So I spend 300 hours perfecting the mix of a synth line in a song. Sound design is perfect. Mix the song. Master it. Work like a dog. And then someone just lifts this sample of my work. And it sounds good in their song. Of course it does. It was already mixed and mastered even. It would sound good anywhere. And then they use my work on their song. I receive no credit for the work I put into it. And this is all ok? Unrelated, but hit me up with your tunes. I’m in a borrowing mood.
@@ryanpwm you just hate lazy sampling. Lazy sampling means that you take someone's song, add a beat to it, and that's it, lazy sampling. Ofcourse i would be bitter if someone sampled my music and then they didn't add something new to the table. Lazy sampling.
@@ryanpwm and if you think that sampling is lazy as a whole, then you're wrong. Theres a difference between using only one sample (lazy sampling) and using 8 or 10+ samples to create a new music. Example: the avalanches' album since i left you uses 3,500 samples to create 18 songs for the album, Dj shadow's track midnight in the perfect world uses 8 samples to create a one song, fatboy slim's track praise you uses 6 samples to create a one song. Sampling is great, if you actually put alot of effort into it. If you sample someone's music and just add a generic beat into it, then that's lazy af.
I never totally understood this... It seems like it´s illegal but everybody does it. You finish by saying that "sampling is infringing two copyrights: the sound and the composition. That´s why you have to ask for permission. And in the title, it says " How Sampling is different from Stealing". Isn´t that a contradiction?. Shouldn't the title say: "Sampling without permission is stealing" ?. Just asking. Thank you.
Andreu Mateu simple point to be noted,sampling with permission is sampling,title points the fact that if you sample without permission,it’s more like stealing
So is Mac demarco's Vhamber of reflection sampling or stealing from Shigeo shikito the word II because he took like 14 seconds of the tune and placed it in his song so is it stealing orr?
@@w0bblegum347 in fact, that's a good question, because, actually mac demarco didn't catch a piece of sound of the original recording. he plays the music with his keyboard... so he recorded it... so... is this a plagiarism?
@@w0bblegum347 it doesn't matter how many seconds you take, if you sample w/o permission it is considered stealing according to the law. It can be 2 seconds, 14, or 45, you NEED permission! Especially if you're using it for commercial reasons. If you're scared of being sued clear the sample before you publish the song.
Let's be real. As long as people arent straight up reuploading stuff that they claim isn't their's, that should be called stealing, but if somebody looped a Soul song or, hell, even Bohemian Rhapsody, there shouldn't be laws against it imo. If I ever became a politician, I would try to make it a law where sampling is comepletely legal without permission, but the initial owner of the sample would take a cut from the song instead of sueing.
i mean the reason that people are suing is because they are not getting a cut from the song. 99% of the court cases are I want money because you are making money out of a sample from my song, not oh I want to stop you from being creative.
Over the years there have been so many songs that it's really hard to make something completely different. Music was always based on taking inspiration from something. A lot of people misunderstand sampling. It's not a lazy way to put together a song. If you take a song and make it completely different. Then it isn't copying at all. I guess if you just don't change it at all and claim that you made it, sure that is copying. Sampling isn't easy. I have been sampling for a year and only now I can make something decent. I would argue that playing the piano is as hard. But that's just my opinion.
I’m never impressed by just taking Aerosmith’s dream on and rapping on it…harry fraud is my main influence on just warping shit making it unrecognizable
I think it shouldn’t matter that you sample without permission. And I’ll tell you why. If you sample and make a song, you would only get sued if that songs gets popular. If that song blows up then you shouldn’t care about being sued because then you are already a popular artist and you can probably make another good song and keep making money. Perfect example is Juice WRLD. He sampled a sting song (lucid dreams) and that was his biggest song and what made him break through the main stream, sure he got sued but if he didn’t sample then he would’ve never been famous
Unfortunately it’s better to play it safe. If he had used a slightly different beat without the sample but the same feel to it I don’t think it would’ve hurt the song. In other words he could’ve got to where where he is at and saved a lot of money if he hadn’t sampled.
Yeah sampling is stealing what about pat Boone doing all those black records over word for word music the entire song taken but legal can't tell me its not a double standard
Nice try, but pretty illogical. So if you steal something it's ok as long your not caught is basically what your saying. Taking someone's work without compensating them and passing it off as your own is stealing.
@@thunderthumbz3293 Problem is that a lot of artists that have made it, have actually created a monopoly. The music industry is not what it used to be. If I was a made musician, I would really only want some kind of public acknowledgement that it was my sample to start with, not go and shake the loose change out of the little guy.
Sometime you just instantly like someone. This guy is a sound likeable dude. Well explained thank you 🙏 . I wish more humans were like this man. The world would be a better place. ✊
There's a fine line, someone can't own the sound of a guitar or a sequence of notes (in any context). I think sampling the most basic element of a song is OK, if the law says it isn't then it should be changed. At some point noone would be able to create a new song without it being a random sequence of unpleasent tones.
Me from the UK. We all also need to realize if it was not for sampling a lot of artists who have been sampled would have been broke or forgotten. I would add further that sampling is lucrative for Music publishers, songwriters, and record companies. Examples of sampled artists from the 1970s, and 1980s include James Brown, Rick James, ( used By Mc Hammer ) Hall and Oates, Joe Cocker ( used by Tupac ) Sting ( used By P Diddy ), Steely Dan ( used By De-La-Soul) Kool and the Gang ( Used By Will Smith )
Illegal sampling is kind of like consumer music piracy in ways. They exist because the legal way has a higher barrier of access than the illegal alternative. With the avent of online streaming services, music piracy has been dropping since paying ~$10 a month is overall easier than trying to torrent from a shady source. (Alternatively piracy still remains high in regions with overall lower socioeconomic conditions). Stuff like Splice are great for being easy and relatively cheap to access. I don't have hard evidence, but personally it has been a great resource for picking out samples from normally very expensive packs rather than download such through illegal means to save hundereds of dollars. Legally sampling from published music on the other hand still remains out of reach for many smaller artists though because of the upfront cost, legal hoops, and being ignored by copyright holders. IMO this barrier stiffles the growth of a "healthy" sampling culture, not any inherent sins of sampling itself. I'm sure many of the past artists who sampled illegally would have liked to credit the works of old, and I know such a sentiment is common among my small-artist contemporaries. But initial clearance fees would be more than impossible for a broke young person or at the very least insanely stupid to pay for when then music you release may only earn pocket change at best. So, one is left with 1. not sampling or 2. sampling illegally and hope they don't get caught by chance. And for no-names with no money, the predominant culture is to try not get caught. It's completely respectable if a copyright holder does not want their work to be sampled, but sometimes it feels the costs are more about lining pockets from sampling rather than protecting creative ownership, which is why big artists can willfully infringe on copyright with enough money to cover lawsuits without being chased to the ends of the earth for stealing another's work. Sample-based music is an art intself, a collage similar to visual collage art. It's about expressing a sum both greater yet less than the its components. It's not about claiming ownership of the pieces but about presenting them with a new interpretation, much like how a common pop chord progression can be recontextualized in so many ways to create totaly different songs.
not everyone has the money for an instrument, Specially young artist in more poor sides of the world,a computer and a free daw on the other hand makes music making more accesible making it a popular choice,even if a instrument is in a way a safer option than sampling
Seems a bit strange to be able to own a single note/tone, it's almost a building block of nature and likely recreated thousands of times unintentionally. There must be a grey line here. For instance, if I take a sliver of a second (0.02 seconds) to create a sound of my own, doesn't anyone really own that or did I misunderstand?
You understand. You can't make a song and someone just take it in their own without permission. You have to copyright your lyrics tho because if your lyrics aren't copyrighted before the song is out then there's nothing wrong because it's not copyrighted.
@@Bmore2Htown I think your allowed to take notes of sounds but not actual composition of notes because the composition is someone's creative effort. No one can claim ownership of notes of an instrument say a piano etc that's ridiculous but composition id notes, absolutely.
True, but there is an important difference between a single note/tone (or a short sequence of them) as an abstract concept versus taking a sample from an _audio recording_ of someone performing it. The law is stricter when it comes to making a literal copy of a small portion of someone's song than (say) someone performing the same sequence of a few notes themselves without sampling. To give an example, many songs feature the same chord progression, but there is no sampling involved because each artist performs that chord progression themselves. There would be more potential for legal problems if someone sampled without permission another artist playing that chord progression.
It’s pretty weird to not call sampling stealing. Very popular rap song’s essentially take the entire sound of another song. For example, the beat in It Was a Good Day by Ice Cube and Big Poppa by Biggie sound pretty much the same to their originals.
I think sampling needs to be considered in the context of fair use. There are important fair use precedents in visual arts case law such as _Cariou v. Prince_ in which an appeals court ruled that unauthorized "appropriation art" using the plaintiff's photos is "transformative" to a "reasonable observer." If a court can rule that qualifies as a legitimate fair use, then why not sampling too? One could make a reasonable argument that a sample is a form of quotation that is used to create a musical dialogue or commentary between two songs. Given that a sample is a small fragment of a song, the use of a small sample is unlikely to negatively affect the market for the song from which it was taken, and the transformative use of a sample in its new context, I think at least three of the four factors of fair use under American law can be reasonably satisfied. Of course, since there is no well established precedent in case law for sampling being fair use, it is legally risky to do so without authorization. Artists should get permission to use samples.
Still sample, don't listen to this. The best of the best sample, they just have millions of dollars to pay off the artists they sample from. Don't give yourself a disadvantage over big time artists with powerdul labels, sample away, anyone against sampling is selfish and behind the times.
@@LunaticTheCat being for sampling like this is what’s unequivocally selfish. Musicians have a right to own their sounds. I’m not going to spend weeks perfecting a sound and song just for someone to lift it because they “like it.” And then they build themselves up off of my hard work and I get nothing for it. Absolutely not. If you’re really ok with this, I’ll take all the stems of your songs please and the rights to use them. Trust me, it’s the unselfish thing to do.
@@ryanpwm If i busted my ass to create a really good sound and someone enjoyed it so much that they wanted to include it in their own work I'd be pretty flattered :) Didn't freddie mercury once say 'Do whatever you want with my music, just don't make it boring?'. If you're only creating music to profit off of it and be stingy with it and not inspire creativity amongst others then your music probably doesn't deserve to be listened to :/
This is why you ask before you take. It doesn't matter of what part of a sound recording you take. Their composition is always embedded in it. And the person who wrote that song (melody & lyrics) should be contacted first. If not, then law suits and court is up next. I used to think that if I listen to a record and sample the drum break. I should be in the clear. Well, it doesn't work like that. Because every published song has two copyrights. The composition (melody & lyrics) and the sound recording. And a composition can be either a song or an instrumental. And chords or chord progressions, rhythmic elements, sound effects are not part of a composition. It's part of the arranged/produced sound recording. But not THEE composition.
Problem is who will give that permission.. I can understand both sides, but i wish music was more about sharing and giving new artist's a chance.. It's nothing on how i would like it to be and it upsets me really bad.. Now i got to find a 9-5 job to keep with my bills it will be a better option rather to stick to that industry and all this rules .. I'll keep it as a hobby and just do remixes for no profit.. The percentage on getting any success as a producer every day gets lower and lower, but i wish you all the best for sure.. And don't forget it's not over yet there must be something out there for you too just don't let this industry eat you alive, go workout eat some healthy food try to overcome your fears with girls and things will change and let the famous be famous they got other issues to solve.. Be your self, love your self and who ever doesn't like you go find new friends or people to talk with because even our own family can be the toxic relationship we have..
I expected longer explanation. Especially, how much do you have to change few sampled seconds, in order to claim your own copyright? Or is that impossible? Cos usually, you chopped the composition into different one and changed the sound drastically.
yeah i was thinking of it too. It's not even a sentence. Like all music follow some music pattern but if it is like 1% of the entire song? Can't have things similar to all aspects? Like ice ice baby i would consider that not a rip off . It's transformative and should be fair use.
I am getting treats from a friend that gave me a Trumpet sample to create a song. I used the trumpet sample to make the beat, recorded the song, Mixed, Mastered it. He agreed for us to upload it for distribution. I uploaded it to be released on my Spotify page and he's too. 2 weeks later, Dude's telling me we cant release the song again. He continued that if i do he will take legal actions. I really have spent a lot of time and money to create this song. I NEED ADVICE on what to do right now
Yes, they always pay royalties, unless the samples are too short/hard to recognize, like in Face to Face or Fresh, since in those cases it just wouldn't make sense to pay for them, given that it's often just a single note.
Thanks for the informative video. But as the time is going forward I see how all this regulations do not want to work. We know the cases where some artist sued others for incorporating standard chord progressions. From the other hand we could ask ourselves if the samples of only very short fragments of standard instruments like violin, cello, sax (eg. Single notes) if it is wise to copyright them because in my opinion there is nothing unique in their construction the sound is repetable and if you play that and record on another violin, cello it will sound quite similar or exacly the same. So this is ridiculous :)
Dr. E. Michael Harrington, I would like to just type a few thoughts, as a musician and as a person that is fairly well versed in the law, though not an attorney. I won't get into my qualifications or lack thereof. What I will say is that I have been a part-time professional musician and played out in the real world. I have played in cover bands at bars, where we did 4 hours (4 sets) a night and we may have sprinkled in one or two original tunes written by our illustrious band leader. Although some bigger clubs may have been forking over monies to allow airplay of radio and may have forked out money for live music to one of the big representatives of copyrighted music rights, most small venues never did. There is always one fight or another going on. Metallica sued Napster over music sharing, streamed online, which was a type of exchange. It was thought to be, by its creators, no different than if I owned an 8-track or cassette tape that I bought back in the 1970's or 80's and I loaned it to a friend or perhaps my friend and I swapped these physical media - I wanted to borrow his Meatloaf tape and he wanted to listen to my REO tape. ;-) Is that against the law? More importantly, of course, is it even enforceable if it were to be unlawful. The big FBI warnings at the beginning of VHS tapes with a movie on it were laughable, as if somebody is going to jail for copying it. Who ever did? Who ever got thrown in jail over making a copy of a cassette tape, a VHS tape, a CD, a DVD, etc. Then there is SAMPLING. Let me tell you a little something, even though you apparently lecture on this stuff. You cannot copyright a chord or a chord progression. You cannot copyright a sound. It is impossible. You can copyright a collection of sounds, a completed work. You can copyright lyrics, as in a whole work. You can't copyright a word. You can't copyright a sentence. You can't copyright a title to a song or a title to a book. Now, the case you cite is about a specific snippet which was how long? What would be a SAMPLE that would be too short to try to claim is yours? What would be the length? I can guarantee you that I can sample stuff all day long and nobody would ever know whether I sampled it or actually played it! I mean, first off, my main instrument was TRUMPET, but I also play keyboards, guitar, bass guitar, harmonicas, melodica, recorder, Irish tin penny whistle and the HUMBUCKER ELECTRIC KAZOO! I own and can play a full drum contraption (a trap set). I own and can play many Latin percussion instruments. I can even sing, when my throat isn't scratchy from all of this smoking I've done for 46 years! Let's back up to that one word: KEYBOARD. I own many of them. I also own computers - lots of them. I have many MIDI keyboards and sound modules. I have VST's (Virtual instruments on computers). I have one sound module that I bought around 1998 that has 2365 different SAMPLED INSTRUMENTS - I mean, real grand pianos, real violins, etc. 99% of music today is made WITHOUT A BAND! In addition to the actual 10's of thousands of sounds that I have at my disposal, I have effects units, analog and digital, that can change any sound into something completely different. So, I sample YOUR speaking voice in this video, use it in a song and you would never know it. So, why certain hip hop and rappers were stealing recognizable long samples is, well, stupid, when they could have easily altered it to where it could not possibly be stealing anything at all. Well, I am not entirely familiar with the details of the case that you discussed and maybe I will look further into that, but frankly, I think that Metallica (LARS) shouldn't have sued Napster and I think that this one hit wonder that sued some up and coming hip hop guy was just rude and unnecessary. I have a creative mind and I can piece together an original tune, but I didn't invent any chord progression that hasn't been used a million times before. You should doublecheck me on this, but you really cannot OWN a chord progression. You can't copyright a chord progression. You can copyright lyrics, if it is a whole work. You can can copyright a melody (that which is being sung or that which is being played as a solo melody on an instrument). You can copyright a whole musical recording. So, with the muddy tale you told of that case, can you tell me if there came any actual clarification as to how much of a snippet I could use if I were to sample something? 3 seconds is OK, but 4 is not? 17 notes is OK, but not 18? I don't need to SAMPLE anybody else's stuff to make music, but I am curious as to what, if anything, was actually clarified. Next week, or an hour from now, some record company or songwriter will be suing somebody for something. ;-) I have been flagged on TH-cam for copyright infringements when something in the background as I was shooting a simple family video was caught by their robotic copyright search drones. I have been flagged for copyright infringement for having used music included with video software, being told that those were all paid for and freely usable by anybody that bought their software. I was even once flagged on Facebook that I may have infringed somebody's copyright when it was my very own original composition, me playing all of the instruments and singing. LOL Some of these people and corporations need to lighten up. ;-)
where do I go to obtain a notice of intent to send a publisher and how can i do this with full transparency between me the publisher, composer and the government all in one . I want to get this ball rolling on a song I sampled but want to obtain a compulsory ,blanket license, or mechanical license legally , its for a song i recorded guitar over. any tips would help. thank you Berklee.
It's totally okay, and no one will ever notice. People that don't want their music to be sampled are selfish and don't understand how music progresses, building on the music of the past.
Can you use samples without getting permission, if you're not making money off of it? For instance, e.g. if i use a movie sample in my beat and upload it to youtube. Is that ok or nah?
You can still get a copyright strike. It's not just if you're making money off of something, but more about if you're recreating something that could hurt the profits of the original creator. For instance, let's say I prefer the remix from a DJ over the original, and I decide to listen to the free remix instead of downloading or buying the original. You have to make sure you get the proper licensing or permissions, even on songs that are royalty free, so it's no different for sampling. Put simply, "sampling with permissions = Sampling" while "sampling without permissions = Stealing".
Besides the legal aspect there is often a stratetig aspect with copyright. You have a copyright and see someone using your protected stuff. You wait until that one gets successfull. Then you sue. Reason for that is that fines are often calculated by so called economic damage. In simple words the more they sell, the more they pay.
@@-Lola. that is incorrect. Chances of getting sued are less, but that is 100% incorrect. An artist could still prove that you affected their brand by releasing their work. Any and all use of a song that is not for comedic parody, or strictly educational purposes, no matter the length, is under copyright. It doesn’t matter if you give it out for free.
Thank you for this clear explanation. Can you address sampling non musical thing ie tv movies comedy other performance. Sounds recorded without permission or in private public. Thanks
Can I use one shots samples? Not loops .. How they gonna know that I used there sample? When all the hi hats and the kick sounds same .. Can I use one shots samples without permission??
If you sample from a copyrighted record without permission period, it counts as copyright infrightment. I highly doubt that you'll catch a case one hit drum samples and sounds from records; especially when manipulated and/or eq-ed. But you should be have some awareness of what you're sampling; even if its one shot. Like if you have a James Brown grunt or scream throughtout you're track and it blows up; getting mainstream attention with alot of money coming in, his estate will more than likely come with a lawsuit.
From my understanding it has to be a certain length or phrase (like a melody or a verse). Nobody owns the copyright over instruments or tone. Copyright is over a specific arrangement of instruments or vocals, which then become the intellectual property rights of the creator. However, it has to be an original score. There was a Christian rapper who tried to sue Katy Perry for Dark Horse, and it was specifically for the occinato in the song --- it wasn't even the melody! The defense witness, who was a sound historian, claimed he'd never heard of this style of "down phrasing" where the notes dropped in this certain way. So the court ruled in favor of the rapper. But it turns out this so-called historian has an entire book on a song that has the exact same down phrase and there are hundreds of other songs that have similar occinatos. Katy Perry appealed it and the appeal courts judge found the occinato did not fall under the rules of copyright infringement, since it wasn't unique and bc you can't copyright the tone of an instrument.
@@LouSkrou I wouldn't use "you'll never get caught" as a reason to sample. As copyright filters become more sophisticated, it will be increasingly possible to detect the use of samples, even if they are short one shot samples. Even if you won't get caught now, you could still get caught five or ten years from now due to a multi-billion dollar corporation employing a sophisticated copyright filter that scans every little piece of your song. I recall a TH-cam channel owner who complained about receiving copyright claims on all his videos for his intro song. He had received permission from the artist who made that song to use it on his channel. But unbeknownst to him at the time, the portion of the song he used in his intro contained a small sample which he didn't have a license to use in his videos. Somehow the record label which owns the song from which the sample came was able to detect its use in his intros and take his ad money by copyright claiming all his videos.
I never got the point of sampling. In the form of taking it and modifying it. Why not just create something that sounds what you want it to from the song you would be taking the sample from. It’s still sampling but instead of taking it directly, just recreate it yourself
So if i find a song (say i like the bass line), extract the bass line, change timings/speed and put some plug ins on it that change it from what it originally was (almost completely), i'm good to use it without needing to ask? And if i'm really curious about the legality of things, i contact the management people of the sample, send them the song and see what they say?
What if you haven’t put a song out but a section unreleased has been credited to you on someone else’s record as a sample?! Should I register my sections so people can sample from them even if they are not a typical song or should I get paid for my time making that section for someone’s else’s song like a session musician and get a credit? I’m confused and need to get it right before I give away more stuff. I’m a new independent recorder/ music maker
What if I want to use a speech instead of music? Maybe even slow it down or put an effect on it. Any help with the answer and a video or link pointing me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.
Upcoming artist need permission to profit off of remakes without getting a lasuit or worse. its impossible to get in touch with original artists. But we have soo many big ideas.😢
What to do if both artist used same samples for Song & one artist Realease earlier. It's happened to me it will be copyright or not. I don't publish yet plz let me know
What about a completely instrumental version of a tune, played on a different instrument and no singing. Can I play a Beatles song on a classical guitar if it’s my own arrangement?
What you are describing is an instrumental cover song. Even though it has no singing and you are using a different instrument, you are still copying the melody of someone else's song. You need the permission of the artist or (more commonly) a license to publicly perform, record or sell a cover of some other artist's song. Otherwise you are infringing their copyright. If you are interested in doing an instrumental cover, there is plenty of information available online about how to obtain the necessary license for your cover song.
I have got one important Question: Im a Producer and havent released Music yet because I am not sure about my Name and I need a producer Tag !! Now I had the Idea to use * "Aaaaand Snap ! The Job´s a Game" * from Mary Poppins. Am I aloud to do that ??? Probabaly not but idk cause its just so short
Length has nothing to do with it. You’re a producer. Produce. Pay some old timey voice artist like $10 online to say slightly similar phrase. Bam you’re in the clear. Record it yourself. Find a friend with a funny voice to do it. If you’re gonna be making music, best start, ya know making the music.
I highly doubt you'll catch a case from sampling a video game sound effect without permission. I would say be cautious of Nintendo taking down stuff that involves their ip's; but personally if you're thinking about doing sample-based music, you should treat it like an artform and not care about copyright law restriction.
Actually, those sounds have already been copyrighted. By purchasing and playing the game, you agree to the company's TOS found on their website (link is somewhere in the packaging), which a lot of people do not read.
Legally speaking, there is no difference. An artist composed the video game music and sound effects and they (or the video game company that hired him or her) own the copyright in it. No matter whether the target of your sampling is a Katy Perry song or the soundtrack from the latest Call of Duty game, the legal principles and analysis are the same. Perhaps the odds of getting caught or getting sued are somewhat less, but this is not a good reason to do it.
How would this work for a sound sample from say a movie? I have heard that if you change a sound clip 10% or more there are no problems but I'm not going to risk legal ramifications by word-of-mouth.
Still a can of worms, especially if the recreated sample is easily recognizable as coming from that song. There's a related problem stemming from the fact that if two artists use the same music production software like FL Studio and both happen to choose the same settings to create a short sequence of notes, then the resulting sequences could be indistinguishable. Software generates identical outputs when given the same inputs. It could look as though one artist sampled the other whose song was released first, even though the alleged sampling is purely coincidental and independent creation. This is one possible pitfall of creating music using software instead of physically playing an instrument. In the latter case, it will always be possible through careful analysis of the audio recording to tell whether an artist sampled or not.
You can recreate something to avoid the sound recording license (clearance) but still would have to clear the publishing side with writers/publishers, and probably give 50% of your publishing and possibly money in advance as well.
Ideally and realistically …before u warp the hell out of it…I don’t use em traditionally…another great way is to sample a one shot of a note then using it as a synth preset
So you have to have permission to sample something? Because I want to sample a cartoon intro from cartoon network, so I would have to contact them and whoever made the song ?
If it's in the "public domain" that means you can use it from my understanding. Usually that means it's an old song that the copyright is no longer valid on or it was made for a production company to be offered for use by third parties copyright free.
Anything that is public domain or in creative commons should be allowed, but the copyright bots strike anything & everything. Just be sure to dispute it. People have gotten copyright strikes just for their voice and some got em for a song that they originally created.
Things that are public domain are the common heritage of mankind, if you use it to make your own song then that is YOUR song and you have the rights to it. Heck if you perform the public domain work and make a sound recording you actually own that specific sound recording, but not the composition itself. So anyone can use the public domain composition and do whatever, but someone wouldn't be able to take YOUR recording and do whatever. Idk if that makes sense.
The composition of a song and recorded performances of it have separate copyrights. Anyone can perform Bach or Beethoven because their sheet music is in the public domain, but that doesn't mean that others are free to sample performances of their tunes because audio and video recordings of orchestras performing their compositions fall under a separate copyright. It is of course legal to sample (or do anything you want with) a public domain song if both the composition and the recorded performance are public domain. However, as of 2020, there are few (if any) recorded musical performances in the public domain in the United States, unless the copyright holder renounced all their rights and dedicated it to the public domain. Sound recordings made prior to 1972 were not covered by federal copyright law (until very recently with the passage of the Music Modernization Act). They were instead covered by a patchwork of state copyright laws which typically had no expiry date, resulting in perpetual copyright protection. Even the oldest Edison phonograph cylinder recordings from the 1890s are still technically copyrighted under state laws! This will change at the end of 2021 thanks to the Music Modernization Act which brings these old recordings under federal copyright law and expires the copyright at that time on everything made prior to 1923. You will then be able to freely sample century old scratchy phonograph records and cylinders!
JOHN PHILIP Music Channel - Official no if you bought it you bought the copyrights to but I’ve heard in fl studio some samples you can’t use obviously cause it’s the samples for the demo song when starting up fl 1st time
When you purchase drum loops or samples, you should always read the accompanying license. It will tell you what you can (and can't) do with them. But generally speaking, drum loops and samples are sold for the purpose of being incorporated into songs which will be widely distributed on various platforms. I would find it very odd (and a poor business model) if any seller of drum loops or samples stated in their license that songs which include them cannot be published on TH-cam or Spotify. I would think it likely that your license permits this, *but* my guess is not a substitute for actually reading the license yourself.
Is this still the law? That structure seems to bias the entire structure of the industry toward larger more established companies/people. Has there not been any cases since to further litigate the definition? This seems like bad law. Helps the few harms the many.
Should be a default formula of how much % the sample is to % profit from the track, let’s say an old track never gets played anymore but then it’s sampled and becomes a hit, the original owner gets paid again, if we encourage sampling in a positive way every one is a winner, need clauses for content though, nothing to rude or racist etc
I believe there were a few cruel clauses in that judgment. Biz had to take every copy off of every shelf in every single record store on the planet and only had one week to get it done. Every day after the week would cost him some astronomical amount of money in penalties till the song no longer could be purchased commercially.. Gilbert O Sullivan felt so disrespected by the goofy use of his heartbreaking song by a rapper. It was the principal. The whole album got canned. Wait, wasn’t that the “YOU……………… GOT WHAT I NEED album?
How do we righly earn sounds an right to play it for.. can a kain citizen kung fu belt test his neighborhood to grant him loans to pay his way through university programs? What that mean foblove an artistry
Lets be honest about what sampling is. I will take YOUR song, edit the melody around, and then rap some gangsta verse over it and call it mine. That is what sampling is. The only thing the rapper does is speak over someone else's melody. That's about as much work as the rapper does.
Is pretty funny that this is even an issue lol. Me (good twin): "Hey, I don't need (insert anything here) its free." We call this DONATING Me: "Hey neighbor, can I use your (insert anything here)." We call this BORROWING Me (evil twin): *Takes neighbors (insert anything here) without asking.* We call this STEALING MY GAWD WHAT A HARD CONCEPT TO GRASP.
if you neighbor has a camp fire going and you light a torch with their campfire with out their permission is it stealing? They don't actually loose anything when you use their fire to light your torch. It's an interesting debate. I think that you should roast them up a s'mores for using their fire for sure though ;)
well lets say !$@#&%^$&(^ wanted to do something about their product they said you cant say your the only marshmellow or graham cracker brand or the official smore brand nor can you use ... but they said they could do ? i forget something about the shape of product being functionallity that relates to smores or something to that effect dont i have no recollection of sources of this topic courts you could hypothesis any "brand" of any ingreedient of the "s'moreo" or any new ingredients substituted added altered suggested concocted colabarated but not in the case of chocolate grammar since its too in one twon twone unless its for a recipe contest for a brand that makes mellow bars and its label parent company also makes grammys under a different band name bufforeskinflufftrufflesilkskimilkchacsmallturdshapessynthmaspecialteamseanpstolegrinchamygrantpmissinstereotypospeachiallyexpansionteamterminolltillogicalystealdeterminqualityauthenticitysinserangasdippityranrapascapturekidnapsteratomaticallyroyceconcealchemusicbuzmarquisdiontheroxanestinglikeabemperialmarchancentuarbuckscratchbullionbasteofftasteraintheblindrolleywayjugglejargonbutterymargin@@ryangreer5
It was a common practise between people who couldn't afford to play and record their own instruments. But now with all the technology available there are no excuses. Come up with an idea, play your virtual instruments, record yourself and then it's yours, then you can claim ownership. Otherwise you're just using someone else's work and believing you've created something new. I think sampling is not necessary nowadays, if you say you're not lazy, learn music, play it and record it by yourself.
theres a copywrite clause in some dudes song guthrie something bout the flag or some old song ...??? quoted remaster burn it download it word of mouth promoted
Excellent video and I agree that sampling without permission is stealing. By the way you stated that Gilbert O'Sullivan is English. He is in fact from Waterford in Ireland.
I disagree. I think it's a violation of intellectual property, but its not stealing. Theft is taking something that belongs to another owner, thus depriving the owner of the property. Gilbert O'Sullivan still owned his song after it was sampled. I think there are good philosophical arguments for distinguishing unfair practices from theft. If a man sneaks into a show without a ticket he isn't "stealing" anything. The theater owner or production do not lose something. They do not lose the price of the ticket because they didn't have that money to begin with. They simply weren't given something which they ought to have been in order for the person to watch. I agree that this would be unjust, but it wouldn't be theft.
I don't know how that isn't fine if AI art is being used in the creative workforce, using other artists work for their own is completely fine if a computer does it, but when a human does it, it's a crime
Only 12 notes, no rules. create art and sample as much as you want don’t let the law tell you you can’t make art….I’m waiting for those that studied art history to chime in and say everyone stole from something…they made better art. Regardless of the fact if the person or work or movement at the time would be pissed off and ……Studying art and sampling it makes better art and if ur bitter about it try sampling a drum break and time stretching a soul sample for hours and hours, then maybe sample a jazz record or a musical. No rules no limits. Art is art sit outside and listen to birds, they won’t sue I promise they just are making art
Even this guy incorrectly uses the word "Beat" instead of song. He finna write a Beat. I jus wrote a fly beat! Do you write beats? lol When and why did low class, prison cultured, ghetto vernacular become mainstream, accepted, and emulated by otherwise intelligent people? It is called a song! A song contains a or multiples beat(s). UGH!!
There should be a law protecting sampling. It isn't stealing, borrowing from other musicians is how culture grows.
And to take it even farther, it's how humanity grows in all aspects of society.
So I spend 300 hours perfecting the mix of a synth line in a song. Sound design is perfect. Mix the song. Master it. Work like a dog.
And then someone just lifts this sample of my work. And it sounds good in their song. Of course it does. It was already mixed and mastered even. It would sound good anywhere.
And then they use my work on their song. I receive no credit for the work I put into it. And this is all ok?
Unrelated, but hit me up with your tunes. I’m in a borrowing mood.
@@ryanpwm you just hate lazy sampling. Lazy sampling means that you take someone's song, add a beat to it, and that's it, lazy sampling. Ofcourse i would be bitter if someone sampled my music and then they didn't add something new to the table. Lazy sampling.
@@ryanpwm hey don't worry, i also hate lazy sampling.
@@ryanpwm and if you think that sampling is lazy as a whole, then you're wrong. Theres a difference between using only one sample (lazy sampling) and using 8 or 10+ samples to create a new music. Example: the avalanches' album since i left you uses 3,500 samples to create 18 songs for the album, Dj shadow's track midnight in the perfect world uses 8 samples to create a one song, fatboy slim's track praise you uses 6 samples to create a one song. Sampling is great, if you actually put alot of effort into it. If you sample someone's music and just add a generic beat into it, then that's lazy af.
I never totally understood this... It seems like it´s illegal but everybody does it. You finish by saying that "sampling is infringing two copyrights: the sound and the composition. That´s why you have to ask for permission. And in the title, it says " How Sampling is different from Stealing". Isn´t that a contradiction?. Shouldn't the title say: "Sampling without permission is stealing" ?. Just asking. Thank you.
Andreu Mateu simple point to be noted,sampling with permission is sampling,title points the fact that if you sample without permission,it’s more like stealing
If sampling is done correctly, then it is not stealing. Thus, the name.
So is Mac demarco's Vhamber of reflection sampling or stealing from Shigeo shikito the word II because he took like 14 seconds of the tune and placed it in his song so is it stealing orr?
@@w0bblegum347 in fact, that's a good question, because, actually mac demarco didn't catch a piece of sound of the original recording. he plays the music with his keyboard... so he recorded it... so... is this a plagiarism?
@@w0bblegum347 it doesn't matter how many seconds you take, if you sample w/o permission it is considered stealing according to the law. It can be 2 seconds, 14, or 45, you NEED permission! Especially if you're using it for commercial reasons. If you're scared of being sued clear the sample before you publish the song.
Let's be real. As long as people arent straight up reuploading stuff that they claim isn't their's, that should be called stealing, but if somebody looped a Soul song or, hell, even Bohemian Rhapsody, there shouldn't be laws against it imo. If I ever became a politician, I would try to make it a law where sampling is comepletely legal without permission, but the initial owner of the sample would take a cut from the song instead of sueing.
I do 100% agree with you
man this would be so awesome
@cat and biscuit that's why they would get a cut of royalties you knob
i mean the reason that people are suing is because they are not getting a cut from the song. 99% of the court cases are I want money because you are making money out of a sample from my song, not oh I want to stop you from being creative.
Over the years there have been so many songs that it's really hard to make something completely different. Music was always based on taking inspiration from something. A lot of people misunderstand sampling. It's not a lazy way to put together a song. If you take a song and make it completely different. Then it isn't copying at all. I guess if you just don't change it at all and claim that you made it, sure that is copying. Sampling isn't easy. I have been sampling for a year and only now I can make something decent. I would argue that playing the piano is as hard. But that's just my opinion.
I’m never impressed by just taking Aerosmith’s dream on and rapping on it…harry fraud is my main influence on just warping shit making it unrecognizable
Music is not based on inspiration from something else.
@@marcusalexander9764 okay robot. Reboot your CPU.
I think it shouldn’t matter that you sample without permission. And I’ll tell you why.
If you sample and make a song, you would only get sued if that songs gets popular. If that song blows up then you shouldn’t care about being sued because then you are already a popular artist and you can probably make another good song and keep making money. Perfect example is Juice WRLD. He sampled a sting song (lucid dreams) and that was his biggest song and what made him break through the main stream, sure he got sued but if he didn’t sample then he would’ve never been famous
Unfortunately it’s better to play it safe. If he had used a slightly different beat without the sample but the same feel to it I don’t think it would’ve hurt the song. In other words he could’ve got to where where he is at and saved a lot of money if he hadn’t sampled.
Yes, in fact some artists actually factor in lawsuit costs. When they know they have a smash-hit, they know they'll net a profit. All business
Yeah sampling is stealing what about pat Boone doing all those black records over word for word music the entire song taken but legal can't tell me its not a double standard
Nice try, but pretty illogical. So if you steal something it's ok as long your not caught is basically what your saying. Taking someone's work without compensating them and passing it off as your own is stealing.
@@thunderthumbz3293 Problem is that a lot of artists that have made it, have actually created a monopoly.
The music industry is not what it used to be.
If I was a made musician, I would really only want some kind of public acknowledgement that it was my sample to start with, not go and shake the loose change out of the little guy.
This inspired me to sample now.
Beats?
yeah right?!
See you in court!
Sometime you just instantly like someone. This guy is a sound likeable dude. Well explained thank you 🙏 . I wish more humans were like this man. The world would be a better place. ✊
There's a fine line, someone can't own the sound of a guitar or a sequence of notes (in any context). I think sampling the most basic element of a song is OK, if the law says it isn't then it should be changed. At some point noone would be able to create a new song without it being a random sequence of unpleasent tones.
I guess music is like that nowdays tho
@@superstandard HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
beautiful thought its an unending debate
I should start a consultant business, there's way too many people who don't understand how this stuff works... 🤦🏼
pretty soon, someone will work so hard on a song, then later find out theres already a song out that sounds exactly the same.
Me from the UK. We all also need to realize if it was not for sampling a lot of artists who have been sampled would have been broke or forgotten. I would add further that sampling is lucrative for Music publishers, songwriters, and record companies. Examples of sampled artists from the 1970s, and 1980s include James Brown, Rick James, ( used By Mc Hammer ) Hall and Oates, Joe Cocker ( used by Tupac ) Sting ( used By P Diddy ), Steely Dan ( used By De-La-Soul) Kool and the Gang ( Used By Will Smith )
Illegal sampling is kind of like consumer music piracy in ways. They exist because the legal way has a higher barrier of access than the illegal alternative. With the avent of online streaming services, music piracy has been dropping since paying ~$10 a month is overall easier than trying to torrent from a shady source. (Alternatively piracy still remains high in regions with overall lower socioeconomic conditions).
Stuff like Splice are great for being easy and relatively cheap to access. I don't have hard evidence, but personally it has been a great resource for picking out samples from normally very expensive packs rather than download such through illegal means to save hundereds of dollars.
Legally sampling from published music on the other hand still remains out of reach for many smaller artists though because of the upfront cost, legal hoops, and being ignored by copyright holders. IMO this barrier stiffles the growth of a "healthy" sampling culture, not any inherent sins of sampling itself. I'm sure many of the past artists who sampled illegally would have liked to credit the works of old, and I know such a sentiment is common among my small-artist contemporaries. But initial clearance fees would be more than impossible for a broke young person or at the very least insanely stupid to pay for when then music you release may only earn pocket change at best. So, one is left with 1. not sampling or 2. sampling illegally and hope they don't get caught by chance. And for no-names with no money, the predominant culture is to try not get caught. It's completely respectable if a copyright holder does not want their work to be sampled, but sometimes it feels the costs are more about lining pockets from sampling rather than protecting creative ownership, which is why big artists can willfully infringe on copyright with enough money to cover lawsuits without being chased to the ends of the earth for stealing another's work.
Sample-based music is an art intself, a collage similar to visual collage art. It's about expressing a sum both greater yet less than the its components. It's not about claiming ownership of the pieces but about presenting them with a new interpretation, much like how a common pop chord progression can be recontextualized in so many ways to create totaly different songs.
excellent essay
It’s free to learn an instrument
not everyone has the money for an instrument, Specially young artist in more poor sides of the world,a computer and a free daw on the other hand makes music making more accesible making it a popular choice,even if a instrument is in a way a safer option than sampling
Seems a bit strange to be able to own a single note/tone, it's almost a building block of nature and likely recreated thousands of times unintentionally. There must be a grey line here. For instance, if I take a sliver of a second (0.02 seconds) to create a sound of my own, doesn't anyone really own that or did I misunderstand?
You understand. You can't make a song and someone just take it in their own without permission. You have to copyright your lyrics tho because if your lyrics aren't copyrighted before the song is out then there's nothing wrong because it's not copyrighted.
I believe there's a time limit on the sound sample. It's also sometimes subject to the judge of the lawsuit
@@Bmore2Htown great point
@@Bmore2Htown I think your allowed to take notes of sounds but not actual composition of notes because the composition is someone's creative effort. No one can claim ownership of notes of an instrument say a piano etc that's ridiculous but composition id notes, absolutely.
True, but there is an important difference between a single note/tone (or a short sequence of them) as an abstract concept versus taking a sample from an _audio recording_ of someone performing it. The law is stricter when it comes to making a literal copy of a small portion of someone's song than (say) someone performing the same sequence of a few notes themselves without sampling. To give an example, many songs feature the same chord progression, but there is no sampling involved because each artist performs that chord progression themselves. There would be more potential for legal problems if someone sampled without permission another artist playing that chord progression.
It is so hard to have a 100% original song. Fascinating how this works.
It’s pretty weird to not call sampling stealing. Very popular rap song’s essentially take the entire sound of another song. For example, the beat in It Was a Good Day by Ice Cube and Big Poppa by Biggie sound pretty much the same to their originals.
I think sampling needs to be considered in the context of fair use. There are important fair use precedents in visual arts case law such as _Cariou v. Prince_ in which an appeals court ruled that unauthorized "appropriation art" using the plaintiff's photos is "transformative" to a "reasonable observer." If a court can rule that qualifies as a legitimate fair use, then why not sampling too? One could make a reasonable argument that a sample is a form of quotation that is used to create a musical dialogue or commentary between two songs. Given that a sample is a small fragment of a song, the use of a small sample is unlikely to negatively affect the market for the song from which it was taken, and the transformative use of a sample in its new context, I think at least three of the four factors of fair use under American law can be reasonably satisfied. Of course, since there is no well established precedent in case law for sampling being fair use, it is legally risky to do so without authorization. Artists should get permission to use samples.
I genuinenly find this video helpful as I confused Sampling by copying. It is common nowadays in the music industry mostly in rap.
Still sample, don't listen to this. The best of the best sample, they just have millions of dollars to pay off the artists they sample from. Don't give yourself a disadvantage over big time artists with powerdul labels, sample away, anyone against sampling is selfish and behind the times.
@@LunaticTheCat being for sampling like this is what’s unequivocally selfish. Musicians have a right to own their sounds. I’m not going to spend weeks perfecting a sound and song just for someone to lift it because they “like it.” And then they build themselves up off of my hard work and I get nothing for it. Absolutely not.
If you’re really ok with this, I’ll take all the stems of your songs please and the rights to use them. Trust me, it’s the unselfish thing to do.
@@ryanpwm If i busted my ass to create a really good sound and someone enjoyed it so much that they wanted to include it in their own work I'd be pretty flattered :) Didn't freddie mercury once say 'Do whatever you want with my music, just don't make it boring?'. If you're only creating music to profit off of it and be stingy with it and not inspire creativity amongst others then your music probably doesn't deserve to be listened to :/
@@LunaticTheCat yeah u sound stupid ass hell copying people's work and make it ur own , atleast ask their permisson
copying is a whole 100% replication of the original not u slicing slicing and putting your drip on give it a try and see
This is why you ask before you take. It doesn't matter of what part of a sound recording you take. Their composition is always embedded in it. And the person who wrote that song (melody & lyrics) should be contacted first. If not, then law suits and court is up next. I used to think that if I listen to a record and sample the drum break. I should be in the clear. Well, it doesn't work like that. Because every published song has two copyrights. The composition (melody & lyrics) and the sound recording. And a composition can be either a song or an instrumental. And chords or chord progressions, rhythmic elements, sound effects are not part of a composition. It's part of the arranged/produced sound recording. But not THEE composition.
Problem is who will give that permission.. I can understand both sides, but i wish music was more about sharing and giving new artist's a chance.. It's nothing on how i would like it to be and it upsets me really bad.. Now i got to find a 9-5 job to keep with my bills it will be a better option rather to stick to that industry and all this rules .. I'll keep it as a hobby and just do remixes for no profit.. The percentage on getting any success as a producer every day gets lower and lower, but i wish you all the best for sure.. And don't forget it's not over yet there must be something out there for you too just don't let this industry eat you alive, go workout eat some healthy food try to overcome your fears with girls and things will change and let the famous be famous they got other issues to solve.. Be your self, love your self and who ever doesn't like you go find new friends or people to talk with because even our own family can be the toxic relationship we have..
its really hard to make a fine line between sampling and stealing since it varies from track to track
What about micro sampling? How many seconds of a recording is consider as "stealing"?
I expected longer explanation. Especially, how much do you have to change few sampled seconds, in order to claim your own copyright? Or is that impossible? Cos usually, you chopped the composition into different one and changed the sound drastically.
yeah i was thinking of it too. It's not even a sentence. Like all music follow some music pattern but if it is like 1% of the entire song? Can't have things similar to all aspects? Like ice ice baby i would consider that not a rip off . It's transformative and should be fair use.
I am getting treats from a friend that gave me a Trumpet sample to create a song. I used the trumpet sample to make the beat, recorded the song, Mixed, Mastered it. He agreed for us to upload it for distribution. I uploaded it to be released on my Spotify page and he's too. 2 weeks later, Dude's telling me we cant release the song again. He continued that if i do he will take legal actions. I really have spent a lot of time and money to create this song. I NEED ADVICE on what to do right now
So you're telling me Daft Punk asked all these Labels for permission?
Yes.
Yes, they always pay royalties, unless the samples are too short/hard to recognize, like in Face to Face or Fresh, since in those cases it just wouldn't make sense to pay for them, given that it's often just a single note.
Which is why new artists should sample away so you can work with the same tolls as the artists with powerful labels do as well.
Yes.
@@quadpad_music how tf is someone gonna own a note? what are you talking about? a note is not a sample
Thanks for the informative video. But as the time is going forward I see how all this regulations do not want to work. We know the cases where some artist sued others for incorporating standard chord progressions. From the other hand we could ask ourselves if the samples of only very short fragments of standard instruments like violin, cello, sax (eg. Single notes) if it is wise to copyright them because in my opinion there is nothing unique in their construction the sound is repetable and if you play that and record on another violin, cello it will sound quite similar or exacly the same. So this is ridiculous :)
Dr. E. Michael Harrington, I would like to just type a few thoughts, as a musician and as a person that is fairly well versed in the law, though not an attorney. I won't get into my qualifications or lack thereof. What I will say is that I have been a part-time professional musician and played out in the real world. I have played in cover bands at bars, where we did 4 hours (4 sets) a night and we may have sprinkled in one or two original tunes written by our illustrious band leader. Although some bigger clubs may have been forking over monies to allow airplay of radio and may have forked out money for live music to one of the big representatives of copyrighted music rights, most small venues never did. There is always one fight or another going on. Metallica sued Napster over music sharing, streamed online, which was a type of exchange. It was thought to be, by its creators, no different than if I owned an 8-track or cassette tape that I bought back in the 1970's or 80's and I loaned it to a friend or perhaps my friend and I swapped these physical media - I wanted to borrow his Meatloaf tape and he wanted to listen to my REO tape. ;-) Is that against the law? More importantly, of course, is it even enforceable if it were to be unlawful. The big FBI warnings at the beginning of VHS tapes with a movie on it were laughable, as if somebody is going to jail for copying it. Who ever did? Who ever got thrown in jail over making a copy of a cassette tape, a VHS tape, a CD, a DVD, etc. Then there is SAMPLING. Let me tell you a little something, even though you apparently lecture on this stuff. You cannot copyright a chord or a chord progression. You cannot copyright a sound. It is impossible. You can copyright a collection of sounds, a completed work. You can copyright lyrics, as in a whole work. You can't copyright a word. You can't copyright a sentence. You can't copyright a title to a song or a title to a book. Now, the case you cite is about a specific snippet which was how long? What would be a SAMPLE that would be too short to try to claim is yours? What would be the length? I can guarantee you that I can sample stuff all day long and nobody would ever know whether I sampled it or actually played it! I mean, first off, my main instrument was TRUMPET, but I also play keyboards, guitar, bass guitar, harmonicas, melodica, recorder, Irish tin penny whistle and the HUMBUCKER ELECTRIC KAZOO! I own and can play a full drum contraption (a trap set). I own and can play many Latin percussion instruments. I can even sing, when my throat isn't scratchy from all of this smoking I've done for 46 years! Let's back up to that one word: KEYBOARD. I own many of them. I also own computers - lots of them. I have many MIDI keyboards and sound modules. I have VST's (Virtual instruments on computers). I have one sound module that I bought around 1998 that has 2365 different SAMPLED INSTRUMENTS - I mean, real grand pianos, real violins, etc. 99% of music today is made WITHOUT A BAND! In addition to the actual 10's of thousands of sounds that I have at my disposal, I have effects units, analog and digital, that can change any sound into something completely different. So, I sample YOUR speaking voice in this video, use it in a song and you would never know it. So, why certain hip hop and rappers were stealing recognizable long samples is, well, stupid, when they could have easily altered it to where it could not possibly be stealing anything at all. Well, I am not entirely familiar with the details of the case that you discussed and maybe I will look further into that, but frankly, I think that Metallica (LARS) shouldn't have sued Napster and I think that this one hit wonder that sued some up and coming hip hop guy was just rude and unnecessary. I have a creative mind and I can piece together an original tune, but I didn't invent any chord progression that hasn't been used a million times before. You should doublecheck me on this, but you really cannot OWN a chord progression. You can't copyright a chord progression. You can copyright lyrics, if it is a whole work. You can can copyright a melody (that which is being sung or that which is being played as a solo melody on an instrument). You can copyright a whole musical recording. So, with the muddy tale you told of that case, can you tell me if there came any actual clarification as to how much of a snippet I could use if I were to sample something? 3 seconds is OK, but 4 is not? 17 notes is OK, but not 18? I don't need to SAMPLE anybody else's stuff to make music, but I am curious as to what, if anything, was actually clarified. Next week, or an hour from now, some record company or songwriter will be suing somebody for something. ;-) I have been flagged on TH-cam for copyright infringements when something in the background as I was shooting a simple family video was caught by their robotic copyright search drones. I have been flagged for copyright infringement for having used music included with video software, being told that those were all paid for and freely usable by anybody that bought their software. I was even once flagged on Facebook that I may have infringed somebody's copyright when it was my very own original composition, me playing all of the instruments and singing. LOL Some of these people and corporations need to lighten up. ;-)
where do I go to obtain a notice of intent to send a publisher and how can i do this with full transparency between me the publisher, composer and the government all in one . I want to get this ball rolling on a song I sampled but want to obtain a compulsory ,blanket license, or mechanical license legally , its for a song i recorded guitar over. any tips would help. thank you Berklee.
What a great explanation! Thank you
How can i ask for permission? Emai? im not sure big labels will respond...
Make you own music than
Break the law by using multiple distortion plug-ins.
you'd have to get their contact info it's online u have to search
It also depends on the sample - what if I just want the snare on a Micheal Jackson song? Am I going to get sued for using just one "hit"?
If that's the case, why wouldn't you just use your own snare and tweak the sound until it sounds the same?
Adam Guion People sample drums all the time. It’s not that weird, hip hop does it, EDM does it, I even know of cases where video games did it
@@-Lola. that doesnt make it ok. You can take a note or a sound of a snare but anything more is stealing. This is not that complicated.
It's totally okay, and no one will ever notice. People that don't want their music to be sampled are selfish and don't understand how music progresses, building on the music of the past.
@@thunderthumbz3293 that's a weird line to draw
Can you use samples without getting permission, if you're not making money off of it?
For instance, e.g. if i use a movie sample in my beat and upload it to youtube. Is that ok or nah?
DMXhill If you don’t monetize it, yes
You can still get a copyright strike. It's not just if you're making money off of something, but more about if you're recreating something that could hurt the profits of the original creator. For instance, let's say I prefer the remix from a DJ over the original, and I decide to listen to the free remix instead of downloading or buying the original. You have to make sure you get the proper licensing or permissions, even on songs that are royalty free, so it's no different for sampling. Put simply, "sampling with permissions = Sampling" while "sampling without permissions = Stealing".
If it is transformative enough to the point where the song has its own identity, then personally I think so. However copyright law is hit and miss...
Besides the legal aspect there is often a stratetig aspect with copyright. You have a copyright and see someone using your protected stuff. You wait until that one gets successfull. Then you sue. Reason for that is that fines are often calculated by so called economic damage. In simple words the more they sell, the more they pay.
@@-Lola. that is incorrect. Chances of getting sued are less, but that is 100% incorrect. An artist could still prove that you affected their brand by releasing their work.
Any and all use of a song that is not for comedic parody, or strictly educational purposes, no matter the length, is under copyright. It doesn’t matter if you give it out for free.
Thank you for this clear explanation. Can you address sampling non musical thing ie tv movies comedy other performance. Sounds recorded without permission or in private public. Thanks
As a beat maker, how would I copyright a beat that contains a sample?
Can I use one shots samples?
Not loops ..
How they gonna know that I used there sample?
When all the hi hats and the kick sounds same ..
Can I use one shots samples without permission??
Rai Ba By law I'm sure the answer is technically no, but you'll never get caught for that shit
If you sample from a copyrighted record without permission period, it counts as copyright infrightment. I highly doubt that you'll catch a case one hit drum samples and sounds from records; especially when manipulated and/or eq-ed. But you should be have some awareness of what you're sampling; even if its one shot. Like if you have a James Brown grunt or scream throughtout you're track and it blows up; getting mainstream attention with alot of money coming in, his estate will more than likely come with a lawsuit.
From my understanding it has to be a certain length or phrase (like a melody or a verse). Nobody owns the copyright over instruments or tone. Copyright is over a specific arrangement of instruments or vocals, which then become the intellectual property rights of the creator. However, it has to be an original score. There was a Christian rapper who tried to sue Katy Perry for Dark Horse, and it was specifically for the occinato in the song --- it wasn't even the melody! The defense witness, who was a sound historian, claimed he'd never heard of this style of "down phrasing" where the notes dropped in this certain way. So the court ruled in favor of the rapper. But it turns out this so-called historian has an entire book on a song that has the exact same down phrase and there are hundreds of other songs that have similar occinatos. Katy Perry appealed it and the appeal courts judge found the occinato did not fall under the rules of copyright infringement, since it wasn't unique and bc you can't copyright the tone of an instrument.
@@YourMajesty143 yeah that's true. Basically hip hop is based on stealing and the beats are not an original artform.
@@LouSkrou I wouldn't use "you'll never get caught" as a reason to sample. As copyright filters become more sophisticated, it will be increasingly possible to detect the use of samples, even if they are short one shot samples. Even if you won't get caught now, you could still get caught five or ten years from now due to a multi-billion dollar corporation employing a sophisticated copyright filter that scans every little piece of your song. I recall a TH-cam channel owner who complained about receiving copyright claims on all his videos for his intro song. He had received permission from the artist who made that song to use it on his channel. But unbeknownst to him at the time, the portion of the song he used in his intro contained a small sample which he didn't have a license to use in his videos. Somehow the record label which owns the song from which the sample came was able to detect its use in his intros and take his ad money by copyright claiming all his videos.
I never got the point of sampling. In the form of taking it and modifying it. Why not just create something that sounds what you want it to from the song you would be taking the sample from. It’s still sampling but instead of taking it directly, just recreate it yourself
So if i find a song (say i like the bass line), extract the bass line, change timings/speed and put some plug ins on it that change it from what it originally was (almost completely), i'm good to use it without needing to ask? And if i'm really curious about the legality of things, i contact the management people of the sample, send them the song and see what they say?
What if you haven’t put a song out but a section unreleased has been credited to you on someone else’s record as a sample?! Should I register my sections so people can sample from them even if they are not a typical song or should I get paid for my time making that section for someone’s else’s song like a session musician and get a credit? I’m confused and need to get it right before I give away more stuff. I’m a new independent recorder/ music maker
What if I want to use a speech instead of music? Maybe even slow it down or put an effect on it. Any help with the answer and a video or link pointing me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.
been asking the same question...
go for it ig, since it isnt music or it doesnt have any copyright to it.
give it a go its ok😉
So Cage got permission from Built to Spill?
very informational, thanks
Upcoming artist need permission to profit off of remakes without getting a lasuit or worse. its impossible to get in touch with original artists. But we have soo many big ideas.😢
What to do if both artist used same samples for Song & one artist Realease earlier. It's happened to me it will be copyright or not. I don't publish yet plz let me know
What about a completely instrumental version of a tune, played on a different instrument and no singing.
Can I play a Beatles song on a classical guitar if it’s my own arrangement?
You can play it but you cannot sell it commercially without clearance from the Beetles or who ever owns the copyright.
What you are describing is an instrumental cover song. Even though it has no singing and you are using a different instrument, you are still copying the melody of someone else's song. You need the permission of the artist or (more commonly) a license to publicly perform, record or sell a cover of some other artist's song. Otherwise you are infringing their copyright. If you are interested in doing an instrumental cover, there is plenty of information available online about how to obtain the necessary license for your cover song.
I have got one important Question: Im a Producer and havent released Music yet because I am not sure about my Name and I need a producer Tag !!
Now I had the Idea to use * "Aaaaand Snap ! The Job´s a Game" * from Mary Poppins. Am I aloud to do that ???
Probabaly not but idk cause its just so short
Length has nothing to do with it. You’re a producer. Produce. Pay some old timey voice artist like $10 online to say slightly similar phrase. Bam you’re in the clear. Record it yourself. Find a friend with a funny voice to do it. If you’re gonna be making music, best start, ya know making the music.
What about sampling interviews from news or famous people or movies?
What if you sample a sound effect from a video game?
I highly doubt you'll catch a case from sampling a video game sound effect without permission. I would say be cautious of Nintendo taking down stuff that involves their ip's; but personally if you're thinking about doing sample-based music, you should treat it like an artform and not care about copyright law restriction.
Its stealing, asseater is dumb. Sampling is not an artform it's what uncreative people do instead of actually composing sounds from instruments.
Actually, those sounds have already been copyrighted. By purchasing and playing the game, you agree to the company's TOS found on their website (link is somewhere in the packaging), which a lot of people do not read.
Legally speaking, there is no difference. An artist composed the video game music and sound effects and they (or the video game company that hired him or her) own the copyright in it. No matter whether the target of your sampling is a Katy Perry song or the soundtrack from the latest Call of Duty game, the legal principles and analysis are the same. Perhaps the odds of getting caught or getting sued are somewhat less, but this is not a good reason to do it.
How would this work for a sound sample from say a movie? I have heard that if you change a sound clip 10% or more there are no problems but I'm not going to risk legal ramifications by word-of-mouth.
Can i sample a piece someone's speech in my song?
Yea
What about recreating the sample? Like Prodigy did with Nirvana's Very Ape.
Sag Bobinowski that’s plagiarism
Still a can of worms, especially if the recreated sample is easily recognizable as coming from that song. There's a related problem stemming from the fact that if two artists use the same music production software like FL Studio and both happen to choose the same settings to create a short sequence of notes, then the resulting sequences could be indistinguishable. Software generates identical outputs when given the same inputs. It could look as though one artist sampled the other whose song was released first, even though the alleged sampling is purely coincidental and independent creation. This is one possible pitfall of creating music using software instead of physically playing an instrument. In the latter case, it will always be possible through careful analysis of the audio recording to tell whether an artist sampled or not.
@@photios4779 Wow, now that's deep
You can recreate something to avoid the sound recording license (clearance) but still would have to clear the publishing side with writers/publishers, and probably give 50% of your publishing and possibly money in advance as well.
Ideally and realistically …before u warp the hell out of it…I don’t use em traditionally…another great way is to sample a one shot of a note then using it as a synth preset
what i don't get is my anniversary song has the copyright but not the 2019 version since it's the same song
Boston?
I like this guy. I think he has some gems hidden up his sleeve. Let me know if he ever makes something; I'll sample it.
What about lyrics/song hooks?
So you have to have permission to sample something? Because I want to sample a cartoon intro from cartoon network, so I would have to contact them and whoever made the song ?
how about if i used someone that was interviewed?
Thank you for sharing this 👏🏼
Does anyone know if you sample a public domian song and make money from will u get copyright?
Im trying to produce lol im new to this shit
If it's in the "public domain" that means you can use it from my understanding. Usually that means it's an old song that the copyright is no longer valid on or it was made for a production company to be offered for use by third parties copyright free.
Anything that is public domain or in creative commons should be allowed, but the copyright bots strike anything & everything. Just be sure to dispute it. People have gotten copyright strikes just for their voice and some got em for a song that they originally created.
Things that are public domain are the common heritage of mankind, if you use it to make your own song then that is YOUR song and you have the rights to it. Heck if you perform the public domain work and make a sound recording you actually own that specific sound recording, but not the composition itself. So anyone can use the public domain composition and do whatever, but someone wouldn't be able to take YOUR recording and do whatever. Idk if that makes sense.
The composition of a song and recorded performances of it have separate copyrights. Anyone can perform Bach or Beethoven because their sheet music is in the public domain, but that doesn't mean that others are free to sample performances of their tunes because audio and video recordings of orchestras performing their compositions fall under a separate copyright. It is of course legal to sample (or do anything you want with) a public domain song if both the composition and the recorded performance are public domain. However, as of 2020, there are few (if any) recorded musical performances in the public domain in the United States, unless the copyright holder renounced all their rights and dedicated it to the public domain. Sound recordings made prior to 1972 were not covered by federal copyright law (until very recently with the passage of the Music Modernization Act). They were instead covered by a patchwork of state copyright laws which typically had no expiry date, resulting in perpetual copyright protection. Even the oldest Edison phonograph cylinder recordings from the 1890s are still technically copyrighted under state laws! This will change at the end of 2021 thanks to the Music Modernization Act which brings these old recordings under federal copyright law and expires the copyright at that time on everything made prior to 1923. You will then be able to freely sample century old scratchy phonograph records and cylinders!
I don’t know if you answer questions in the comments, but are the laws different when sampling a movie or a piece of film?
Also applies to voice over recordings
Is it illegal to publish a song composition with Ableton drum loops and samples to youtube or spotify?
JOHN PHILIP Music Channel - Official no if you bought it you bought the copyrights to but I’ve heard in fl studio some samples you can’t use obviously cause it’s the samples for the demo song when starting up fl 1st time
When you purchase drum loops or samples, you should always read the accompanying license. It will tell you what you can (and can't) do with them. But generally speaking, drum loops and samples are sold for the purpose of being incorporated into songs which will be widely distributed on various platforms. I would find it very odd (and a poor business model) if any seller of drum loops or samples stated in their license that songs which include them cannot be published on TH-cam or Spotify. I would think it likely that your license permits this, *but* my guess is not a substitute for actually reading the license yourself.
This helps a lot
thanks
I love samples and my sp ❤
Is this still the law? That structure seems to bias the entire structure of the industry toward larger more established companies/people. Has there not been any cases since to further litigate the definition? This seems like bad law. Helps the few harms the many.
Should be a default formula of how much % the sample is to % profit from the track, let’s say an old track never gets played anymore but then it’s sampled and becomes a hit, the original owner gets paid again, if we encourage sampling in a positive way every one is a winner, need clauses for content though, nothing to rude or racist etc
ok, but many musicians nowadays use sampling as legitimate stealing...
I believe there were a few cruel clauses in that judgment. Biz had to take every copy off of every shelf in every single record store on the planet and only had one week to get it done. Every day after the week would cost him some astronomical amount of money in penalties till the song no longer could be purchased commercially.. Gilbert O Sullivan felt so disrespected by the goofy use of his heartbreaking song by a rapper. It was the principal. The whole album got canned. Wait, wasn’t that the “YOU……………… GOT WHAT I NEED album?
How do we righly earn sounds an right to play it for.. can a kain citizen kung fu belt test his neighborhood to grant him loans to pay his way through university programs? What that mean foblove an artistry
Did pat Boone ask for permission?
Lets be honest about what sampling is.
I will take YOUR song, edit the melody around, and then rap some gangsta verse over it and call it mine.
That is what sampling is. The only thing the rapper does is speak over someone else's melody. That's about as much work as the rapper does.
That's still grabbing an old record and making something new with it. Also who said it has to be rap
thank you so much
Is pretty funny that this is even an issue lol.
Me (good twin): "Hey, I don't need (insert anything here) its free." We call this DONATING
Me: "Hey neighbor, can I use your (insert anything here)." We call this BORROWING
Me (evil twin): *Takes neighbors (insert anything here) without asking.* We call this STEALING
MY GAWD WHAT A HARD CONCEPT TO GRASP.
if you neighbor has a camp fire going and you light a torch with their campfire with out their permission is it stealing? They don't actually loose anything when you use their fire to light your torch. It's an interesting debate. I think that you should roast them up a s'mores for using their fire for sure though ;)
well lets say !$@#&%^$&(^ wanted to do something about their product they said you cant say your the only marshmellow or graham cracker brand or the official smore brand nor can you use ... but they said they could do ? i forget something about the shape of product being functionallity that relates to smores or something to that effect dont i have no recollection of sources of this topic courts you could hypothesis any "brand" of any ingreedient of the "s'moreo" or any new ingredients substituted added altered suggested concocted colabarated but not in the case of chocolate grammar since its too in one twon twone unless its for a recipe contest for a brand that makes mellow bars and its label parent company also makes grammys under a different band name bufforeskinflufftrufflesilkskimilkchacsmallturdshapessynthmaspecialteamseanpstolegrinchamygrantpmissinstereotypospeachiallyexpansionteamterminolltillogicalystealdeterminqualityauthenticitysinserangasdippityranrapascapturekidnapsteratomaticallyroyceconcealchemusicbuzmarquisdiontheroxanestinglikeabemperialmarchancentuarbuckscratchbullionbasteofftasteraintheblindrolleywayjugglejargonbutterymargin@@ryangreer5
So even if i use an 808 kick drum is stilealing ?? Its stupid
808s arent copyrighted
Hans zimmer knows how he does his work
That could have taken three sentences.
thanks a lot
Don't forget vanilla ice I'm like stop 😉
Who got upset?
So.... whats the answer?
It’s illegal but everybody does it.
It was a common practise between people who couldn't afford to play and record their own instruments. But now with all the technology available there are no excuses. Come up with an idea, play your virtual instruments, record yourself and then it's yours, then you can claim ownership. Otherwise you're just using someone else's work and believing you've created something new. I think sampling is not necessary nowadays, if you say you're not lazy, learn music, play it and record it by yourself.
No cuz sampling itself is a different art than composing. Its just funny cuz its only an issue when theres money involve
this is a close minded perspective
I dont get it
unless its puff daddy, he just takes the entirety of the song, takes the instrumental, and bass boosts it
Grateful to have him as my instructor at Berklee :)
The weekend sampled i dont wanna know by mario winans i dont like it
I thought chords can’t be copyrighted
so sampling is basically stealing
Clear as mud..
theres a copywrite clause in some dudes song guthrie something bout the flag or some old song ...??? quoted remaster burn it download it word of mouth promoted
If money didn't exist, would the need for copyright law exist?
Thats why money is the root of all evil. If your farts could be profitable, then that would be copyrighted
Excellent video and I agree that sampling without permission is stealing. By the way you stated that Gilbert O'Sullivan is English. He is in fact from Waterford in Ireland.
I disagree. I think it's a violation of intellectual property, but its not stealing. Theft is taking something that belongs to another owner, thus depriving the owner of the property.
Gilbert O'Sullivan still owned his song after it was sampled. I think there are good philosophical arguments for distinguishing unfair practices from theft. If a man sneaks into a show without a ticket he isn't "stealing" anything. The theater owner or production do not lose something. They do not lose the price of the ticket because they didn't have that money to begin with. They simply weren't given something which they ought to have been in order for the person to watch. I agree that this would be unjust, but it wouldn't be theft.
Parody, is free reign.
I don't like how they brush it off as sampling when they're clearly cutting the original music, remixing it, and then make it their own music
I don't know how that isn't fine if AI art is being used in the creative workforce, using other artists work for their own is completely fine if a computer does it, but when a human does it, it's a crime
Only 12 notes, no rules. create art and sample as much as you want don’t let the law tell you you can’t make art….I’m waiting for those that studied art history to chime in and say everyone stole from something…they made better art. Regardless of the fact if the person or work or movement at the time would be pissed off and
……Studying art and sampling it makes better art and if ur bitter about it try sampling a drum break and time stretching a soul sample for hours and hours, then maybe sample a jazz record or a musical. No rules no limits. Art is art sit outside and listen to birds, they won’t sue I promise they just are making art
Don't use anything from Tracy Chapman, she takes *ALL* publishing rights.
What does John Lithgow know about sampling 😉
😂😂
Even this guy incorrectly uses the word "Beat" instead of song. He finna write a Beat. I jus wrote a fly beat! Do you write beats? lol When and why did low class, prison cultured, ghetto vernacular become mainstream, accepted, and emulated by otherwise intelligent people? It is called a song! A song contains a or multiples beat(s). UGH!!
ah, the theft mentally on comments sections 😌
Sampling = Copying the entire melodies of a song and adding your crappy singing on top of it
Who is here after egma and 69
its still theft of a persons work on principle and a useless argument in court. you know what i think
Exactly what I've always thought. If you sample without permission, you are STEALING
Exactly. Put simply "sampling with permissions = Sampling", while "sampling without permissions = Stealing".
great information.. what about sampling a movie dialogue line and putting in a song?
Any info on this ?