky) in choosing ones that no one cares about, copyright or not. It seems that some artists will get snagged for legal issues when using a 1 second snare sample, while others can practically extract large portions of a track and no one gives a s__t. DJ Shadow is one who seems to get away with a lot of "stealing" and not crediting the song/artist, and he gets away with it. I think he sampled Bjork on The Private Press and it was fairly noticeable in the track, yet he didn't credit her. That's just one example, but I think you get what I'm saying.

On the flip-side, there's the Amen break and The Winstons...don't even get me started on the Amen break...

[bailees7irish]

I've wondered about this too. Girl Talk made a few albums by just sampling and mashing up a whole bunch of songs.

Yet he claimed fair use and as far as I know is neither broke or in jail. Maybe because he released his music under Creative Commons licence?

Interesting, sprnva. I might have to look into that a little more. Girl Talk seems to use his excessive uncleared sample use as a selling point.
I see on his site that he offers some free downloads but there's also a handful of pay-what-you-want albums. That's crazy if he's claiming fair use...

[dune_rave]

The solution is simple: don't use samples. Use synths (Synths has samples too but that's OK).
+Use existing midi files and change their notes

Really - what about "midi sampling"?

[ntom]

Interesting. Thanks, man. Yeah, I have Pretty Light's free album A Color Map of the Sun and it's remix album on my hard drive. I like some of the stuff he does, but I agree. He uses a s__tload of samples and I'd bet money he doesn't have clearance for them. Maybe he's just really smart (or lucky) in choosing ones that no one cares about, copyright or not. It seems that some artists will get snagged for legal issues when using a 1 second snare sample, while others can practically extract large portions of a track and no one gives a s__t. DJ Shadow is one who seems to get away with a lot of "stealing" and not crediting the song/artist, and he gets away with it. I think he sampled Bjork on The Private Press and it was fairly noticeable in the track, yet he didn't credit her. That's just one example, but I think you get what I'm saying.

On the flip-side, there's the Amen break and The Winstons...don't even get me started on the Amen break...

I really didn't like his new album, his older stuff is my favorite and he samples some pretty large tunes, in one he samples "Something's happening here, but it ain't exactly clear" from Buffalo Springfield's "For what it's worth" which I still hear that song played on the radio frequently here in Austin. And that's just one prime example of many others.
My favorite track he has done sampled the entirity of the lyrics from one of Aviccii's songs (thank god, he actually made the song good, since Aviccii's stuff sucks.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk9XYQMRiLY

if you care to know, Buffalo Springfield's track was sampled in this song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTG7TPlvpMI

EDIT:
[citation]
http://www.whosampled.com
http://www.whosampled.com/sample/112109 ... ve-It-Too/

[ZenPunkHippy]

It's pretty simple IMO ...

Do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home.

Performing live in public or releasing music out in the real world, pay your respects by observing copyright laws and getting clearance for the samples.

Peace,
Andy.

[bailees7irish]

It's pretty simple IMO ...

Do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home.

Performing live in public or releasing music out in the real world, pay your respects by observing copyright laws and getting clearance for the samples.

Peace,
Andy.

It's simple if a.) you're a millionaire or if b.) you just don't use any uncleared samples.
Unfortunately, neither of those are viable options for me, so...I guess I'll have to claim fair use if/when the time comes.

[bailees7irish]

Interesting. Thanks, man. Yeah, I have Pretty Light's free album A Color Map of the Sun and it's remix album on my hard drive. I like some of the stuff he does, but I agree. He uses a s__tload of samples and I'd bet money he doesn't have clearance for them. Maybe he's just really smart (or lucky) in choosing ones that no one cares about, copyright or not. It seems that some artists will get snagged for legal issues when using a 1 second snare sample, while others can practically extract large portions of a track and no one gives a s__t. DJ Shadow is one who seems to get away with a lot of "stealing" and not crediting the song/artist, and he gets away with it. I think he sampled Bjork on The Private Press and it was fairly noticeable in the track, yet he didn't credit her. That's just one example, but I think you get what I'm saying.

On the flip-side, there's the Amen break and The Winstons...don't even get me started on the Amen break...

I really didn't like his new album, his older stuff is my favorite and he samples some pretty large tunes, in one he samples "Something's happening here, but it ain't exactly clear" from Buffalo Springfield's "For what it's worth" which I still hear that song played on the radio frequently here in Austin. And that's just one prime example of many others.
My favorite track he has done sampled the entirity of the lyrics from one of Aviccii's songs (thank god, he actually made the song good, since Aviccii's stuff sucks.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk9XYQMRiLY

if you care to know, Buffalo Springfield's track was sampled in this song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTG7TPlvpMI

EDIT:
[citation]
http://www.whosampled.com
http://www.whosampled.com/sample/112109 ... ve-It-Too/

I dig those but my favorite of his is Yellow Bird, from his newest album:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFH2Xou9ZPI

Are you sure Derek didn't credit the original tracks he sampled? I find that hard to believe considering it's very evident what songs he used, and you're right, they're extremely well-known tracks he's taking from.

[bailees7irish]

The solution is simple: don't use samples. Use synths (Synths has samples too but that's OK).
+Use existing midi files and change their notes

Really - what about "midi sampling"?

Sure I can do that...in fact, I've been considering recreating all the old worn out tape and vinyl samples I want to use in future tracks and trying to recreate them all with synths and VSTs...but imagine how much time that would take!! I mean, I only have so much time in a day.

But I think to use only synths would take away that faded, time-wrought nostalgia that I can get with nicely cut and altered samples from yesteryear. I'm sure I could make my own samples (or recreations) sound suitably dusty just with Sonitex alone, but I'm just not 100% sure I want to invest that much time in it...especially when the end-result seems to lack the warmth and presence of the originals...

Also, I still have an issue if I decided to use all synths: I love using female vocal samples. In fact, I use more female vocal samples than anything else. Sure, I'll throw some instrumental loop in a track once in a while and I use drums samples, but it's those vocals samples that complete the picture. Until I can find a sultry,sexy full-time vocalist, I'm kind of stuck...

[BertKoor]

What is the harm in sampling something that has a copyright if, in fact, you are not selling it.

Selling or not is not the issue. Publication however is. Giving away for free, posting it on SoundCloud or YouTube, wherever in public is publication and there you're crossing the line of your front door.
In your own studio you can sample whatever you like without any issues, just don't ever make the results public.

[Gamma-UT]

Also, I still have an issue if I decided to use all synths: I love using female vocal samples. In fact, I use more female vocal samples than anything else. Sure, I'll throw some instrumental loop in a track once in a while and I use drums samples, but it's those vocals samples that complete the picture. Until I can find a sultry,sexy full-time vocalist, I'm kind of stuck...

It all depends on your attitude to risk. As Bert says, it's about publication. If a track blows up on YouTube and it's a big-name artist you've sampled, they are probably going to do something about it. They might not sue for money. If it's that popular, there is the chance they will say "give us the rights and we'll call off the hounds" (similar to The Verve scenario).

OTOH, if hardly anybody knows about it and no-one's making money, what's the point in suing? The artist or record company generally has to demonstrate financial or professional damage, which is far easier in, say, piracy cases than with sampling. Unless they feel strongly about it, the chances are nothing will happen. OTOH, there are some artists who you'd have to be daft to sample without clearance. Even with advance clearance, there's still the possibility they'll renege (The Verve's situation with Allen Klein).

But if it's a case of having a certain type of samples and you are risk averse, then simply use stuff licensed under Creative Commons Attribution or a similar licence, or which has simply slipped into the public domain if you like the vintage feel.

[sonicpowa]

--under copyright there are some rules that say that as long as it's less than 30 seconds--

There are NO such rules. It´s not about the lenght of the sample.

[aciddose]

http://www.youtube.com/user/thebranflakes

This stuff is exclusively done by sampling movies, radio and so on.

I remember stumbling upon a page back around 1998 with a collection of tracks (about 30) in mp3 with the same theme. Never could find that stuff again. "You no like my fried rice!?"

What it comes down to is whether there is existing case-law, and if not whether there is any benefit to those who would want to sue you. Are they doing to blow $100,000 on some dude for no benefit what-so-ever? No consequence, no payoff and a huge risk of establishing case-law that goes against their own causes?

Copyright law currently looks like a murder scene with brains and guts strewn all up on the ceiling, dangling from between the teeth of those involved and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_copyright_case_law