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 29th September 2016
  #61
Quote:
Originally Posted by danoc View Post
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
<MOD NOTE>

Man this is nothing to do with what Dre wrote.

I'm going to keep out of the moderating here, since I'm involved with the discussion and don't want anyone to think I'm taking sides, but before someone else removes all your posts, I'd just suggest if you want to avoid it becoming another "danoc vs the hip hop forum" thread, keep your responses (particularly the patronising ones) relevant and on topic.
Old 29th September 2016
  #62
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Not sure what this means.

As usual, also SMDH.
Of course you don't no surprise to me. Now stop typing ti me.
Old 29th September 2016
  #63
Lives for gear
 

Obvious you can't see either!

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
<MOD NOTE>

Man this is nothing to do with what Dre wrote.

I'm going to keep out of the moderating here, since I'm involved with the discussion and don't want anyone to think I'm taking sides, but before someone else removes all your posts, I'd just suggest if you want to avoid it becoming another "danoc vs the hip hop forum" thread, keep your responses (particularly the patronising ones) relevant and on topic.
Old 29th September 2016
  #64
Quote:
Originally Posted by danoc View Post
Of course you don't no surprise to me. Now stop typing ti me.
Fortunately danoc, you are not the owner or moderator of this site therefore do not get to dictate behaviour. If I or anyone else wishes to reply to you we will - stop trying to vigilante mod please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by danoc View Post
Obvious you can't see either!
Perhaps, since it's not only me who doesn't have a clue what you're on about, then you should be less cryptic?

It's only clever if people actually get what you're saying.
Old 29th September 2016
  #65
Lives for gear
 

I Don't know what you're talking about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Fortunately danoc, you are not the owner or moderator of this site therefore do not get to dictate behaviour. If I or anyone else wishes to reply to you we will - stop trying to vigilante mod please.



Perhaps, since it's not only me who doesn't have a clue what you're on about, then you should be less cryptic?

It's only clever if people actually get what you're saying.
Old 29th September 2016
  #66
Lives for gear
 
viewing's Avatar
so did the rick ross case change hip-hop or not?
Old 29th September 2016
  #67
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by viewing View Post
so did the rick ross case change hip-hop or not?
I really don't know. check it out the update
Old 1st October 2016
  #68
Lives for gear
 

so no comments on the. New copyright laws huh? 1978 not that far from where we are we're just 16 years from 2000 and you just count down from 1999! Some of you never worked in a law firm yet trying to kick law if you're a mix engineer stay in your lane.
That would be like cats that never lived the time of the birth of hiphop trying to tell me key players of it and i say wrong. Yet they never grew up in NYC nor that era. I was there i was one of the pioneers of it. I dibt need a history lesson in it i am the history. I am hiohop in pure form. And no Bambatta didnt start hiphip he was one of the pioneers of it. Same thing here with the law of copyrighting. Clear your samples if you plan on putting it out to sell to the public.

Or the next thread would be how you got sued because you didn't clear a sample.
Old 1st October 2016
  #69
Lives for gear
 

so no comments on the. New copyright laws huh? 1978 not that far from where we are we're just 16 years from 2000 and you just count down from 1999! Some of you never worked in a law firm yet trying to kick law if you're a mix engineer stay in your lane.
That would be like cats that never lived the time of the birth of hiphop trying to tell me key players of it and i say wrong. Yet they never grew up in NYC nor that era. I was there i was one of the pioneers of it. I don't need a history lesson in it i am the history. I am hiohop in pure form. And no Bambatta didnt start hiphop he was one of the pioneers of it.

Same thing here with the law.

Clear your samples if you plan on putting it out to sell to the public.

Or the next thread would be how you got sued because you didn't clear a sample.
Old 1st October 2016
  #70
Lives for gear
 
viewing's Avatar
i dunno, i listen to live from headqourterz regularly and everything played on that show and rap is outta control for that matter is pure samples. in one two hour show i might have heard a few hundred samples. i don't believe they have all been cleared?
Old 1st October 2016
  #71
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by viewing View Post
i dunno, i listen to live from headqourterz regularly and everything played on that show and rap is outta control for that matter is pure samples. in one two hour show i might have heard a few hundred samples. i don't believe they have all been cleared?
Is this a radio show? If it is they are suppose to clear samples but there's a grey area. They are not putting out records. Those that own the rights to those samples suppose to get performance rights payment. If those ssmples sre before 1978 they may be safe. This is why its a grey area but they are not planning to put those samples out as records. I forget what you call it when you sample and just play samples at a party. If i remember i will let you know. So it mey fall underlines of that.

They might be givung credit to the people of those samples too.
Old 1st October 2016
  #72
Lives for gear
 
viewing's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by danoc View Post
Is this a radio show? If it is they are suppose to clear samples but there's a grey area. They are not putting out records. Those that own the rights to those samples suppose to get performance rights payment. If those ssmples sre before 1978 they may be safe. This is why its a grey area but they are not planning to put those samples out as records. I forget what you call it when you sample and just play samples at a party. If i remember i will let you know. So it mey fall underlines of that.

They might be givung credit to the people of those samples too.
every friday from 10-12 on sirius xm, since 2006(?). rap is outta control is on the same channel same time on sunday nights

lots of legends on there as well as the new artists, all sampling like it was 1988

i guess some of it is cleared, one song i remember was a track premo did for fat joe where he looped the intro to sly's sing a simple song, over a well known drum break too. maybe that was cleared?

now i know why we'll only ever see the youtube clip of premo in the studio with zz ward and not an official song, the beat they were working on was banging, top shelf preem : /

don't tell though, these shows are my hardcore hip-hop fix
Old 1st October 2016
  #73
Lives for gear
For the life of me I can't figure out what's being debated here-

Obviously there are tons of uncleared samples out there with no real losses to the creators. The risks you take are that A) they can issue a cease and desist, and B) if the song blows up you have no leverage to negotiate.

I think a lot of the sample copyright owners would probably rather not issue the cease and desist, because they might as well wait and see if a song does take off and then swoop in. So it's a game of chicken.

I don't see the point of haggling the finer details of written and case law on this, lots of things have simply never been tested. Does the infringement take place the moment you take the sample? Or the moment you release the song with an uncleared sample? You want to get congress to weigh on that? Yeah right....

No plaintiff would bother with the relatively small damages they could get awarded by suing when no money was made...so their choice is still a cease and desist, or wait it out and sue if it's a hit.

It doesn't mean you are "good to go" when you aren't making money, and it doesn't mean you can't end up regretting that you didn't clear the sample...but it also doesn't mean that every person who releases something with a uncleared sample ends up in bankruptcy.
Old 2nd October 2016
  #74
Lives for gear
 

lol i wint tell. I might have to listen myself. Thanks


Quote:
Originally Posted by viewing View Post
every friday from 10-12 on sirius xm, since 2006(?). rap is outta control is on the same channel same time on sunday nights

lots of legends on there as well as the new artists, all sampling like it was 1988

i guess some of it is cleared, one song i remember was a track premo did for fat joe where he looped the intro to sly's sing a simple song, over a well known drum break too. maybe that was cleared?

now i know why we'll only ever see the youtube clip of premo in the studio with zz ward and not an official song, the beat they were working on was banging, top shelf preem : /

don't tell though, these shows are my hardcore hip-hop fix
Old 2nd October 2016
  #75
Lives for gear
 

Hey Ryan i have a question for you.
If i take a noticeable. 2 bar loop as a sample and record it with a not so famous rapper but it blows up, gets 200,000 spins on the radio did i break the infringement law of that sample?


Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
For the life of me I can't figure out what's being debated here-

Obviously there are tons of uncleared samples out there with no real losses to the creators. The risks you take are that A) they can issue a cease and desist, and B) if the song blows up you have no leverage to negotiate.

I think a lot of the sample copyright owners would probably rather not issue the cease and desist, because they might as well wait and see if a song does take off and then swoop in. So it's a game of chicken.

I don't see the point of haggling the finer details of written and case law on this, lots of things have simply never been tested. Does the infringement take place the moment you take the sample? Or the moment you release the song with an uncleared sample? You want to get congress to weigh on that? Yeah right....

No plaintiff would bother with the relatively small damages they could get awarded by suing when no money was made...so their choice is still a cease and desist, or wait it out and sue if it's a hit.

It doesn't mean you are "good to go" when you aren't making money, and it doesn't mean you can't end up regretting that you didn't clear the sample...but it also doesn't mean that every person who releases something with a uncleared sample ends up in bankruptcy.
Old 2nd October 2016
  #76
Quote:
Originally Posted by danoc View Post
Hey Ryan i have a question for you.
If i take a noticeable. 2 bar loop as a sample and record it with a not so famous rapper but it blows up, gets 200,000 spins on the radio did i break the infringement law of that sample?
Both of the sample and of the publishing.

PRO royalties would be due, and most likely (assuming it was noticeably big), the writer/recording owners would want all of it.

To GET that many plays, you'd also need to have the recording available online i.e. "Released". They'd want 100% of that too.

This has happened in previous years, you don't have to be a lawyer to know that case of the Verve, The Rolling Stones and "Bittersweet Symphony"? One small uncleared sample, from a cover version of one of their songs....100% of the publishing lost to the stones.

Lots of details of this online, it's exactly what you describe (but a released single just not radio play).

As to the lack of replies to your comments...as RyanC says, none of us know what the point you're making is!
Old 2nd October 2016
  #77
Lives for gear
 

lol who said you had to be a lawyer to know this? There are many that know the business without being a lawyer.
My point was very clear. If you take a sample and plan on recirding it and selling it on the market you should get it cleared. What's not to understand?


Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Both of the sample and of the publishing.

PRO royalties would be due, and most likely (assuming it was noticeably big), the writer/recording owners would want all of it.

To GET that many plays, you'd also need to have the recording available online i.e. "Released". They'd want 100% of that too.

This has happened in previous years, you don't have to be a lawyer to know that case of the Verve, The Rolling Stones and "Bittersweet Symphony"? One small uncleared sample, from a cover version of one of their songs....100% of the publishing lost to the stones.

Lots of details of this online, it's exactly what you describe (but a released single just not radio play).

As to the lack of replies to your comments...as RyanC says, none of us know what the point you're making is!
Old 2nd October 2016
  #78
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by danoc View Post
Hey Ryan i have a question for you.
If i take a noticeable. 2 bar loop as a sample and record it with a not so famous rapper but it blows up, gets 200,000 spins on the radio did i break the infringement law of that sample?
Nobody is challenging that this isn't infringement- of course it is. And it's also infringement to have 10 radio plays on a sampled song that's on SC and YT and in some blogs. The question of rather or not it is infringement was never being debated in this thread.

The main things that were being discussed are what *real world* expectations someone can have, and what steps a producer can take to make sure that he has covered his ass as best as possible.
Old 2nd October 2016
  #79
Lives for gear
 

I gave you a thumbsup because you explained that profoundly without being a jack ass like some orhers.

And like i said before a producer can protect themselves by getting it cleared and not play the game catch me if you can.
Give the credit to those that the sample belongs to.
To make it easier on themselves the producer should let the record company clear the sample.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
The main things that were being discussed are what *real world* expectations someone can have, and what steps a producer can take to make sure that he has covered his ass as best as possible.
Old 2nd October 2016
  #80
Lives for gear
 
PRPS's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
Nobody is challenging that this isn't infringement- of course it is. And it's also infringement to have 10 radio plays on a sampled song that's on SC and YT and in some blogs. The question of rather or not it is infringement was never being debated in this thread.

The main things that were being discussed are what *real world* expectations someone can have, and what steps a producer can take to make sure that he has covered his ass as best as possible.
well said
Old 3rd October 2016
  #81
Quote:
Originally Posted by danoc View Post
lol who said you had to be a lawyer to know this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by danoc View Post
Some of you never worked in a law firm yet trying to kick law if you're a mix engineer stay in your lane.
Apologies if pointing out a) where you're being just a bit rude and contradictory makes me a jackass.
Old 3rd October 2016
  #82
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Apologies if pointing out a) where you're being just a bit rude and contradictory makes me a jackass.
I never said your name :-)

Not contradictory you were trying to tell me that the new copyright law i mentioned was like b.c. or some crap and its not.

As I said you can know the music business but P-Monkey it doesn't mean you know Entertainment Law!

Im done, without contradictory you love to argue! You should be mixing a new joint cause im headed to the studio! :-)
Old 3rd October 2016
  #83
Quote:
Originally Posted by danoc View Post
I never said your name :-)
I'm not taking it personally, I'm just pointing out one minute you say one thing, then the next you say another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by danoc View Post
Not contradictory you were trying to tell me that the new copyright law i mentioned was like b.c. or some crap and its not.
No I didn't. I said there wasn't a "new" law, only new examples of the existing law in action.

Quote:
Originally Posted by danoc View Post
As I said you can know the music business but P-Monkey it doesn't mean you know Entertainment Law!
I certainly don't know the details, but I definitely know the basics. And unlike you, I can express what I think clearly without starting a fight

Quote:
Originally Posted by danoc View Post
Im done, without contradictory you love to argue! You should be mixing a new joint cause im headed to the studio! :-)
Already here; printing stems for an EP I just finished, about to start the final stages of a different production.

Debate is more fun when both sides are clear and stick to what they say...trying to find out exactly what you mean or what your point is less so.
Old 4th October 2016
  #84
Lives for gear
 

Starting fights? lol hahaaaha so now I'm a gearslutz bully? lol man gtfoh!

And i was being sarcastic also smh.

Im done with the subject. See ya.


Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
I'm not taking it personally, I'm just pointing out one minute you say one thing, then the next you say another.



No I didn't. I said there wasn't a "new" law, only new examples of the existing law in action.



I certainly don't know the details, but I definitely know the basics. And unlike you, I can express what I think clearly without starting a fight



Already here; printing stems for an EP I just finished, about to start the final stages of a different production.

Debate is more fun when both sides are clear and stick to what they say...trying to find out exactly what you mean or what your point is less so.
Old 4th October 2016
  #85
Quote:
Originally Posted by danoc View Post
Starting fights? lol hahaaaha so now I'm a gearslutz bully? lol man gtfoh!

And i was being sarcastic also smh.

Im done with the subject. See ya.
I'm not calling you a bully. I'm saying your lack of clarity when posting, added to your attitude when misunderstood and frequent misunderstanding of others, causes fights. I'm sure it's not deliberate, just a consequence.

Basically, you could show a little more respect and humility. That's a personal observation, not a directive. But you'd probably find participation here more enjoyable if you attempted to get along with people a little more, rather than "smh" anytime someone doesn't get what you're saying the first time.

I'm sure you think it's just me picking on you, -and I apologize for that - it's not the intention. It's clearly not only me who doesn't get what you're saying, even in this thread.
Old 7th October 2016
  #86
Old 7th October 2016
  #87
I don't know..... I'm not sure..... Could be a rumor.....

BUT

Word on the street is that the Library of Congress has a website.

And on that site the cover copyright law very well since they are in charge of it. And some how they came to the conclusion that they'd write a few laws about it well before 1970. Essentially stealing anything has been illegal for quite a while. And has required permission for intellectual works, in various ways since the height of the printing press in the early 1900's. . . . . Wiki won't cover it all, but a look at the congress site and a book will get you pretty close . . . .

U.S. Copyright Office

In case anyone wanted to visit such a secret and unknown website ^ ^ ^ ^ Here it is.
Old 10th October 2016
  #88
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
The risks you take are that A) they can issue a cease and desist, and B) if the song blows up you have no leverage to negotiate.

I think a lot of the sample copyright owners would probably rather not issue the cease and desist, because they might as well wait and see if a song does take off and then swoop in. So it's a game of chicken.
Great Point !
Also.... samples can get you fried even if they are prior to 1970. The rule applies to music that was derived/sampled/stolen/interpolated prior to that law. It does not mean that if you sample a record from 1965 today, that you wont be hit in court, should the occasion arise.
Old 12th October 2016
  #89
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by drethe5th View Post
Great Point !
Also.... samples can get you fried even if they are prior to 1970. The rule applies to music that was derived/sampled/stolen/interpolated prior to that law. It does not mean that if you sample a record from 1965 today, that you wont be hit in court, should the occasion arise.
Yeah sampling is always going to carry those risks-

I think it's still reasonable to have a thread about how 'what you can likely get away with in the real world' compares to the letter of the law.

For a comparison, many of the studios you see here on GS are illegal- or at least violating their local zoning ordinance. Most residential zonings are pretty restrictive in terms of what is a viable 'home occupation'. Typically they limit sf, number of people, number of cars, % of sf, no accessory buildings (garage), noise etc.

But the truth is it doesn't stop people from doing it, and many of them aren't getting shut down. Personally I think if someone is doing a vocal/mix/production focused, small-ish home based business for a studio and they pick a good property for it and are cautious- then it's likely to not be a problem.

OTOH There is a full blown commercial studio that opened a few years back in town here. They have a LFAC and are using a whole 50s mansion as their studio. It's in a suburb here that limits home based businesses to 1000sf max. IMO that is a crazy risk to take on for your livelihood. They are my competitor and it would take me all of a 10 minute phone call to have them shut down. They have videos online showing them using the whole house as a studio! I wouldn't do that, but that doesn't mean someone else won't. Or their neighbors who get tired of the smell of pot smoke and drunken profanity at night.

I think it's similar to sampling though in that there certainly is a ton of stuff that flies under the radar. No it's not legal, and yes there are still risks and especially the risk is if things really start taking off...but people still do it everyday.
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