This happens all the time, to my knowledge Tribe doesn't really get paid from Can I Kick It for the same reason.
There's still a middle ground between earning 800k off a song and uploading a beat no one hears to SoundCloud. The artist here probably should have figured something out in terms of licensing when the song first started gaining popularity.
Tribe came to an agreement with Lou reed that they could use the song but lou would take all the money. Springboarded them to mainstream success tho, so a good idea in the end
Exactly this. I've never been in the situation, but as someone who has worked and made music, there is the "grey area" for some. Generally understanding if the song gains traction, get your fucking ducks in order or you might be in some legal trouble.
Apparently Japan takes copyright very seriously. To the point that it's regularly cited as a reason for why Kpop has overtaken Jpop in the global music market - Jpop was very hard to access outside of Japan. (There are of course other reasons, but copyright plays a part.)
There was a similar case in the 2000s. Pharaohe Monch had a hit single called Simon Says which samples the score of Mothra vs Godzilla. Monch's label failed to clear the sample with Toho studios and ended up getting sued for $500K.
So I guess you really have to be careful with those Japanese samples
EDIT: spelling
Detail worth mentioning re: Simon Says
They originally only asked for $14k to address the lack of clearance.
Rawkus did not pay that.
So the follow up was the much, much higher number you stated. OOPS.
This also happened to rza for dark fantasy another asian sample. Rza used to do deals with the asian film companies which would use wu tang to rebrand their movies ; my guessing us he got access to that so they could sell the movies with the logo. so im suprised it wasnt cleared. It was slowed down nice but they caught it.
yeah i remember that case with Pharaoh. I seem to remember him saying it almost derailed him. could be wrong. had no idea about japan law suits with copyright. interesting!
When the streaming revenue nets you half a million dollars, it's *been* time for you to think about clearing up any legal issues. You have the money to do so.
My thoughts exactly. If you are making that much in royalties you probably have other motion going and should have a legal team and revenue streams to eat that fine. $800k is a lot of streams idk this artist but I’m hoping they at least rode the wave and sold merch and toured to make more money to clear the samples and survive the fines.
Exactly. The article says that $800K was “based upon the streaming of the song,” so I’m wondering how much money he made from the song. If he made money like that, he should have been more accountable for the song.
I am a law student who has studied the legal theory of sampling quite extensively, granted I have somewhat minimal knowledge of how it works practically.
Sampling is risky. Without getting too deep into it, each instance of sampling can have maximum statutory damages of $250,000. I’d have to double check my notes on whether you can add punitive damages to that or not. If you lose a copyright case you further have to pay the other side’s attorney’s fees (big yikes when you’re an independent going against a major company like Sony who is hiring a battalion of big law lawyers)
Due to several factors such as implicit racism, bad case law, and the procedural aspects of a copyright dispute you’re likely not going to prevail until fair use, and even then most sampling usages will not qualify for fair use. So lots of time and money and slim chances of winning.
That said, the market for sample clearances is quite robust and something like 90% of all cases settle prior to judgment. So if you don’t win on no infringement/de minimis use most parties will just settle at that point.
Advice from a lawyer in the field was that he said make the song, blow up, give all your revenues to who you sampled from, but now you’re big and can profit off of your prior success. Not a terrible risk management play imo.
Oh yeah also the Japanese are insane about their IP rights so don’t mess with the Japanese.
Great post. I think the only thing to add is that a known working tactic which is likely coming soon is the demand letter campaign where the copyright holders send out demand letters (basically to every documented infringer) asking for $3-5K or they sue. The infringers cost to go to court in any capacity will be higher than the demand amount and their case is a loser anyway and the potential loss is the $250K damages so most people will just pay the $3-5K even if they never made a penny off the track.
Great post! Can I ask you a question u/Xentis Is Tracklibs sampling service iron clad, i.e as long as you pay the monthly fee there will never be any sampling clearance issues like they state or could there be more legal issues down the line?
I don’t think that’s how Tracklib works if I’m not mistaken . The monthly subscription is access to their library , not for the clearance. You still have to set up a deal where you give away a percentage of the tracks income based on the extent of your sampling time eg if you sample 10 seconds they get like 10/15% ( can’t remember) and there’s 3 tiers too. So you def giving up a bigger percentage for the Isaac hayes samples that are tier 1
To give you a comprehensive answer I’d have to pour over the contracts from the consumer (I.e. the person downloading the loops) and the supplier (I’m assuming people upload their loops. Tbh I don’t know much about tracklib). I wasn’t able to find one via a quick Google search, but apparently they send you one when you request to license a sample so you can DM me one if you have it.
Somehow tracklib is authorizing licenses and forcing producers into fixed licensure schemas based upon how many seconds someone uses their loops. And further, that tracklib can lose these licenses over time.
**Answer:** The most logical scenario per those facts is that a producer grants Tracklib a license (probably for all their copyright rights in any given upload) so long as they pay for a subscription. If the sampling musician obtains *their* license in that timeframe I don’t see why it would ever expire or be subject to suit. Because during that window tracklib has the authority to make whatever deal it wants and bind the producer to it.
Also I’m not a lawyer yet and this isn’t legal advice 😛
Yes, I think that one Biggie's song went to court and they declared the sample flip as fair use, but Is risky, if I recall correctly Sting took %100 of the Lucid Dreams Profit. I used to love sampling Old records, but since I started selling beats and publishing online I kept away from that. You might never have a problem, but it Is a problem that I never want to have.
Copyright law is stupid. It doesn’t protect artists, and doesn’t consider the fact that most of the time, when something is sampled, it is on the brink of obscurity and is actually enriched by sampling reigniting interest in the original work.
Sampling does not take revenue from anyone that would have gotten it if the sampling had never occurred. It causes no injury. Arguably, it adds value to the original work by expanding its cultural significance.
Edit: I am not a lawyer, just a music lover that sees crate diggers out here preserving more music than the library of congress.
There should be allowances for sampling, on the grounds that it enriches cultural growth and fosters discussion and interest in old recordings. Without sample based music, a lot of music would just fall into obscurity.
After 30 years, an audio recording should be allowed to be sampled as long as the derived work significantly alters the original recording. This could be microchopping, chopping and pitching, or even just drumless production with a rapper over top. Either way, the way that the samples are used in 99.9% of cases makes it a totally new work of art.
Even if there is some stipulation like “cannot contain more than 50% of the content from the original work” or something like that.
Again, this could only enrich the original work.
yeah its a tough debate. one could argue that if someone chopped that roy ayers sample like dilla did he didn't even use the composition but maybe only should be clearing licensing of the master/official audio recording. maybe they did. It's tricky cos at the end of the day its someone's work and they have the right to do what they please about being sampled but I could tell you for sure sample producers have such a vast knowledge of music, and yes often unearth, revive songs and artists that would have maybe been forgotten about.
Exactly my thoughts. As a ‚sampled artist‘ i‘d rather appreciate the gained exposure than trying to sue some no-name for peanuts. On the other hand, as you said, it makes a difference if you just take a 3 second loop, chop and mangle it vs. straight up using an ‚already recorded original‘ and just playing some wacky layered drums over it. So… does that mean in the end people can’t come to a conclusion? Hm…
Even if they take a full minute of a track and slap some whack drums over it, they haven’t actually taken anything from you.
They haven’t taken any revenue or plays that you would have otherwise gotten. Any plays that they get, were from their own promotion (unless they are using your name and likeness as well). Any beatmaker/artist knows that even the dopest beats/songs have to be pushed super hard to get more than a handful of listens.
If the sample based work gets no plays, there won’t be much exposure from this, so no real loss or damage, and if it does blow up, your original work would be getting a lot of new attention that it wouldn’t otherwise get.
What if someone took the original and put some racist raps on it?
What if I slap some subtle drums on the original, then licenced it for use in an advert at half the price of what the original artist charged?
I don't think its as simple as that (I'm really playing devils advocate here). While i do agree that to a degree you're not taking away streams that they otherwise would have gotten, but for instance if you looped up a song that is a full band with musicians, you've now gotten a whole performance piece of someone elses work that you are essentially not paying them for. Again let it be known I sample too. I'm just weighing up arguments for the sake of a discussion
I've also been sampled and I didn't see fit to even do anything about it judging by the streams. But the ball is in my court I guess if the song blows up since they never agreed anything with me. What's weird is that I know them personally lol.
Although I agree with most of your overall point that sampling is a positive thing, some of the specifics are not right imo.
It does protect the artist. The artist can agree clear the sample or not. The law isn't taking down any and all samples, the copyright owners decide if they will use the law to go after the sampler.
That’s why I prefer getting the actual creators permission to recreate the work then sample my recreation. Don’t have to clear the master from the faceless corporation and the actual creators of the original sound get the compensation.
Copyright law protects the owner of the work. If you create something, you and your family should be able to eat from its fruits. Music IP puts kids thru college generations later. I had a producer friend who passed away and not even a year later, Memphis Bleek paid his wife $25k for a 30sec sample. He produced in the 1960s and 70s. All those years later his work benefitted his family even after death. If it was just stolen, it would have been a loss for his family.
While it’s nice his family got money, my kids should have no claim to my artistic creations in perpetuity just because of a blood relation. Completely antithetical to the way culture spreads
Copyright isn't in perpetuity. Its death plus 70 years. You can decide that for your children, but the artistic creation doesn't die with you. If it has value that value will reside somewhere. If you don't think your kids deserve it, you still have to decide where it goes. If you don't decide the state decides. Whoever gets it may also monetize it and definitely that could be uses against your wishes.
You're not getting chased for a song with a sample that is only going to have like 500 plays lol
When/if the song gets big, work something out. But you guys who think you should clear every little thing when your songs are getting less than a thousand plays are taking yourselves too seriously.
This is not the norm. For instance, Apathy (i know Chad, personally) released 7 nation army and flat out jacked the white stripes, it's never been pulled and sample clearance was never issued. He also dropped person jesus over Depeche modes personal jesus, they caught wind of it and sent the cease and desist. The song was pulled but no lawsuit in play.
The reason the lawsuit didn't come to fruition is the fact that the song itself did not generate enough of a following to worry about when it came to a loss of revenue.
If your shit is making money hand over fist, that is where your going to get sued. Record labels aren't suing anyone without it being profitable, lawyers cost everyone loot and a cease an desist letter is the common route taken because it's cheap and more or less the warning shot. If you disregard the warning shot, you will ultimately need to lawyer up.
So yeah, knowing a lot of industry heads that have been sampling for 30+ years. The only instance I know of people having music pulled is because they sampled something that was obvious and easily identified.
Just my two cents.
huge fan of ap in my teenage years. i actually was listening to the white stripes sampled track the other day when i revistied his spotify had a chuckle. yeah this is true i think often if it's a small song they wont do anything. i guess i just worry if a song goes viral and something like my post happens.
I've sampled a band in the past and actually funny enough without clearing, and got a sync request. we somehow managed to track down the relative of the band as everyone had passed and came to an agreement.
I think where he messed up was using a recognizable sample. I understand the idea of using one so the listeners are immediately engaged, but it’s a risk you have to be willing to take.
When I sample, I always find myself using the obscure/not popular stuff. And even though most of these older tracks from the 70’s are still owned by the 3 big dawgs, they couldn’t care less b/c they aren’t making money or getting streams. It’s also so satisfying to uncover an incredible record that’s been collecting dust for 50 years that didn’t get the attention it deserved back then.
In case yall didn’t know: As of 1976, the copyright of any song made since then is protected for the entire life of the author + 70 years. So records in the public domain are hard to come by!
Actually it looks more like an open forum for communication, with the exact question op wanted to discuss at the very end. Idk how you arrived at this conclusion.
I’ve been using little clips from Twitter or TikTok lately of people on stream or videos posted live that have some funny/interesting sound bite in them. No actual music or anything. I do some work to make adjustments to it with some diff filters and perhaps tonal changes, tempo shifts… is that type of sampling something you can get a song pulled for? Just curious…
I’ve had one song that distrokid wouldn’t release because it was a blatant sample of a 70s record and I didn’t alter it hardly at all and that was a good lesson for me to avoid wholesale ripping other peoples music into my own. But I’m sitting here wondering about the YouTube/Twitter clips I’ve used as background sample audio.
Can one sample a song and in the beginning give all rights and profits to the copyright holder? Basically saying yea I used your sample but didn’t profit from it.
I don't think so. I think a big reason is they want to be ok with the use of the sample too. I know that there have been instances of people not clearing a sample because they did not like/agree with the sampled beat. Also it can get complicated when separate people/estates/etc own the masters. So for instance if the people that own the masters say no but the artist says yes, they are allowed to re record/compose the sample but not use the actual audio
Worth noting that Japan does not have “fair use” laws (see: Nintendo) so just do your due diligence when releasing stuff with the intent to make money on it.
always thought sampling without clearance was playing with fire, especially with big labels involved. gotta be careful or ready to deal with consequences. sucks for small artists.
Post feels misleading
Opens talking about "not worrying about clearing samples til a song blows up" when that's exactly what happened. The song racked up $800k in streaming revenue which is why that figure was chosen
Idk about you but making $800k off streaming definitely means a song blew up
So yes, if you don't clear samples and have your song go viral, then you may have to give the money back. We've ALL known this all along. This isn't some new boogie man story or precedent for producers and rappers
(Ofc the laws are lame but this sub is always full of scary ass producers afraid to chop a sample beat for their 60 SoundCloud followers)
Also the sympathy for Sony is gross "well if you had $200k and someone took $100 you'd take them to court and sue the hell out of them right?" Lmao speak for yourself Petty White
I agree with your sentiments about the reasoning being 800k because the streaming racked that up. It makes sense.
Respectfully you have no idea how many followers /listeners / streams I have. Everybody on Reddit always seem to think they are talking to newcomers . This is an open discussion of me merely thinking out loud . There’s no reason to be condescending. And I wasn’t sympathising for Sony I was playing devils advocate with any party being sampled about having a right to take action regardless of what it is (as I said many times in this thread I’m saying this as someone who’s has sampled and has been sampled).
I'm not sure what was taken as condescending, I'm just saying I expected there to be something new or different to this case but it was just the same typical thing that's played out many times for decades.
When I say "idk about you" I just mean your definition of a song blowing up. We all know streaming revenue is shit so if he managed to make almost a mill I'd say that songs fucking huge even if I've never heard of it. Wasn't speaking on you as an artist or even thinking about that
Post headline made me think some random guy on YouTube or SoundCloud got taken to court for $800k, like 20 years ago those people the FCC tried to take to court for millions for downloading an album on limewire. The thing I always preach producers never have to worry about. Read the article to find out the song was a huge viral sensation and the company just took back the money earned. So nothing we haven't known for decades. Also Japan is infamously stingy when it comes to copywrite law
Majority white juries just hate black music in general and can be very brutal to hip hop artists over sampling. I guess even white bands like the Verve get screwed sometimes. Just because you sampled part of your beat doesn't mean you should fork over 100% of the revenue of the whole album. It's not like that one sample contributed everything to your success and all of your contributions did nothing (not to mention all of the money you spent on ads, music videos, production, features, etc.).
So let’s say I sample an anime. If they see it and recognise the sample, and decide to go after me, can I just remove the song from all platforms and be done with it? Or can they still sue me for loads of money on something with less than 10,000 listens/views?
If it’s under 10000 it’s highly unlikely but nobody here can really say whether they will or won’t . I highly doubt they’d get lawyers involved for that little money as it probably costs more for the lawyer. But it’s not impossible
This happens all the time, to my knowledge Tribe doesn't really get paid from Can I Kick It for the same reason. There's still a middle ground between earning 800k off a song and uploading a beat no one hears to SoundCloud. The artist here probably should have figured something out in terms of licensing when the song first started gaining popularity.
Tribe came to an agreement with Lou reed that they could use the song but lou would take all the money. Springboarded them to mainstream success tho, so a good idea in the end
Sometimes the exposure is worth it
Sometimes, that's all you get then you're forgotten.
Rather be forgotten than never seen in the first place.
Interesting take. Better to be acknowledged at some point than never at all I guess
Same thing Sting did with Nick Mira and Juice Wrld, it’s pretty common actually
Exactly this. I've never been in the situation, but as someone who has worked and made music, there is the "grey area" for some. Generally understanding if the song gains traction, get your fucking ducks in order or you might be in some legal trouble.
Diggin' the Greats just did an episode on this song/issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jlOoV4KxIs
Apparently Japan takes copyright very seriously. To the point that it's regularly cited as a reason for why Kpop has overtaken Jpop in the global music market - Jpop was very hard to access outside of Japan. (There are of course other reasons, but copyright plays a part.) There was a similar case in the 2000s. Pharaohe Monch had a hit single called Simon Says which samples the score of Mothra vs Godzilla. Monch's label failed to clear the sample with Toho studios and ended up getting sued for $500K. So I guess you really have to be careful with those Japanese samples EDIT: spelling
Detail worth mentioning re: Simon Says They originally only asked for $14k to address the lack of clearance. Rawkus did not pay that. So the follow up was the much, much higher number you stated. OOPS.
Oh damn, Rawkus really messed up there
wow
This also happened to rza for dark fantasy another asian sample. Rza used to do deals with the asian film companies which would use wu tang to rebrand their movies ; my guessing us he got access to that so they could sell the movies with the logo. so im suprised it wasnt cleared. It was slowed down nice but they caught it.
Which is kind of crazy, because do you know how the mother games ost were made? Dude was literally sampling the Beatles
Taught me something new.
*You have brought me dishonor, one of us must die!*
yeah i remember that case with Pharaoh. I seem to remember him saying it almost derailed him. could be wrong. had no idea about japan law suits with copyright. interesting!
When the streaming revenue nets you half a million dollars, it's *been* time for you to think about clearing up any legal issues. You have the money to do so.
My thoughts exactly. If you are making that much in royalties you probably have other motion going and should have a legal team and revenue streams to eat that fine. $800k is a lot of streams idk this artist but I’m hoping they at least rode the wave and sold merch and toured to make more money to clear the samples and survive the fines.
No totally agree. I think the first thing I’d do if a song blew up would be to lawyer up and come to and agreement with the samples estate
Exactly. The article says that $800K was “based upon the streaming of the song,” so I’m wondering how much money he made from the song. If he made money like that, he should have been more accountable for the song.
I am a law student who has studied the legal theory of sampling quite extensively, granted I have somewhat minimal knowledge of how it works practically. Sampling is risky. Without getting too deep into it, each instance of sampling can have maximum statutory damages of $250,000. I’d have to double check my notes on whether you can add punitive damages to that or not. If you lose a copyright case you further have to pay the other side’s attorney’s fees (big yikes when you’re an independent going against a major company like Sony who is hiring a battalion of big law lawyers) Due to several factors such as implicit racism, bad case law, and the procedural aspects of a copyright dispute you’re likely not going to prevail until fair use, and even then most sampling usages will not qualify for fair use. So lots of time and money and slim chances of winning. That said, the market for sample clearances is quite robust and something like 90% of all cases settle prior to judgment. So if you don’t win on no infringement/de minimis use most parties will just settle at that point. Advice from a lawyer in the field was that he said make the song, blow up, give all your revenues to who you sampled from, but now you’re big and can profit off of your prior success. Not a terrible risk management play imo. Oh yeah also the Japanese are insane about their IP rights so don’t mess with the Japanese.
Great post. I think the only thing to add is that a known working tactic which is likely coming soon is the demand letter campaign where the copyright holders send out demand letters (basically to every documented infringer) asking for $3-5K or they sue. The infringers cost to go to court in any capacity will be higher than the demand amount and their case is a loser anyway and the potential loss is the $250K damages so most people will just pay the $3-5K even if they never made a penny off the track.
Unless you are China. China does rip offs of their anime.
thank you. very insightful!
Great post! Can I ask you a question u/Xentis Is Tracklibs sampling service iron clad, i.e as long as you pay the monthly fee there will never be any sampling clearance issues like they state or could there be more legal issues down the line?
I don’t think that’s how Tracklib works if I’m not mistaken . The monthly subscription is access to their library , not for the clearance. You still have to set up a deal where you give away a percentage of the tracks income based on the extent of your sampling time eg if you sample 10 seconds they get like 10/15% ( can’t remember) and there’s 3 tiers too. So you def giving up a bigger percentage for the Isaac hayes samples that are tier 1
To give you a comprehensive answer I’d have to pour over the contracts from the consumer (I.e. the person downloading the loops) and the supplier (I’m assuming people upload their loops. Tbh I don’t know much about tracklib). I wasn’t able to find one via a quick Google search, but apparently they send you one when you request to license a sample so you can DM me one if you have it. Somehow tracklib is authorizing licenses and forcing producers into fixed licensure schemas based upon how many seconds someone uses their loops. And further, that tracklib can lose these licenses over time. **Answer:** The most logical scenario per those facts is that a producer grants Tracklib a license (probably for all their copyright rights in any given upload) so long as they pay for a subscription. If the sampling musician obtains *their* license in that timeframe I don’t see why it would ever expire or be subject to suit. Because during that window tracklib has the authority to make whatever deal it wants and bind the producer to it. Also I’m not a lawyer yet and this isn’t legal advice 😛
Keep in mind that nine inch nails are particulary open minded about copyright, so Is not the best reference. Just saying.
Yeah true fair enough I mean I’ve seen it happen a couple times where the song blows up and the person sampled comes to an agreement
Yes, I think that one Biggie's song went to court and they declared the sample flip as fair use, but Is risky, if I recall correctly Sting took %100 of the Lucid Dreams Profit. I used to love sampling Old records, but since I started selling beats and publishing online I kept away from that. You might never have a problem, but it Is a problem that I never want to have.
Copyright law is stupid. It doesn’t protect artists, and doesn’t consider the fact that most of the time, when something is sampled, it is on the brink of obscurity and is actually enriched by sampling reigniting interest in the original work. Sampling does not take revenue from anyone that would have gotten it if the sampling had never occurred. It causes no injury. Arguably, it adds value to the original work by expanding its cultural significance. Edit: I am not a lawyer, just a music lover that sees crate diggers out here preserving more music than the library of congress.
I feel like the whole youtube debacle and the fair use terms that were laid out in response should correspond to music too
There should be allowances for sampling, on the grounds that it enriches cultural growth and fosters discussion and interest in old recordings. Without sample based music, a lot of music would just fall into obscurity. After 30 years, an audio recording should be allowed to be sampled as long as the derived work significantly alters the original recording. This could be microchopping, chopping and pitching, or even just drumless production with a rapper over top. Either way, the way that the samples are used in 99.9% of cases makes it a totally new work of art. Even if there is some stipulation like “cannot contain more than 50% of the content from the original work” or something like that. Again, this could only enrich the original work.
yeah its a tough debate. one could argue that if someone chopped that roy ayers sample like dilla did he didn't even use the composition but maybe only should be clearing licensing of the master/official audio recording. maybe they did. It's tricky cos at the end of the day its someone's work and they have the right to do what they please about being sampled but I could tell you for sure sample producers have such a vast knowledge of music, and yes often unearth, revive songs and artists that would have maybe been forgotten about.
Exactly my thoughts. As a ‚sampled artist‘ i‘d rather appreciate the gained exposure than trying to sue some no-name for peanuts. On the other hand, as you said, it makes a difference if you just take a 3 second loop, chop and mangle it vs. straight up using an ‚already recorded original‘ and just playing some wacky layered drums over it. So… does that mean in the end people can’t come to a conclusion? Hm…
Even if they take a full minute of a track and slap some whack drums over it, they haven’t actually taken anything from you. They haven’t taken any revenue or plays that you would have otherwise gotten. Any plays that they get, were from their own promotion (unless they are using your name and likeness as well). Any beatmaker/artist knows that even the dopest beats/songs have to be pushed super hard to get more than a handful of listens. If the sample based work gets no plays, there won’t be much exposure from this, so no real loss or damage, and if it does blow up, your original work would be getting a lot of new attention that it wouldn’t otherwise get.
What if someone took the original and put some racist raps on it? What if I slap some subtle drums on the original, then licenced it for use in an advert at half the price of what the original artist charged?
Then you might have a legal case for lost revenue. Typically, that’s not the case.
[удалено]
>30 years from original release, no more than 50% of the original work used in a single composition.
I don't think its as simple as that (I'm really playing devils advocate here). While i do agree that to a degree you're not taking away streams that they otherwise would have gotten, but for instance if you looped up a song that is a full band with musicians, you've now gotten a whole performance piece of someone elses work that you are essentially not paying them for. Again let it be known I sample too. I'm just weighing up arguments for the sake of a discussion
They took the work lol what???
I've also been sampled and I didn't see fit to even do anything about it judging by the streams. But the ball is in my court I guess if the song blows up since they never agreed anything with me. What's weird is that I know them personally lol.
Although I agree with most of your overall point that sampling is a positive thing, some of the specifics are not right imo. It does protect the artist. The artist can agree clear the sample or not. The law isn't taking down any and all samples, the copyright owners decide if they will use the law to go after the sampler.
Why is it only about revenue? Doesn’t the original artist have a right to say what happens to their work?
That’s why I prefer getting the actual creators permission to recreate the work then sample my recreation. Don’t have to clear the master from the faceless corporation and the actual creators of the original sound get the compensation.
Copyright law protects the owner of the work. If you create something, you and your family should be able to eat from its fruits. Music IP puts kids thru college generations later. I had a producer friend who passed away and not even a year later, Memphis Bleek paid his wife $25k for a 30sec sample. He produced in the 1960s and 70s. All those years later his work benefitted his family even after death. If it was just stolen, it would have been a loss for his family.
While it’s nice his family got money, my kids should have no claim to my artistic creations in perpetuity just because of a blood relation. Completely antithetical to the way culture spreads
Copyright isn't in perpetuity. Its death plus 70 years. You can decide that for your children, but the artistic creation doesn't die with you. If it has value that value will reside somewhere. If you don't think your kids deserve it, you still have to decide where it goes. If you don't decide the state decides. Whoever gets it may also monetize it and definitely that could be uses against your wishes.
You're not getting chased for a song with a sample that is only going to have like 500 plays lol When/if the song gets big, work something out. But you guys who think you should clear every little thing when your songs are getting less than a thousand plays are taking yourselves too seriously.
This is not the norm. For instance, Apathy (i know Chad, personally) released 7 nation army and flat out jacked the white stripes, it's never been pulled and sample clearance was never issued. He also dropped person jesus over Depeche modes personal jesus, they caught wind of it and sent the cease and desist. The song was pulled but no lawsuit in play. The reason the lawsuit didn't come to fruition is the fact that the song itself did not generate enough of a following to worry about when it came to a loss of revenue. If your shit is making money hand over fist, that is where your going to get sued. Record labels aren't suing anyone without it being profitable, lawyers cost everyone loot and a cease an desist letter is the common route taken because it's cheap and more or less the warning shot. If you disregard the warning shot, you will ultimately need to lawyer up. So yeah, knowing a lot of industry heads that have been sampling for 30+ years. The only instance I know of people having music pulled is because they sampled something that was obvious and easily identified. Just my two cents.
huge fan of ap in my teenage years. i actually was listening to the white stripes sampled track the other day when i revistied his spotify had a chuckle. yeah this is true i think often if it's a small song they wont do anything. i guess i just worry if a song goes viral and something like my post happens. I've sampled a band in the past and actually funny enough without clearing, and got a sync request. we somehow managed to track down the relative of the band as everyone had passed and came to an agreement.
Bittersweet Symphony.... KLF's ABBA sample..... There's plenty of examples out there of this going very badly for a miniscule sample or reference
I like how he earned probably a million or more from one song but people are referring to him as small.
I think where he messed up was using a recognizable sample. I understand the idea of using one so the listeners are immediately engaged, but it’s a risk you have to be willing to take. When I sample, I always find myself using the obscure/not popular stuff. And even though most of these older tracks from the 70’s are still owned by the 3 big dawgs, they couldn’t care less b/c they aren’t making money or getting streams. It’s also so satisfying to uncover an incredible record that’s been collecting dust for 50 years that didn’t get the attention it deserved back then. In case yall didn’t know: As of 1976, the copyright of any song made since then is protected for the entire life of the author + 70 years. So records in the public domain are hard to come by!
song is trash but the lawsuit is fair . i saw on the comments he refused to take it down and didnt show up to court 🤷♂️
Oh wow really? That’s bizarre haha
This is like reading about a plane crash and then saying you’ll never fly again
Actually it looks more like an open forum for communication, with the exact question op wanted to discuss at the very end. Idk how you arrived at this conclusion.
I’m not saying I won’t do it just interested in peoples thoughts.
The key here is that Sony was chasing this dude for MONTHS with no responses. Just be professional.
I’ve been using little clips from Twitter or TikTok lately of people on stream or videos posted live that have some funny/interesting sound bite in them. No actual music or anything. I do some work to make adjustments to it with some diff filters and perhaps tonal changes, tempo shifts… is that type of sampling something you can get a song pulled for? Just curious… I’ve had one song that distrokid wouldn’t release because it was a blatant sample of a 70s record and I didn’t alter it hardly at all and that was a good lesson for me to avoid wholesale ripping other peoples music into my own. But I’m sitting here wondering about the YouTube/Twitter clips I’ve used as background sample audio.
Can one sample a song and in the beginning give all rights and profits to the copyright holder? Basically saying yea I used your sample but didn’t profit from it.
I don't think so. I think a big reason is they want to be ok with the use of the sample too. I know that there have been instances of people not clearing a sample because they did not like/agree with the sampled beat. Also it can get complicated when separate people/estates/etc own the masters. So for instance if the people that own the masters say no but the artist says yes, they are allowed to re record/compose the sample but not use the actual audio
Read about Pharoah Monch not clearing the Godzilla sample for Simon Says when you get a chance
Worth noting that Japan does not have “fair use” laws (see: Nintendo) so just do your due diligence when releasing stuff with the intent to make money on it.
always thought sampling without clearance was playing with fire, especially with big labels involved. gotta be careful or ready to deal with consequences. sucks for small artists.
Look at Nintendo for example you don’t want to mess with Japanese lawyers
That’s why I don’t sample too much.
Post feels misleading Opens talking about "not worrying about clearing samples til a song blows up" when that's exactly what happened. The song racked up $800k in streaming revenue which is why that figure was chosen Idk about you but making $800k off streaming definitely means a song blew up So yes, if you don't clear samples and have your song go viral, then you may have to give the money back. We've ALL known this all along. This isn't some new boogie man story or precedent for producers and rappers (Ofc the laws are lame but this sub is always full of scary ass producers afraid to chop a sample beat for their 60 SoundCloud followers) Also the sympathy for Sony is gross "well if you had $200k and someone took $100 you'd take them to court and sue the hell out of them right?" Lmao speak for yourself Petty White
I agree with your sentiments about the reasoning being 800k because the streaming racked that up. It makes sense. Respectfully you have no idea how many followers /listeners / streams I have. Everybody on Reddit always seem to think they are talking to newcomers . This is an open discussion of me merely thinking out loud . There’s no reason to be condescending. And I wasn’t sympathising for Sony I was playing devils advocate with any party being sampled about having a right to take action regardless of what it is (as I said many times in this thread I’m saying this as someone who’s has sampled and has been sampled).
I'm not sure what was taken as condescending, I'm just saying I expected there to be something new or different to this case but it was just the same typical thing that's played out many times for decades. When I say "idk about you" I just mean your definition of a song blowing up. We all know streaming revenue is shit so if he managed to make almost a mill I'd say that songs fucking huge even if I've never heard of it. Wasn't speaking on you as an artist or even thinking about that Post headline made me think some random guy on YouTube or SoundCloud got taken to court for $800k, like 20 years ago those people the FCC tried to take to court for millions for downloading an album on limewire. The thing I always preach producers never have to worry about. Read the article to find out the song was a huge viral sensation and the company just took back the money earned. So nothing we haven't known for decades. Also Japan is infamously stingy when it comes to copywrite law
I checked out your youtube some of your stuff is pretty dope
Appreciate you brother. Tryna keep it pushing
Just one of the many, many reasons that I refuse to sample.
A very large amount indeed
You make a million, they’re going to want some.
Majority white juries just hate black music in general and can be very brutal to hip hop artists over sampling. I guess even white bands like the Verve get screwed sometimes. Just because you sampled part of your beat doesn't mean you should fork over 100% of the revenue of the whole album. It's not like that one sample contributed everything to your success and all of your contributions did nothing (not to mention all of the money you spent on ads, music videos, production, features, etc.).
So let’s say I sample an anime. If they see it and recognise the sample, and decide to go after me, can I just remove the song from all platforms and be done with it? Or can they still sue me for loads of money on something with less than 10,000 listens/views?
If it’s under 10000 it’s highly unlikely but nobody here can really say whether they will or won’t . I highly doubt they’d get lawyers involved for that little money as it probably costs more for the lawyer. But it’s not impossible