🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Are music samples legal?
Author
Is it legal to take short samples of copyrighted music? For example 5 or 10 secs of a pop song.
I think i heard somewhere that it''s legal to use short samples.
I *believe* to word is "samples" are limited to 30 seconds and you cannot has "samples" for more than 3 songs from one album. I''m not sure if you need to get permission for those samples, or if there are any other rules of use for those samples (such as you can only use them to sell/promote the music or something directly related such as autographs).
I don''t see why it would be legal - it''s still their property, short or not. But there might be some legal precedent set in all of the rap music cases over the past few years. I''d look at those and see what the rulings were.
M
M
"Short" in this context means sampling a snare drum hit. ie "tiny". If you make money out of something using a 30 second sample there lawers will have your arse.
Ask nicely first though - they might say it''s OK.
Ask nicely first though - they might say it''s OK.
Well obviously if you use them to create something new or otherwise incorperate them into your product its illegal. I was more refering to the ability to post (or otherwise make available) "samples" of music to encourage people to buy it. Many sites will do this for CDs (offer some short 64/32kps mp3s to sample the album).
Most common music (in USA) is registered with BMI or ASCAP, and they and the reccord companies have established standard royalty rates for samples. Which means that you can use the sample, even without author permission, PROVIDED that you pay the royalty rate to the appropriate people (BMI / ASCAP for the song writter, and the record label / studio for the actual recording). You cannot use any recognizable or clearly derivative sample without paying the copyright owner. Sounds themselves are not copywritten, only their arangment ... so you can sample as many guitar or drum sounds as you like, using them in your sequencing program to make other music, you cannot however make a variation on a popular song and release it (without paying).
"Sounds themselves are not copywritten, only their arangment ... so you can sample as many guitar or drum sounds as you like, using them in your sequencing program to make other music, you cannot however make a variation on a popular song and release it (without paying). "
No, Xai, this is completely inaccurate. Also, it's "copyrighed", not "copywritten". A commercial recording made in the US has two copyrights attached to it. First, you have the "performing arts" copyright, meaning the song, lyrics, melody, chord arrangement, etc., which is noted with the popular (c) symbol. The other is (p), which is the "mechanical" or sound recording copyright, held by the record company/distributor/publisher that paid for the recording session and studio time. This copyright protects the recording, the sound engineering itself used to record the artistic material covered by the performaing arts (c) copyright.
So Michalson, if you were to follow Xai's horrible advice as provided above, that is, to "sample as many guitar or drum sounds as you like", you'd be in violation of the mechanical copyright owned by the record company. Sounds absolutely ARE protected by copyright.
Ed Lima - ELM&M
ed@edlima.com
http://www.edlima.com
[edited by - edlima on August 19, 2002 5:17:59 PM]
No, Xai, this is completely inaccurate. Also, it's "copyrighed", not "copywritten". A commercial recording made in the US has two copyrights attached to it. First, you have the "performing arts" copyright, meaning the song, lyrics, melody, chord arrangement, etc., which is noted with the popular (c) symbol. The other is (p), which is the "mechanical" or sound recording copyright, held by the record company/distributor/publisher that paid for the recording session and studio time. This copyright protects the recording, the sound engineering itself used to record the artistic material covered by the performaing arts (c) copyright.
So Michalson, if you were to follow Xai's horrible advice as provided above, that is, to "sample as many guitar or drum sounds as you like", you'd be in violation of the mechanical copyright owned by the record company. Sounds absolutely ARE protected by copyright.
Ed Lima - ELM&M
ed@edlima.com
http://www.edlima.com
[edited by - edlima on August 19, 2002 5:17:59 PM]
I agree with everything edlima just said - I'm doing an Audio Technology degree and had to sit though a module of Sampling and the Law, British law is smiliar to the USA's in this instance.
Although usally you'll get a letter threatening hell. Nothing will come of it if you remove the samples before a cutoff date, unless you were making money off it, in which case persuing you becomes profitable.
And *don't* use old recording that you think no one will remember - they do...
Oh - And places like Amazon will have checked with the copyright holders before hosting samples.
[edited by - haribo on August 19, 2002 6:24:16 PM]
[edited by - haribo on August 19, 2002 6:35:22 PM]
Although usally you'll get a letter threatening hell. Nothing will come of it if you remove the samples before a cutoff date, unless you were making money off it, in which case persuing you becomes profitable.
And *don't* use old recording that you think no one will remember - they do...
Oh - And places like Amazon will have checked with the copyright holders before hosting samples.
[edited by - haribo on August 19, 2002 6:24:16 PM]
[edited by - haribo on August 19, 2002 6:35:22 PM]
you did correctly critique some mistakes in my post ... but STILL there is something wrong with your post ...
YES the song writter owns the arangement, and the record company owns the MECHANICAL rights ... BUT ... my point was this: copyrights do NOT extent down to infintesimally small samples or arangements. The sampled sound (or even song arrangement) if sufficiently small, will get through the sieve, because they are not copying significant parts of the original material. Even in software, you will NOT found in violation of copyright law if you look at someone''s source code, copy and paste a simply "a = b = c = 0" out of their code and use it in your own ... because copyright covers only significant sections of a work, not every sequence embedded within it.
THAT is why you CAN sample individual guitar and drum sounds, and mix them with others and build a sound bank in your keyboard ... because even the mechanical copyright is NOT on the individual sonic frequncies, but on their sequence as a song.
I know this is all shaky ground, and of course legal battles are going on all the time trying to define (and move) the line. So, just like any other lawsuit situation, it all boils down to precedence, and specific situations.
YES the song writter owns the arangement, and the record company owns the MECHANICAL rights ... BUT ... my point was this: copyrights do NOT extent down to infintesimally small samples or arangements. The sampled sound (or even song arrangement) if sufficiently small, will get through the sieve, because they are not copying significant parts of the original material. Even in software, you will NOT found in violation of copyright law if you look at someone''s source code, copy and paste a simply "a = b = c = 0" out of their code and use it in your own ... because copyright covers only significant sections of a work, not every sequence embedded within it.
THAT is why you CAN sample individual guitar and drum sounds, and mix them with others and build a sound bank in your keyboard ... because even the mechanical copyright is NOT on the individual sonic frequncies, but on their sequence as a song.
I know this is all shaky ground, and of course legal battles are going on all the time trying to define (and move) the line. So, just like any other lawsuit situation, it all boils down to precedence, and specific situations.
"The sampled sound (or even song arrangement) if sufficiently small, will get through the sieve, because they are not copying significant parts of the original material."
Sorry, dude, wrong again. I don't mean to pick on you, but it's important to get the correct information out to the younger or less experienced musicians on this board.
This specific scenario you describe was settled in court when some hip-hop producers pulled individual drum samples off a Scritti Politti album without clearing it with the label. The label (Sony, I think, but not 100% certain) filed suit and won. The judge's ruling made mention of the fact that the label owned the recording, which was of significant perceived artistic value to the defendants. Therefore, the label should be compensated in accordance with that perceived value. Now that case is cited as precedent in new infringement cases.
That's an important point there, too, by the way: PERCEIVED VALUE. In other words, if the drum sound is cool enough to sample, then it's cool enough to pay for.
"copyrights do NOT extent down to infintesimally small samples or arangements"
In sound recording/mechanical copyrights, yes they do. Period. There's no way I can convince you of this except to say check with an intellectual property attorney. S/he'll tell you the same thing. Now, realistically speaking, some violations of mechanical copyright are more difficult to prove to a judge than others. To wit, there are actually music-savvy judges in California who do nothing but litigate music and sound copyright infringement cases.
Anyway, my point is that a sampling musician/producer could probably get away with more than what the law specifically allows, but remember that you ARE getting away with it. You're not protected by the law as is the original copyright holder, and you're not doing the RIGHT thing, either.
[edited by - edlima on August 21, 2002 6:53:09 PM]
Sorry, dude, wrong again. I don't mean to pick on you, but it's important to get the correct information out to the younger or less experienced musicians on this board.
This specific scenario you describe was settled in court when some hip-hop producers pulled individual drum samples off a Scritti Politti album without clearing it with the label. The label (Sony, I think, but not 100% certain) filed suit and won. The judge's ruling made mention of the fact that the label owned the recording, which was of significant perceived artistic value to the defendants. Therefore, the label should be compensated in accordance with that perceived value. Now that case is cited as precedent in new infringement cases.
That's an important point there, too, by the way: PERCEIVED VALUE. In other words, if the drum sound is cool enough to sample, then it's cool enough to pay for.
"copyrights do NOT extent down to infintesimally small samples or arangements"
In sound recording/mechanical copyrights, yes they do. Period. There's no way I can convince you of this except to say check with an intellectual property attorney. S/he'll tell you the same thing. Now, realistically speaking, some violations of mechanical copyright are more difficult to prove to a judge than others. To wit, there are actually music-savvy judges in California who do nothing but litigate music and sound copyright infringement cases.
Anyway, my point is that a sampling musician/producer could probably get away with more than what the law specifically allows, but remember that you ARE getting away with it. You're not protected by the law as is the original copyright holder, and you're not doing the RIGHT thing, either.
[edited by - edlima on August 21, 2002 6:53:09 PM]
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
