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
publishing songs with uncleared samples Channel Strip Plugins
Old 19th September 2011
  #31
Lives for gear
 
cdog's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesmondA View Post
cl......cl.....clearing..samples? Unless ur about to drop a single with will.i.am drake and katy pery ur wasting ur time.

Pretty much. If you get sued, consider it a sign of success and be happy that your career is taking off. That being said, Chris Carter offered the best overall advice...
Old 16th September 2016
  #32
Here for the gear
 

I'm in the same situation....Exact!! Only Nobody answered How does he receive PUBLISHING for it??
Old 18th September 2016
  #33
Lives for gear
 

First thing off the bat is YOU NEED TO BE EDUCATED ABOUT THE MUSIC BUSINESS!

there are books out there on publishing, some free some not. Books on the music business also.

You are starting off wrong.

This is why I stopped sampling in 2000, to much red tape.

You as the producer should let the artist and label know its a sample. The producer should never have to clear the sample let the record company do that. You should be making music.

This means from what you're telling me the artist and company don't know what the hell they are doing. Why would they ask you for your publishing,? You're the producer who sampled someone's else music you don't get publishing off music that's already published unless you wrote lyrics.

If you don't clear the sample that's music infringement, you can't take someone's music works and claim it as your own. Their work has been published already.

Their attorneys will come for you hard and will win because they will be able to prove their copyrights were before you put out their music making it copyright infringement!

Dre got sued for $1.3 million dollars for just a baseline, see he has the money to jus brush it off.
You don't. I worked in law for 12 years I know!

How would you feel you put out published music and someone sampled your works blew up , went triple platinum off something you did, and made $30 million and you didn't even go card board, how would you feel? Ask yourself that!

WARNING GET IT CLEARED OR NOT PUT IT OUT!

someone has to get in touch with the publishing people of that music and negotiate terms.

You don't receive publishing for music works that's published!
Only thing you can do is if it blows up you get more clients as the producer. The rapper gets publishing because he wrote original lyrics over the sample.


Peace




Quote:
Originally Posted by J1111 View Post
Hey yall. Had a question.

I did the beats for a couple songs for a non-major label project for an artist who is relatively known, has some pretty big features on the album.

Anyway, he is asking for my publishing info. I don't have publishing yet, but can of course easily just register with BMI or ASCAP.

The question is, there are samples on the beats which are uncleared, he does not plan to clear them, and I have not cleared them, yet the artist has never said it was an issue or I should clear them, he is just going to try to go under the radar as he's not that well known yet.

So, I am unsure of the legalities regarding the situation as, I can not legally own the publishing, yet they are asking for my publishing info for the songs.

I am new to the business side, anyone with some experience care to shed some light? I know that using uncleared samples is pretty common in hip-hop even on records that do sell some copies and wondering how the publishing issue works.

Also, any other advice on what you would do in my situation would be helpful as I'm new to the world of publishing and such.
Old 18th September 2016
  #34
Lives for gear
 
Ken Lewis's Avatar
There needs to be a big giant pot of money to go after in order for someone to ACTUALLY Sue you. They might threaten a law suit, they might send a cease and desist order, they might kick and scream, but they won't sue you unless there is a very good chance that they can win and collect a lot more money than its going to take to sue you.

As a producer who samples, you need to make 100% certain that you never sign a contract with an artist or anyone that holds you responsible for your sampling. BUT ALSO, (as you have) you need to make it 100% crystal clear - in writing - to the artist that you have sampled, document every sample you used and on what song. do NOT leave any off the list. even if you think its undetectable.

You should also know that if you have samples in your music, it almost guarantees that song can never be licensed for film, tv, video games etc... (just good to be aware of).

and since you probably will make zero money from the music itself, try to get an upfront producer fee worth your time.
Old 19th September 2016
  #35
you "shouldn't" do it if you can't clear them, but people still do it all the time even when they DO have the money to clear them.
Old 19th September 2016
  #36
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Lewis View Post
There needs to be a big giant pot of money to go after in order for someone to ACTUALLY Sue you. They might threaten a law suit, they might send a cease and desist order, they might kick and scream, but they won't sue you unless there is a very good chance that they can win and collect a lot more money than its going to take to sue you.

As a producer who samples, you need to make 100% certain that you never sign a contract with an artist or anyone that holds you responsible for your sampling. BUT ALSO, (as you have) you need to make it 100% crystal clear - in writing - to the artist that you have sampled, document every sample you used and on what song. do NOT leave any off the list. even if you think its undetectable.

You should also know that if you have samples in your music, it almost guarantees that song can never be licensed for film, tv, video games etc... (just good to be aware of).

and since you probably will make zero money from the music itself, try to get an upfront producer fee worth your time.
I agree with the big pot of money to an extent. If they are well paid, be it a label or an artist, depending on who has the rights, it's not going to be worth your time. On the contrary, there is a whole different side of law that I can see coming to the music industry. Right now, a lot of lawyers in the world in general are not looking for the big case that makes them a ton of money. Instead, they start a law suit without any intention of actually going to litigation, they want a quick, small settlement. They boilerplate a bunch of suits and try to get a quick settlement and if you bite, they make the money. It's kind of on the business owner to decide if they want it to go away, or risk something bigger. If you are in the wrong, even when educated on the law, you likely will want to just move on. Will it kill you financially, probably not but it's not likely something that will be super easy to pay either. The way lawyers work is changing, ironically I learned most of this after I went to a 9-5, working for an attorney short term, then working in another type of organization where we are not a legal entity but part of a very important law.

As for your other points, totally spot on. Always know who you sample and disclose it. Make sure you do not have the responsibility to clear the sample. I use an indemnification contract saying that the releasing party is responsible for any suit that could come to me. However, that doesn't mean I will work with an artist who I know will not clear the sample, I will work with someone I know can afford to, and who has the ability to, because it's reasonable for me to believe they would do the right thing. From a legal but especially non legal standpoint, I will not work with an artist who could never, would never, or doesn't care to clear a sample. I have been really working on my keyboard skills lately.

That is also why I don't do publishing, I do a flat rate, sell whatever, I make what I make. I work with mostly independent artists and labels so it makes much more sense to me, plus they like to work that way as well. I was told this 10 years ago by someone I respected and I think it's a better idea now than them.

As for licencing, it is kind of sad. I know three different groups where they got picked up for video games. The problem was, the producer who did most of the work, but sampled, ended up X'd out of the deal. A good friend wrote most the songs that got attention, created the instrumentals that made a group member shine, recorded it, mixed it, made it work. Then the rapper just rapped new stuff to generic beats. It didn't represent the sound of the group but the company didn't care, it fit the need they had but the rapper got everything positive, the producer got nothing and put in more work.

I think your post is 100% on point, I would just caution the idea of money having to be big because you just don't know who is on the other side of it. Plenty of people could use a few thousand, pay a lawyer 30-40%, and move quickly if they own all the rights to their music, never made a ton of money, and don't like Hip Hop or the idea of sampling. Not saying it's the norm, just something to consider as only a very small percent of civil lawsuits go to court, especially in entertainment, they usually get settled.
Old 21st September 2016
  #37
Lives for gear
 

Let me remind people again I've worked I law GET THOSE SAMPLES CLEARED!!! ONCE A SAMPLE IS NOTICED A SUIT WILL FOLLOW NO MATTER IF YOU MAKE A LITTLE MONEY OR SMALL AMOUNT!!!
If you don't understand the mindset of an attorney they don't just wait for the big deal. 90% of cases with sampling are settled out of court and if the product is still selling there will be provisions for the people/s who own the rights.

Another thing to take in mind first year or eben certain lawyers do probono. This is good for a first year to practice. That will be small change or barely any money made from the sample.

Plus there are those old school people who producers sample from that don't lime nor support HipHop and would love to stick it to everyone who touched their music.

Facts!

Last edited by danoc; 21st September 2016 at 09:23 PM..
Old 22nd September 2016
  #38
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by danoc View Post
Let me remind people again I've worked I law GET THOSE SAMPLES CLEARED!!! ONCE A SAMPLE IS NOTICED A SUIT WILL FOLLOW NO MATTER IF YOU MAKE A LITTLE MONEY OR SMALL AMOUNT!!!
If you don't understand the mindset of an attorney they don't just wait for the big deal. 90% of cases with sampling are settled out of court and if the product is still selling there will be provisions for the people/s who own the rights.

Another thing to take in mind first year or eben certain lawyers do probono. This is good for a first year to practice. That will be small change or barely any money made from the sample.

Plus there are those old school people who producers sample from that don't lime nor support HipHop and would love to stick it to everyone who touched their music.

Facts!
I agree. Everyone thinks every attorney is some crazy rich person who is only willing to take certain things on and a small settlement isn't anything for them. There is a whole industry in law that isn't about litigation, it's about quick settlements. The biggest misconception about copy right law is that to sue, someone has to make money. This law is not about damages. I don't want to go deep into because the information is public but it's not the same as many civil suits people think the law is about. Will you pay a fortune if you made nothing, probably not but you don't know until you are there.

One of the most common phrases I hear is "if you get sued, it just means you are doing something right and it's a sign you made it" or something to that respect. I have heard that a lot, but I have never once heard it from someone who has gone through that process. In general, getting sued isn't easy. Most people are not happy when they have to sue someone either. Because this mentality, not reality, is so common place, people get real distorted on how this all really works.

If you know a bit about law, you also will know that the law isn't necessarily the law. The law is ever changing. It changes by precedent in the courts which often doesn't reflect the law. But, settlements are not usually public and have little influence on the law.

My attorney who I obviously trust feels that copy right law is one of the biggest grey areas in intellectual property types of law and my research, and experiences have not been what people told me on the web how things would be like. I didn't expect the net to be right, don't get me wrong, but some blanket statements are really off when it comes to music, lawsuits, and getting respect. I am not going to go into detail here. I just want to make the point that it's easy to say whatever you want when you are not educated and do not have experience here.

I don't want to discourage people from sampling or making sample based music, I just don't feel comfortable saying "just put it out", knowing what I know. As danoc said in a previous post, if you know something isn't cleared (bad) and you are totally aware of it (bad), I personally would not try to monetize that through publishing.

I forget who said it but it's interesting...It was talking about how a label, artist, and/or producer were getting sued. It may have been Just Blaze, I don't recall but he comes to mind. While you are going through all this procedural stuff, your song blew up, the rapper is performing every night, over that same song. The label is making money regardless. You are stuck not being a part of that until it's settled, not making money and spending time where you don't want to be. I may be paraphrasing this situation into my experiences as a musician, someone who worked for an attorney, and someone who works in the world of civil rights and combining all perspectives but I feel the producer is the first to loose, last to win here.

A rapper can perform over sample based beats every night. You are not eating off that. They are.
Old 22nd September 2016
  #39
Lives for gear
 

Correct 3rd!!! Bottom line is if you sample just get it cleared, simple. The producer can get paid by charging the artist either a flat fee royalties off the record, plubisjing is out. If everyone sit at the table things can be worked out. Entertainment attorney s are different from a bankruptcy attorney, or corporate attorney, or criminal attorney. They can be you manager also and some are deep into the music scene and have great connections.

Some of the cliché out here are very ignorant, sounds good but when you think on it.it sounds foolish .

People gotta be responsible when.they are dealing with sample that's all

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3rd Degree View Post
I agree. Everyone thinks every attorney is some crazy rich person who is only willing to take certain things on and a small settlement isn't anything for them. There is a whole industry in law that isn't about litigation, it's about quick settlements. The biggest misconception about copy right law is that to sue, someone has to make money. This law is not about damages. I don't want to go deep into because the information is public but it's not the same as many civil suits people think the law is about. Will you pay a fortune if you made nothing, probably not but you don't know until you are there.

One of the most common phrases I hear is "if you get sued, it just means you are doing something right and it's a sign you made it" or something to that respect. I have heard that a lot, but I have never once heard it from someone who has gone through that process. In general, getting sued isn't easy. Most people are not happy when they have to sue someone either. Because this mentality, not reality, is so common place, people get real distorted on how this all really works.

If you know a bit about law, you also will know that the law isn't necessarily the law. The law is ever changing. It changes by precedent in the courts which often doesn't reflect the law. But, settlements are not usually public and have little influence on the law.

My attorney who I obviously trust feels that copy right law is one of the biggest grey areas in intellectual property types of law and my research, and experiences have not been what people told me on the web how things would be like. I didn't expect the net to be right, don't get me wrong, but some blanket statements are really off when it comes to music, lawsuits, and getting respect. I am not going to go into detail here. I just want to make the point that it's easy to say whatever you want when you are not educated and do not have experience here.

I don't want to discourage people from sampling or making sample based music, I just don't feel comfortable saying "just put it out", knowing what I know. As danoc said in a previous post, if you know something isn't cleared (bad) and you are totally aware of it (bad), I personally would not try to monetize that through publishing.

I forget who said it but it's interesting...It was talking about how a label, artist, and/or producer were getting sued. It may have been Just Blaze, I don't recall but he comes to mind. While you are going through all this procedural stuff, your song blew up, the rapper is performing every night, over that same song. The label is making money regardless. You are stuck not being a part of that until it's settled, not making money and spending time where you don't want to be. I may be paraphrasing this situation into my experiences as a musician, someone who worked for an attorney, and someone who works in the world of civil rights and combining all perspectives but I feel the producer is the first to loose, last to win here.

A rapper can perform over sample based beats every night. You are not eating off that. They are.
Old 22nd September 2016
  #40
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaQvsDaA View Post
I'm in the same situation....Exact!! Only Nobody answered How does he receive PUBLISHING for it??
To be specific about the publishing aspect, when someone is 'clearing' a sample they are, in most cases, negotiating what is called a derivative composition and a new set of composer splits to go along with it.

IE a new song, that was derived from the old one. The key thing here is that derivative works are not compulsory. In other words the author of the original has no obligation to allow you to do this. So if you do not have their express permission to create the derivative then by default the authorship of the song reverts 100% back to the original author as it is then considered a cover song. "Missing You" by diddy is a famous case here with 100% of publishing going to sting.

Then the question is; if the song goes out and makes any publishing revenue, what motivation do the original publishers have to cut you in? Basically you give them the choice of %100 or %25...

If you are Just Blaze making a Jay Z track, you have the leverage of being able to tell them to either come to the table, OR you won't use the sample.
Old 23rd September 2016
  #41
This is the second time I've heard someone say to make a contract that states you are not liable for clearing the sample(s), and that the artist is. How is that possible? How is it possible to skirt the liability of a broken law to someone else? That's like stealing something, selling it to someone else, but having them sign a contract saying if the cops find out, that person who bought it from the thief is going to jail, not the person who actually stole it. I'd really like to know if that loophole actually exists. I know for a fact that contract is invalid if it is for illegal activity, however in this case it's not exactly an agreement to do something illegal, moreso what happens if the illegal thing that has already taken place is brought to light. Anyone?
Old 23rd September 2016
  #42
Lives for gear
 

Did y'all read what this person said? You better pay attention!


Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
To be specific about the publishing aspect, when someone is 'clearing' a sample they are, in most cases, negotiating what is called a derivative composition and a new set of composer splits to go along with it.

IE a new song, that was derived from the old one. The key thing here is that derivative works are not compulsory. In other words the author of the original has no obligation to allow you to do this. So if you do not have their express permission to create the derivative then by default the authorship of the song reverts 100% back to the original author as it is then considered a cover song. "Missing You" by diddy is a famous case here with 100% of publishing going to sting.

Then the question is; if the song goes out and makes any publishing revenue, what motivation do the original publishers have to cut you in? Basically you give them the choice of %100 or %25...

If you are Just Blaze making a Jay Z track, you have the leverage of being able to tell them to either come to the table, OR you won't use the sample.
Old 23rd September 2016
  #43
Lives for gear
 

First off let's get something straight. The producer who did the sample did not steal anything unless the make money off the original works.

In the music industry everything is put on the artist from videos, donuts, lunch, clothes etc. The producer is not the artist he/she is the producer and to get a contract to be signed by the artist or record company is a standard practice. Some producers have great connection s and clear the sample but majority don't do this. The record company will have more pull solving this.

That is not a loop hole this is not how one works, its simply making a contact which again is a standard practice.

Remember the artist done have to take the sample and be done with it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Obe1 View Post
This is the second time I've heard someone say to make a contract that states you are not liable for clearing the sample(s), and that the artist is. How is that possible? How is it possible to skirt the liability of a broken law to someone else? That's like stealing something, selling it to someone else, but having them sign a contract saying if the cops find out, that person who bought it from the thief is going to jail, not the person who actually stole it. I'd really like to know if that loophole actually exists. I know for a fact that contract is invalid if it is for illegal activity, however in this case it's not exactly an agreement to do something illegal, moreso what happens if the illegal thing that has already taken place is brought to light. Anyone?
Old 23rd September 2016
  #44
Quote:
Originally Posted by danoc View Post
First off let's get something straight. The producer who did the sample did not steal anything unless the make money off the original works.

In the music industry everything is put on the artist from videos, donuts, lunch, clothes etc. The producer is not the artist he/she is the producer and to get a contract to be signed by the artist or record company is a standard practice. Some producers have great connection s and clear the sample but majority don't do this. The record company will have more pull solving this.

That is not a loop hole this is not how one works, its simply making a contact which again is a standard practice.

Remember the artist done have to take the sample and be done with it.
You're wrong - whether the producer makes money or not, he is guilty of copyright infringement. Period.

My question about actual legality, not your take on how you think the music industry works. I've actually taken a couple of semesters of college on intellectual property law as well as business/contract law, I have a good idea of most of the contracting/copyright concepts.

I'm still waiting for some actual facts about contract law that show it is legal to have a clause in a contract shirking the accountability of copyright infringement to another party.
Old 23rd September 2016
  #45
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obe1 View Post
You're wrong - whether the producer makes money or not, he is guilty of copyright infringement. Period.

My question about actual legality, not your take on how you think the music industry works. I've actually taken a couple of semesters of college on intellectual property law as well as business/contract law, I have a good idea of most of the contracting/copyright concepts.

I'm still waiting for some actual facts about contract law that show it is legal to have a clause in a contract shirking the accountability of copyright infringement to another party.
I agree with you first statement. That said, if you know the law, and not just the way it's legally written, but how it applies in real life, you would probably not want the opinion of the average person you don't know that well to answer that question. If you know law in the process of how it works, you would know that their are usually many ways to do the same thing and lawyers would disagree with other lawyers of the same quality on the same subject.

My non bounding, touching on the subject advice, do your contract like any other contract and put an indemnification clause about the sample clearance. That *should put the responsibility on the party who signs the signature (*should doesn't mean does). Other people may do it differently, that's what my attorney wrote for me.

At the end of the day, having an attorney give you advice is likely the best thing. You can most likely talk to someone for free and formulate a plan (but likely no documents) if have reasons to need to talk them, that potential income for them and most will have a discussion. They may or may not tell you as much as you want but if you have something to offer, they want your business. I would highly recommend finding a good attorney if you want more info on this, any net advice is going to be all over the place, educated or not.
Old 23rd September 2016
  #46
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obe1 View Post
This is the second time I've heard someone say to make a contract that states you are not liable for clearing the sample(s), and that the artist is. How is that possible? How is it possible to skirt the liability of a broken law to someone else? That's like stealing something, selling it to someone else, but having them sign a contract saying if the cops find out, that person who bought it from the thief is going to jail, not the person who actually stole it. I'd really like to know if that loophole actually exists. I know for a fact that contract is invalid if it is for illegal activity, however in this case it's not exactly an agreement to do something illegal, moreso what happens if the illegal thing that has already taken place is brought to light. Anyone?
Failing to license a sample isn't criminal- which is what would be barred from being in a contract. It would be a civil case if it went to trial and wouldn't result in any prison sentence (unless maybe someone refused to pay up). Many things that could still result in civil cases can still be contractualized.

I'm not going to answer for Ken, but I think making everyone aware that you aren't taking responsibility for clearing the sample would be they at least share in the liability- nobody can come along and say "we didn't even know" putting it all back on you. Especially if there is a label, where it is really their job to make sure the songs all have a clean title before moving them out.
Old 23rd September 2016
  #47
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
Failing to license a sample isn't criminal- which is what would be barred from being in a contract. It would be a civil case if it went to trial and wouldn't result in any prison sentence (unless maybe someone refused to pay up). Many things that could still result in civil cases can still be contractualized.

I'm not going to answer for Ken, but I think making everyone aware that you aren't taking responsibility for clearing the sample would be they at least share in the liability- nobody can come along and say "we didn't even know" putting it all back on you. Especially if there is a label, where it is really their job to make sure the songs all have a clean title before moving them out.
An illegal act doesnt have to be criminal in order to make a contract unenforceable, it just has to be illegal. That being said, I did a little research and realized that a clause that says the artist is responsible for clearing a sample isnt actually a contract to DO something illegal, the illegal act has already taken place, so the illegal contract rule wouldnt apply in this case. Well, as far as I can tell.
Old 23rd September 2016
  #48
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obe1 View Post
An illegal act doesnt have to be criminal in order to make a contract unenforceable, it just has to be illegal.
The contract has to result in the illegal outcome. In this case, there is still a possible legal outcome where the artist or label clear the sample. IE you can't have a contract for profit sharing from a gambling ring, but you can have a contract to sell a known gambler some cards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obe1 View Post
the illegal act has already taken place
I'm not so sure about that, making a sampled beat and recording vocals over it with no release still has the possibility of a legal outcome. Also trailorhouses and video editors are using (as-of-yet) unlicensed material in the early edits constantly. On that level of big companies, if some lawyer thought he could make money there they would have done it.

Has anyone ever sued over an unreleased sample use or a video mockup with unlicensed music? I've never heard of it. I've only heard of lawsuits actually happening when money is being made- with no revenue the risk is a cease and desist and/or takedown requests.

If there is no case law (and there is definitely no written law) that establishes that the illegal act took place at the taking of the sample instead of the actual release, then it would be impossible to wipe out the contract on 'illegal agreement' grounds.

I think if that did go to court it would likely come up as fair use, at an unreleased stage it can't possibly effect the potential market value for the original. Which is one of the 4 main hurdles for fair use....
Old 23rd September 2016
  #49
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
The contract has to result in the illegal outcome. In this case, there is still a possible legal outcome where the artist or label clear the sample. IE you can't have a contract for profit sharing from a gambling ring, but you can have a contract to sell a known gambler some cards.



I'm not so sure about that, making a sampled beat and recording vocals over it with no release still has the possibility of a legal outcome. Also trailorhouses and video editors are using (as-of-yet) unlicensed material in the early edits constantly. On that level of big companies, if some lawyer thought he could make money there they would have done it.

Has anyone ever sued over an unreleased sample use or a video mockup with unlicensed music? I've never heard of it. I've only heard of lawsuits actually happening when money is being made- with no revenue the risk is a cease and desist and/or takedown requests.

If there is no case law (and there is definitely no written law) that establishes that the illegal act took place at the taking of the sample instead of the actual release, then it would be impossible to wipe out the contract on 'illegal agreement' grounds.

I think if that did go to court it would likely come up as fair use, at an unreleased stage it can't possibly effect the potential market value for the original. Which is one of the 4 main hurdles for fair use....
I wont pretend im a lawyer, but I interpret the illegal contract prohibition to mean that the contract itself cannot be reliant on the execution of an illegal act to be considered performed, not just that an illegal act may happen after the contract is signed. The agreement is usually the producer is compensated with money in exchange for his production - what the artist does with it is a separate act, and not controlled by this particular agreement. thats mybtake anyway.
Old 26th September 2016
  #50
Lives for gear
 

No im not wrong sampling is an art and if a person just samples as a hobbyist and don't. Make a dime there is no harn done. Prior to the new sampling law that was made against hiphop rappers were using samples and getting paid. As soon as the record labels saw big money involved then the law was made. However it is wtong to take original works and get paid.

Here's the greyrecord when a hobbyist does it and not get paid.

Show me one case where a hobbyist or sampler person that got sued over copyright infringement and didn't make one dime off a record.

1. Making a mix tape with samples and everyone is getting psid is a no no! If you get caught making money any type of way you can be sued.

2. Making a record with samples and there's miney being made and the publishers find out you will get sued.

3. A sampling hobbyist who just samples and just let his friends hearthre music and no money is made is not getting sued but... This can be a grey area.

4. If a producer samples and the artist/record company don't clear it at least give credit to those involved in the original works. If not you will piss someone off and they will come after you.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Obe1 View Post
You're wrong - whether the producer makes money or not, he is guilty of copyright infringement. Period.
.
Old 26th September 2016
  #51
Apple:
https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/thi...20545371?mt=11

Android:
https://books.google.com/books/about...d=z46_v--lLSkC

PLEASE DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND READ SOME BOOKS.

The amount of speculation and "unwritten rules" aka opinions on this topic is scary.

There is always some grey area......
HOWEVER
There are also some blatant lines in the sand.

The word PUBLISH in regards to music primarily means to release, make available, distribute for public consumption.
The only person who can publish a work such as a sample, is the person who owns/created it or the parties/companies assigned to manage such affairs. No one else.

So, by the law, even if it is not generating money, a person can be sued for various finances OR forced through court order to cease and desist the use of such works, including take down and removal in both physical and digital forms.

What are your chances of being caught?
Essentially they are equal to the chances of your record being big to begin with.

If you plan on having a small career, and dealing with small artists......you'll probably be fine.
If you actually expect to promote and build a career behind a song you feel is a hit, then you may need to look at proper legal moves.

**I just spoke with a guy I know in Chicago. He is an indie artist/producer who had one of his tracks stolen by another local artist more popular than him.
**Using his legal rights. He pursued actions to have the violators song take down from various sites.
**The song had several streams/downloads and was gaining steam for the artist.
**The take down has halted what would have been at least one of the guys biggest songs.
**No money involved, and yet his career is boxed in. He can create another album, but there is no guarantee that those songs will do as well. Essentially paralyzing his momentum, until he does in fact create an equal or better song.

Is this the type of risk you want to take?
We always look at this from a theoretical situation of "Big Artist finding DJ Bedrooms secret soundcloud mixtape".....

But it is equally nor more likely that DJ Bedroom and MC Basement collide in an issue, if for no other reason that they probably travel in similar and close circles online or in their geographic regions. And with a big artist hunting the little artist - or small artist hunting small artist, the risk ratio increases with the popularity of the new song.

Today it's worth nothing, in 6 months it may be a regional hit. Now that it's a regional hit the owner will want more, had you cleared it day 1, they'd probably be willing to settle for less.
Old 26th September 2016
  #52
PUBLISH

1a:* To make generally known
1b:* To make*public announcement of
2a:* To disseminate to the public
2b:* To produce or release for distribution;*specifically:**print*
2c:* To issue the work of (an author)

intransitive verb

1:* To put out an edition
2:* To have one's work accepted for*publication

- Now let's look at copyright law on the matter.

https://www.loc.gov/legal/

What is a Musical Copyright?

If you read this information it boils down to a situation where ONLY the creator/owner can manage and authorize the use of a work. In addition a Copyright Violation is not merely a matter of making a profit. If you copy a work, Distribute it and publish(make available to the public) in any form regardless of financial outcomes, you are violating the copyright law and can be sued or forced to cease and desist.

....."But I'm underground"
....."But my mixtape is free"

Does not absolve you from the requirements and stipulations of the law.

Again the chance of being caught......Very Slim.

You can drive drunk, and people do everyday. But when you are pulled over saying that you are only a "little buzzed" or notifying the officer that "others did it too" or that your "homeboy/cousin" is doing it this and didn't get pulled over won't fly in the event that the situation occurs.
Old 27th September 2016
  #53
Quote:
Originally Posted by danoc View Post
No im not wrong sampling is an art and if a person just samples as a hobbyist and don't. Make a dime there is no harn done. Prior to the new sampling law that was made against hiphop rappers were using samples and getting paid. As soon as the record labels saw big money involved then the law was made. However it is wtong to take original works and get paid.

Here's the greyrecord when a hobbyist does it and not get paid.

Show me one case where a hobbyist or sampler person that got sued over copyright infringement and didn't make one dime off a record.

1. Making a mix tape with samples and everyone is getting psid is a no no! If you get caught making money any type of way you can be sued.

2. Making a record with samples and there's miney being made and the publishers find out you will get sued.

3. A sampling hobbyist who just samples and just let his friends hearthre music and no money is made is not getting sued but... This can be a grey area.

4. If a producer samples and the artist/record company don't clear it at least give credit to those involved in the original works. If not you will piss someone off and they will come after you.
Lol you have smart, informed dudes like dre quoting facts and laws, me telling you I've been formally educated on the subject, and you still refuse to do 5 minutes of research on what constitutes copyright infringement. Unbelievable. Whatever man.
Old 28th September 2016
  #54
"No harm done" depends on your viewpoint. If you're Moby (well known vegan) and someone samples your record and raps over it declaring how great bacon is and lots of people hear it, perhaps you'd feel harm has been done.

You're right in that no-one bothers suing unknown artists, because the costs outweigh the benefits. The most that happens is you get a cease and desist letter, that your content is taken down and you get blocked, or that it's monetized with ads and the ad revenue goes to the copyright holder (that's a decision made by the publisher I guess).

BUT that doesn't make it legal - it just means you'll probably get away with it. As soon as you try to make any money with it, or become more well known, you're gonna have issues.

So no - you're not wrong in practice, but that's only really relevant if you never want anyone to hear what you do.

Apart from the idea of this "new sampling law". People have been suing for unauthorized sampling use for about what, 30 years? Pretty sure "ice ice baby" and the like (i.e. Pop culture embracing hip hop) was cleared...

Quote:
Originally Posted by danoc View Post
No im not wrong sampling is an art and if a person just samples as a hobbyist and don't. Make a dime there is no harn done. Prior to the new sampling law that was made against hiphop rappers were using samples and getting paid. As soon as the record labels saw big money involved then the law was made. However it is wtong to take original works and get paid.

Here's the greyrecord when a hobbyist does it and not get paid.

Show me one case where a hobbyist or sampler person that got sued over copyright infringement and didn't make one dime off a record.

1. Making a mix tape with samples and everyone is getting psid is a no no! If you get caught making money any type of way you can be sued.

2. Making a record with samples and there's miney being made and the publishers find out you will get sued.

3. A sampling hobbyist who just samples and just let his friends hearthre music and no money is made is not getting sued but... This can be a grey area.

4. If a producer samples and the artist/record company don't clear it at least give credit to those involved in the original works. If not you will piss someone off and they will come after you.
Old 28th September 2016
  #55

Yup. Theres a new sampling law.........
Strangely it was written over 50 years ago but......new enough.

The law covers DSP and Offline Bounce/Rendering/Exporting in ProTools 10.....
Old 28th September 2016
  #56
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obe1 View Post
Lol you have smart, informed dudes like dre quoting facts and laws, me telling you I've been formally educated on the subject, and you still refuse to do 5 minutes of research on what constitutes copyright infringement. Unbelievable. Whatever man.
Say what you want bottom line is clear the samole if you're foolish not to the its all on you. Forget all the other nonsense.
Old 29th September 2016
  #57
Lives for gear
 

So i guess you and dre thinks that 30 years is b.c.?
Smdh

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
"No harm done" depends on your viewpoint. If you're Moby (well known vegan) and someone samples your record and raps over it declaring how great bacon is and lots of people hear it, perhaps you'd feel harm has been done.

You're right in that no-one bothers suing unknown artists, because the costs outweigh the benefits. The most that happens is you get a cease and desist letter, that your content is taken down and you get blocked, or that it's monetized with ads and the ad revenue goes to the copyright holder (that's a decision made by the publisher I guess).

BUT that doesn't make it legal - it just means you'll probably get away with it. As soon as you try to make any money with it, or become more well known, you're gonna have issues.

So no - you're not wrong in practice, but that's only really relevant if you never want anyone to hear what you do.

Apart from the idea of this "new sampling law". People have been suing for unauthorized sampling use for about what, 30 years? Pretty sure "ice ice baby" and the like (i.e. Pop culture embracing hip hop) was cleared...
Old 29th September 2016
  #58
Lives for gear
 

Why the Rick Ross Case May Change Hip-Hop.

By Julian Carpenter February 12, 2013


Rick Ross may have to pay out for "3 Kings." Last week, two gospel songwriters, Clara Shepherd Warrick and Jimmy Lee Weary, filed a lawsuit against the rapper, along with Dr. Dre and Jay-Z, for sampling a gospel song in the Ross single. The suit claims Ross and others failed to clear the necessary rights when sampling the 1976 Crowns of Glory song "I'm So Grateful (Keep in Touch)," for which Weary is credited as a writer. The plaintiffs claim no one contacted Weary about the sample or compensated him. (Watch the Rick Ross music video above, and listen to the Crowns Glory track below.)
Rick Ross 3 Kings Lawsuit - The Rick Ross Case Could Change Hip Hop
Old 29th September 2016
  #59
Quote:
Originally Posted by danoc View Post
So i guess you and dre thinks that 30 years is b.c.?
Smdh
Not sure what this means.

As usual, also SMDH.
Old 29th September 2016
  #60
Lives for gear
 

COPYRIGHT

noun
1.
the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc.: works granted such right by law on or after January 1, 1978, are protected for the lifetime of the author or creator and for a period of 70 years after his or her death.

Dictionary.com | Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com


Quote:
Originally Posted by drethe5th View Post

Yup. Theres a new sampling law.........
Strangely it was written over 50 years ago but......new enough.

The law covers DSP and Offline Bounce/Rendering/Exporting in ProTools 10.....
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