The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
How Madlib deal with Copyright ? Plugin Bundles
Old 3 weeks ago
  #1
Here for the gear
How Madlib deal with Copyright ?

So, somebody know how madlib deal with copyright ?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Lando Calrissian's Avatar
He probably doesn’t. We need to stop sample snitching.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #3
Gear Nut
 

Since Madlib mostly releases his stuff through labels like Stones Throw, It's probably their responsibility to clear samples. at some labels it's common practice that the artist provides a list with samples used. My guess is that based on how familiar the sample is, how famous the sampled song is and which label the song is released through, Madlib's label decide whether it'd be a good idea to clear the sample. For example: if he a sampled a track released by sony I'd be wary if I were his label because I believe they put quite a lot of effort in chasing down copyright infringement. I think in Madlib's case the samples are cleared rarely.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #4
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lando Calrissian View Post
We need to stop sample snitching.
Yeah, 'cuase robbing other people is cool!!!!
Old 3 weeks ago
  #5
Gear Nut
Unless your album is charting on the Billboard 200 or racking up tens of millions of streams no one really cares. What are the chances the original artist would even hears of it?
Old 2 weeks ago
  #6
Gear Addict
 
BezowinZ's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris carter View Post
Yeah, 'cuase robbing other people is cool!!!!
Ha! Yeah, I often find that mindset hilarious.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #7
Lives for gear
 
atma's Avatar
 

I'm all about robbing people—that's what you do when you're poor
Old 2 weeks ago
  #8
Madlib has said himself that he basically lets the label deal with it.

A perk of being Madlib, I'd say. "Yeah, I dug in hella crates for this, here ya go, figure it out I'mma go smoke"
Old 2 weeks ago
  #9
Gear Addict
 
BezowinZ's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by atma View Post
I'm all about robbing people—that's what you do when you're poor
Hopefully other poor folks feel the same way about your belongings.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #10
Here for the gear
Thanks for the comments guys !!!
Old 2 weeks ago
  #11
Lives for gear
 
jazzcabbage's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by atma View Post
I'm all about robbing people—that's what you do when you're poor
Or if you’re rich, they just do it with lawyers not guns.
Old 1 week ago
  #12
Lives for gear
 
atma's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BezowinZ View Post
Hopefully other poor folks feel the same way about your belongings.
Word. That's just how **** works, man. And actually, I'd be fairly humbled if anyone sampled me. It's never been about money for me. In fact, I've thought of leaving certain open swaths of music in my tracks specifically for people to use in the future if they ever caught on to it. ALL ART is built upon what previous artists have done in the past, in some way or other; no exceptions.
Old 1 week ago
  #13
Gear Addict
 
BezowinZ's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by atma View Post
Word. That's just how **** works, man. And actually, I'd be fairly humbled if anyone sampled me. It's never been about money for me. In fact, I've thought of leaving certain open swaths of music in my tracks specifically for people to use in the future if they ever caught on to it. ALL ART is built upon what previous artists have done in the past, in some way or other; no exceptions.
You have a hip hop / sampling mindset. If you want to take that stance, cool. But folks that don't sample other's work without permission are not going to feel the same. The difference in definitions of "built" upon will reflect that.

Most folks will have some sort of justification for their bad acts. You're "building on" the works of others.
Old 1 week ago
  #14
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by atma View Post
Word. That's just how **** works, man. And actually, I'd be fairly humbled if anyone sampled me. It's never been about money for me. In fact, I've thought of leaving certain open swaths of music in my tracks specifically for people to use in the future if they ever caught on to it. ALL ART is built upon what previous artists have done in the past, in some way or other; no exceptions.
Do you make your entire living from your music? It's easy to say that you will gladly let other people sample you without paying you for your portion of the work when putting food in your kids mouth doesn't depend on that piece of music you created.

On the flip side, if you DO make your entire living from music and don't care if people sample you and don't pay you, I have a better solution to building art: go ahead and get paid your fair share for the portion of music they sampled and each year donate that exact amount of money to MusiCares or some other highly reputable charitable organization that helps musicians continue to create when they are struggling with medical bills, or injuries, or addictions, etc.
Old 1 week ago
  #15
Gear Addict
 
BezowinZ's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris carter View Post
Do you make your entire living from your music? It's easy to say that you will gladly let other people sample you without paying you for your portion of the work when putting food in your kids mouth doesn't depend on that piece of music you created.

On the flip side, if you DO make your entire living from music and don't care if people sample you and don't pay you, I have a better solution to building art: go ahead and get paid your fair share for the portion of music they sampled and each year donate that exact amount of money to MusiCares or some other highly reputable charitable organization that helps musicians continue to create when they are struggling with medical bills, or injuries, or addictions, etc.
Old 1 week ago
  #16
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris carter View Post
Do you make your entire living from your music? It's easy to say that you will gladly let other people sample you without paying you for your portion of the work when putting food in your kids mouth doesn't depend on that piece of music you created.
but 99% of the time the sampled work is not in "competition" with the song that sampled it...

meaning if you make a folk rock tune and i come and sample it for a boom bap hip hop song... you cant say i'm creating an unfair competition for you because the audience is DIFFERENT. the people checking for my hip hop song ARE NOT checking for your folk rock song...

so am i really taking money out of your pocket??? i dont think so. am i the reason you are having trouble paying the bills? i dont think so.

andy warhol took the campbells soup sticker and stuck it on a canvas. the court threw campbells case out - they sell soup and andy warhol sells paintings...

many sampling cases meet the criteria for fair use. its only because its a "black art form" that the whole sample clearance thing became the law

GIRL TALK hasnt been sued yet. coincidence? i think not.

interesting story on why he hasnt been sampled here:
Gigaom | Why The Music Industry Isn’t Suing Mashup Star ‘Girl Talk’

Last edited by musaee; 1 week ago at 10:17 PM.. Reason: link
Old 1 week ago
  #17
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by atma View Post
I'm all about robbing people—that's what you do when you're poor
I'm all about robbing people who rob people.

Especially if its their most valuable asset.
Old 1 week ago
  #18
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by musaee View Post
but 99% of the time the sampled work is not in "competition" with the song that sampled it...

meaning if you make a folk rock tune and i come and sample it for a boom bap hip hop song... you cant say i'm creating an unfair competition for you because the audience is DIFFERENT. the people checking for my hip hop song ARE NOT checking for your folk rock song...

so am i really taking money out of your pocket??? i dont think so. am i the reason you are having trouble paying the bills? i dont think so.

andy warhol took the campbells soup sticker and stuck it on a canvas. the court threw campbells case out - they sell soup and andy warhol sells paintings...

many sampling cases meet the criteria for fair use. its only because its a "black art form" that the whole sample clearance thing became the law

GIRL TALK hasnt been sued yet. coincidence? i think not.

interesting story on why he hasnt been sampled here:
Gigaom | Why The Music Industry Isn’t Suing Mashup Star ‘Girl Talk’
1) “competition” I think you are confusing trademark law and copyright law. Regardless, even in trademark law, both your hip-hop song and my folk song are in the same commercial space so your argument wouldn’t hold up there either. Even outside of the law, the notion that people who listen to hip-hop don’t listen to folks music is nonsense. In fact, I’m a freakin’ example. Regardless, the notion of competition is irrelevant in copyright law.

2) I don’t know where you got the Campbell’s Soup story, but it’s not true. No judge ever threw the case out. This is because Campbell’s Soup never sued him. Could they have? Yes. But it would not have been in their financial best interests. Also, Andy Warhol did not put a sticker on canvas – he painted them on canvas.

3) Girl Talk is small time to the labels. The actual mashup recordings don’t generate much. He’s mostly popular from a PR standpoint. If his mashups start making serious money, then trust me, they will sue him.

4) “fair use” is a legal term. Like most legal things it is open to interpretation and that’s why we have judges. But there are specific criteria one must meet to successfully argue fair use and there is a plethora of case law as precedent. In your example of sampling my folk tune for your hip-hop song (which I presume would be commercially released, otherwise there’s no point of making the argument) you have thusfar not mentioned anything that would actually qualify for a fair use argument.
Old 1 week ago
  #19
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris carter View Post
1) “competition” I think you are confusing trademark law and copyright law. Regardless, even in trademark law, both your hip-hop song and my folk song are in the same commercial space so your argument wouldn’t hold up there either. Even outside of the law, the notion that people who listen to hip-hop don’t listen to folks music is nonsense. In fact, I’m a freakin’ example. Regardless, the notion of competition is irrelevant in copyright law.

2) I don’t know where you got the Campbell’s Soup story, but it’s not true. No judge ever threw the case out. This is because Campbell’s Soup never sued him. Could they have? Yes. But it would not have been in their financial best interests. Also, Andy Warhol did not put a sticker on canvas – he painted them on canvas.

3) Girl Talk is small time to the labels. The actual mashup recordings don’t generate much. He’s mostly popular from a PR standpoint. If his mashups start making serious money, then trust me, they will sue him.

4) “fair use” is a legal term. Like most legal things it is open to interpretation and that’s why we have judges. But there are specific criteria one must meet to successfully argue fair use and there is a plethora of case law as precedent. In your example of sampling my folk tune for your hip-hop song (which I presume would be commercially released, otherwise there’s no point of making the argument) you have thusfar not mentioned anything that would actually qualify for a fair use argument.
1 a big part of fair use is “market competition”. i never said you can’t enjoyfolk and hip hop. i said the two songs aren’t in direct competition. nobody says i’m not going to buy leroy hutson because i will just buy this notorious BIG song.

3 Girl Talk is small time... well then... what is Madlib? Did you read the article? You sound mis-informed. DJ Drama was raided by the FBI. He’s much smaller time than girl talk.

4 Read the girl talk article. Girl talk takes whole sections of songs and the lawyers are talking fair use. again a big part of fair use is that pieces aren’t causing financial loss to the copyright holder.
Old 1 week ago
  #20
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by musaee View Post
1 a big part of fair use is “market competition”. i never said you can’t enjoyfolk and hip hop. i said the two songs aren’t in direct competition. nobody says i’m not going to buy leroy hutson because i will just buy this notorious BIG song.

3 Girl Talk is small time... well then... what is Madlib? Did you read the article? You sound mis-informed. DJ Drama was raided by the FBI. He’s much smaller time than girl talk.

4 Read the girl talk article. Girl talk takes whole sections of songs and the lawyers are talking fair use. again a big part of fair use is that pieces aren’t causing financial loss to the copyright holder.
1) “market competition” (your quotes) is not a consideration in copyright law regarding fair use I don’t think in any format, but certainly not in the case of sound recordings. The closest you could get to that is the consideration of the effect of the infringing work on the value of the source material. This is a scope that is drastically beyond whether or not two recordings are in competition with each other. In fact, this is an argument rarely made (if ever) in sampling fair use cases because song recordings are in the EXACT SAME competition space. Moreover, the work that created the sound recordings is rather obvious competition as I described previously (in other words, by sampling me, you are forcing me to compete with a free version of myself).

2) You didn’t mention Madlib or DJ Drama in your post. You mentioned Girl Talk. I did go and read the article, but you are conflating one artist being civilly sued with a rational that another must be therefore be civilly sued and this is NEVER the case. Also, I think you are GROSSLY overestimating the monetary value Girl Talk has earned from the actual sound recordings themselves (as opposed to other activities, like live performance, where you can do what you want pretty much because all of these shows ARE properly licensed with BMI/ASCAP/SESAC so there is not infringement in a properly licensed live performance).

3) Two types of lawyers will ALWAYS say fair use: a) defense lawyers (duh) and ANY LAWYER FROM THE FREAKIN’ EFF (double duh!!!!). The lawyer for a murderer will also say their client is not guilty of anything. This should be obvious.

I wish I had more time to explain copyright law to you, but I don’t.
Old 1 week ago
  #21
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris carter View Post
1) “market competition” (your quotes) is not a consideration in copyright law regarding fair use I don’t think in any format, but certainly not in the case of sound recordings. The closest you could get to that is the consideration of the effect of the infringing work on the value of the source material. This is a scope that is drastically beyond whether or not two recordings are in competition with each other. In fact, this is an argument rarely made (if ever) in sampling fair use cases because song recordings are in the EXACT SAME competition space. Moreover, the work that created the sound recordings is rather obvious competition as I described previously (in other words, by sampling me, you are forcing me to compete with a free version of myself).

2) You didn’t mention Madlib or DJ Drama in your post. You mentioned Girl Talk. I did go and read the article, but you are conflating one artist being civilly sued with a rational that another must be therefore be civilly sued and this is NEVER the case. Also, I think you are GROSSLY overestimating the monetary value Girl Talk has earned from the actual sound recordings themselves (as opposed to other activities, like live performance, where you can do what you want pretty much because all of these shows ARE properly licensed with BMI/ASCAP/SESAC so there is not infringement in a properly licensed live performance).

3) Two types of lawyers will ALWAYS say fair use: a) defense lawyers (duh) and ANY LAWYER FROM THE FREAKIN’ EFF (double duh!!!!). The lawyer for a murderer will also say their client is not guilty of anything. This should be obvious.

I wish I had more time to explain copyright law to you, but I don’t.
1 --> the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

is a fair use argument as it applies to sampling. No ONE has USED the fair use defense. Biz didnt use it. De La didnt use it. NWA didnt use it. Those are the landmark cases. The justices in the NWA case said in their decision that their decision didnt preclude a fair use defense that argued along such lines

2 The whole context of the post is Madlib, is it not? I brought up DJ Drama because he is way less famous/successful than Girl Talk. You said if Girl Talk was more popular they would sue... I pointed out DJ Drama was raided.

3 (a) the sampled works are transformative... nobody will confuse les mccanns vallarta and notorious b.i.g.'s 10 crack commandments and (b) nobody says i'm gonna buy the 10 crack commandments instead of buying les mccanns vallarta i.e. its not affecting the potential market for les mccanns recording. each of these would serve as fair use arguments by themselves, in conjunction its clear that sampling law is basically racist and the girl talk article proves it. i would also be remiss to point out that many times the sample license fee is not even going to the creator but rather a label or publishing house that STOLE ownership from all these artists in the first place.

we can agree to disagree.
Old 1 week ago
  #22
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

The ethics of sampling and the legality of sampling will always be disputed. At the end of the day, sample clearance does at least give the copyright owners the choice of if they want it to be used for a certain purpose. That may not be the artist, in many, or most cases, they didn't write the song, nor do they own the master so I have various opinions on the subject.

That said, we can always argue our moral thoughts but that doesn't make it legal. I believe the question is on legality, though it isn't the most inquisitive question.

My instinct tells me many people are just not clearing samples these days and I would say this. You may not be famous or you may not be rich. So you probably are not worth suing but that doesn't mean that won't cross your plate. You may get rich, or you may get famous, and you may do that without those works, you may do it totally separately from music but if you released as a sole proprietor, then they can take whatever you got. Even with an LLC, if you don't really make money, they can go into your personal assets, it should protect you but if it is a "shell", then it isn't unreasonable for people to sue your company and you individually.

Remember that copyright law doesn't have a statute of limitations, you may get lucky and they died and enough time passes so it becomes public domain but that is rare. Heirs are often more aggressive than living owners too. So you have the short and long game going on. It is typically the responsibility of the the releasing party (record label or independent artist) but if you got more money, you probably will get involved.

My quick thoughts. If you do business, do contracts. No contract will protect you from everything but it shows you did your best and you tried. If I am not releasing, I really can't reasonably clear a sample, so it isn't on me, but a contract makes that clear. If I didn't make the money it would take to clear a sample, it shows that too. Opinion isn't bad, I have my own thoughts about how this should all work, but I know enough to know who this works, and work around the law (to the best of my ability). Also, someone can sue you for $25,000,000 and win when you only have $25 in your bank account. They can't collect more than you have but you owe them so again, opinions are kind of just a point of interest, not a point of what is fair or not. I am not an attorney so use this to your discretion.
Old 6 days ago
  #23
Lives for gear
 
atma's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris carter View Post

On the flip side, if you DO make your entire living from music and don't care if people sample you and don't pay you, I have a better solution to building art: go ahead and get paid your fair share for the portion of music they sampled and each year donate that exact amount of money to MusiCares or some other highly reputable charitable organization that helps musicians continue to create when they are struggling with medical bills, or injuries, or addictions, etc.
Dude, that's such an amazing idea! Thank you.
Old 6 days ago
  #24
Lives for gear
 
atma's Avatar
 

What a great conversation, otherwise! A lot of diverse opinions.
Old 5 days ago
  #25
I feel like a lot of the bull**** around sampling comes from a few camps.
1) people that hate hip hop and think sampling is uncreative. These people seem to be keen on punishing the dirty thieves that “steal” their music.
2) people who are looking out for the “best interest” of the artists they represent. Ask your man George Clinton about this one. Tons of lawsuits filed on his behalf. Not much money sent his way. That said the skeptical side of me thinks that GC could be saying that in interviews and laughing all the way to his lawyers office for another round of litigation. It wouldn’t really seem cool to say yeah I sue anyone that samples my ****.
3) the estates. These can also be a subset of the above group. However they want to protect legacies. You can’t go having some hip hoppers sample my mother/fathers legacy!!! That sample will cost you 2 million plus 110% publishing!!! You know for the legacy! Not at all because I want to not work because my mother/father was a recording artist. I believe folks that try to sample Marvin Gaye will run into this camp.
4) people who are cool with it. Small group of folks and they are usually only cool with it for some loophole reason like expired copyright. However a few folks have gone on record as stating they are cool with people sampling their music.

I get the argument that people should pay for the samples they use. That’s cool and all and I agree, but if it takes a team of forensic musicologists to figure out that the .25 second drum hit is from their out of print record from 1968 that could probably be replaced by any other .25 second sample and be just as effective to the song then yer being a ****. Now if you are a person of faith that wrote a gospel song and it’s been sampled in an ode to fellatio that in no meaningful way changes the melody/groove/recorded material then I can see why you would want to sue.

That said there needs to be an open market for sampling that is handled out of the court system. If a reasonable system could be put in place where the cost of entry wasn’t a barrier to all but the richest artists then everyone could benefit. It doesn’t help the sampler or the samplee to tie up the courts over a record that sold 10000 copies. If you start raking in millions on it then maybe you should figure out a way to pay the original copyright holder in a way that is fair.

Last edited by S_A_P; 5 days ago at 04:17 AM.. Reason: Fix autocorrect
Old 4 days ago
  #26
Gear Maniac
 

The anti sampling standpoint comes up here so many times. It’s tiresome.
1. What ever happened to the whole lawless nature of hip hop? It’s not like public enemy paid for every jab and snippet they used. So manny ppl on this forum are not hip-hop at all. If you wanna be about business, fine. But know that it’s totallt separate from what someone wants to do with music. There. Are. No. Rules.
2 I refuse to believe so many ppl on this forum are that deep in the music business that can even be concerned with it. I mean, you have to sell a lot of records to get noticed and sued...that’s not even something that happens today. Idk why you’d let some rules that don’t even apply to your small circle of music making dictate what you do creatively. It’s not very good for creative music making.
3 when ppl pay for 1 chunk of a sample, like when Kanye used that entire king crimson phrase, is that really that interesting? Compared to say 3ft high and rising, the ‘pay a lot for one obvious phrase’ approach seems dim witted as hell and nowhere near sonically interesting.
4. Stop crying about it. Ppl are going to sample forever. Can’t stop it. Some badass outlaw kids will come up next flipping samples that will kill everyone and they’re not going to worry about clearing anything. Welcome to punk rock and underground music.
5. Atonality and composition. There’s only so many notes in a scale. Once you start layering samples, you compose with more atonality and less worrying about particular keys. While I’m not gonna go off about ornette Coleman and harmolodics, if you can’t compose a beat without worrying about keys and notes, you are missing a big part of making beats. Layering samples is the same as blending different microphones, and the phantom harmonics that stuff creates is not sonething you can get out of sampling yourself playing a vsti keyboard.
No rules to music making.
Old 4 days ago
  #27
Gear Maniac
I see it like that as well, I mean as if competing in a commercial space is what it's about. If people took this all to serious there wouldn't even be DJs scratching on recordings, no beatjuggling routines, I bet there wouldn't be much DJ culture at all.
I mean obviously if you are highly successful and feast off 'amateur' recordings to sample together your album that is bad obviously. And there won't be many judges showing pity for these people in court.
But as if scoring like that ever is the case when some hip hop guy samples from some 70s country song.
Old 4 days ago
  #28
Lives for gear
 
atma's Avatar
 

Word up. I'm a bit of a chameleon musician, in that I have incredibly diverse influences, and therefore also produce a wide range of styles, from singer/songwriter to synth-pop, to ambient/electronic, to golden-age hip-hop. For me, The kind of hip-hop that has always moved me, is 90's style, sample-based ****. I'll never make hip-hop that isn't entirely sample-based, though I consider myself somewhat of a progressive artist, that tries to push the boundaries of what's possible with sample-based music. That being said, There's simply no way around the fact that I have to sample other people's work in order to make the style of hip-hop that I love. I often times combine 10 or more different original works into elaborate 'collages' to create something novel. There's literally no way I could ever afford to clear so many samples per track, so I simply do not. It might be a different story if I were a famous musician on a major label with resources able to clear that many samples, but that simply is not the case, and likely will never be. For me to be able to create work in an uncontrived manner within the context of this specific style, all of this is necessary, and there's literally no way around it. This is the kind of art I create, and I can't worry about being apologetic about it. The art itself comes first and foremost before any other considerations and monetary issues aren't even on the radar for me. I do what I do, and I don't apologize for it, period. Nobody is being hurt in the process, and the joy involved in the art itself is the only reward.
Top Mentioned Products
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump