n00b question...

[th33f]

excuse my complete lack of insight into this...

i saw a news page on the WinAmp site quoting some court case, which eventually ruled that "having an identifiable piece of a music composition of any length by any artist used to create another song/mix is against the law as of September 2004". i don't know if it meant creating an actual song, as in something to be released on an album or just using the sample in general...

that and the article about Mauro Picotto getting fined got me wondering of what i can and cannot do, if let's say i'm mixing some stuff up in Ableton Live and there's a chance the set could be played at a local club...

plus these questions:

what is the policy on using samples off of an album or a single CD, that never got released as a vinyl?

if it comes to the point where you're asked to present proof of owning the track you're using in your mix(naturally, all you have to use in Ableton is a .wav or .mp3 copy) - what is considered sufficient proof?

and finally, am i just being paranoid???

[skahound]

Re: n00b question...

This wasn't a new piece of legislation that passed at the end of last year it was a ruling by an appeals court in Cincinnati, Ohio that was hearing a case against No Limit Films who used the Public Enemy track '100 Miles and Runnin' which uses a 3 note sample of a riff from the George Clinton & Funkadelic song 'Get Off Your Ass and Jam'. Although the 2-second riff was pitched down, looped, extended to 16 beats, and only appeared in the track a total of 5 times, the appeals court ruled that a recording artist who acknowledges sampling may be liable, even when the source of a sample is unrecognizable. And that was a main issue of this ruling: that No Limit Films did not deny the fact that the George Clinton song had been sampled.

Unfortunately I couldn't find specific answers as they pertained to your questions, but from what I did read it was stated that you can't 'cut-and-paste' a sample, but you can reproduce that same sample in the studio. This ruling will be the stare decisis of future cases that involve sampling and I have a feeling that we will be seeing many more lawsuits filed by artists who feel they've been artistically and monetarily 'ripped off'.

Maybe our very own in-house [ms] attorney, Mr. sightless can shed some additional light on this as it applies or may apply to EDM.

[sheryar]

Re: n00b question...

Does it only apply to america?

Does this mean i can't sample george benson anymore? wtf would anyone pass a bill so stupid. this whole concept of sueing people to make money has gone wayyy too far in america in my opinion.

its probably shows like the practice and ally mcbeal making their impacts on minds.

[skahound]

Re: n00b question...

Does it only apply to america?

Under the Berne Convention (of 1886) and more notably the TRIPS Agreement (of 1994) standards have been set for the international protection of intellectual property rights, which include music. Under TRIPS (which was signed by over 100 countries) each member country must include broad intellectual property rights and effective remedies (including civil and criminal penalties) for viloations in its domestic laws. Furthermore, a member nation cannot give its own citizens preferential treatment without offering that same treatment to citizens of other countries. Each member nation must also make certain that legal procedures are available for international parties who wish to bring suit for infringement of intellectual property rights.

wtf would anyone pass a bill so stupid.

If you read my initial reply you'll notice that it was not a recent bill that was passed; rather it was the decision by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. And not knowing where you're from I can't say whether your country is a member nation, but if they are and you still think it's "stupid" then you should get out there and become active and try to get your government to rescind their participation.

this whole concept of sueing people to make money has gone wayyy too far in america in my opinion.

its probably shows like the practice and ally mcbeal making their impacts on minds.

There's a HUGE difference between sueing a company because you put your hand in a moving blender which severed your fingers and blatantly ripping off someone else's hard work. To quote the court's decision, "Get a license or do not sample." In other words, it has not become illegal to sample if you gain a license from the owner of the work.

[th33f]

Re: n00b question...

There's a HUGE difference between sueing a company because you put your hand in a moving blender which severed your fingers and blatantly ripping off someone else's hard work. To quote the court's decision, "Get a license or do not sample." In other words, it has not become illegal to sample if you gain a license from the owner of the work.

but as far as sampling released vynils, all you have to do is own the actual record, right? i'm still confused as to what limitations are there on use of .mp3/.wav copies...

[skahound]

Re: n00b question...

but as far as sampling released vynils, all you have to do is own the actual record, right? i'm still confused as to what limitations are there on use of .mp3/.wav copies...

As I said, it's a relatively brand new area in the legal scene since that ruling came down and changed the idea of sampling as we once knew it. If I had to make an assumption, which I hate doing, I would say that when it comes to producing, owning a vinyl is a mute point. Sampling from that vinyl to assist in the creation of a new track would fall under the precedent set forth by the case.

However, sampling from that vinyl while mixing it into a set (eg using Ableton and tweaking it here and there) doesn't seem like it's as big of a deal. Remember it's up to the original creator of the music to make a claim and file a suit against you. Given the nature of EDM, it is expected that vinyls will be used in sets/mixes but not that 'ideas' of songs will be ripped to form new tracks.

The other part is an obvious one and it applies to an artist's knowledge of you sampling their work. If you're commissioned to do a remix by the original artist it's virtually impossible for them to bring suit against you unless you violated the agreement in some manner.