Slashdot Mirror
Dr. Dre to pay $1.5 mil for "Illegal Sample"
jwlidtnet writes "According to MTV, Dr. Dre has lost a lawsuit filed over a presumably-uncleared sample on his last album (Dre still hopes to appeal). This is certainly not the first time that something like this has happened: in the mid-nineties, British band The Verve were forced to pay all royalties from their song Bittersweet Symphony (*and* alter song credits) after Allen Klein--who owns the rights to the 1960's Stones catalogue--discovered that the song used a sample from an orchestral recording of "The Last Time."
Thing is, though, that many groups believe that such lawsuits shouldn't occur except in the most blatant circumstances; among these groups, Musicians Against the Copyrighting of Samples and the group Negativland are perhaps the most outspoken. Should samples be protected by copyright, or should artists/musicians have the right to manipulate the old into the new?"
Sure it doesn't say a lot about his... talent (*chuckle*), but at least he did it the legal way.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
From MTV's article:
"Dre testified that before hiring a musician to play a bassline from the Fatback Band's 1980 song "Backstrokin'" for his 2001 track "Let's Get High," he consulted a musicologist who said the riff was commonplace.
He had another musician play some notes - it wasn't a sample from a copyrighted work. Surely there is a difference.
I'm a 2000 man.
Since the late 80's most rappers and their respective producers normally go out of their way to make sure that all samples are cleared by the copyright holders. In the 80's Biz Markie used some samples and was sued, so since then rappers have been more careful. Of course there are always idiots who try to get away with it, like "Ice Ice Baby", sampling "Under Pressure" In most cases the copyright holders have no problem with rappers using their samples if the money is right. Dr. Dre has been using samples his whole career, so it's strange that he would get caught using a sample without proper permissions.
Fair Use IS law.
/joe
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107
"I love phat_joe."
OK. But there was no sample. It was a replayed bass line.
There are 2 types of copyright here : One, the copyright of the song itself (picture sheet music, lyrics), and the copyright of the recording.
If you have a CD of Mozart's 'Jupiter' Symphony, the copyright of the music has long-since expired (They didn't have Disney back then), but the particular recording you're listening to is copyrighted. In such a case, you couldn't sample the recording without permission, but you could certainly play it yourself. Er...you and your orchestra.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
No it's not. Commercial impact is a factor, but not probative. Check out the 2 Live Crew case where the Supreme Court found it fair use to make a parody of the song Pretty Woman and sell it commercially. It is also a fun read.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Er, bad phrasing. I considered it right after I posted, and got a 'Troll' moderation for my troubles.
:
Fair Use IS law, but it is not a right under law. It is a defence. (Granted, on many levels there's not much difference, but that wasn't my original point.) Quoth your link
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include...
Now, I am not a law student, but I think you stand on firmer ground with a parody, protected under your 1st Amendment right to free speech, than you do with calling sampling Fair Use.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
As for the issue of whether sampling should be legal, I say yes. Check out the Beastie Boys album Paul's Boutique to hear sampling as an art form at it's peak.
Paul's Boutique is good, but Public Enemy's It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back is excellent. It is a perfect example of how hip-hop sampling can be an artistic collage of hundreds of different samples, as opposed to the mainstream rap process of "looping", or playing someone else's track (be it guitar, bass, drum or entire song) and rapping over it. Check out PE's site here.
There is also a great issue of Stay Free Magazine (The Copyright Issue) that covers many different angles of art and copyright. It contains a brilliant interview with Public Enemy's Chuck D as well as some good articles on the public domain, Disney and the Sonny Bono Copyright extenstion act. The issue as a whole is essential reading for all those concerned with intellectual property and intellectual freedom, and I highly recommend it.
Take Negativland's "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" : it contains a recognizable sample from U2's "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" but is obviously an original work which is critical of the record industry establishment. While I recognize the sample, I can't find the ideas represented in the original work of U2, nor do I recognize the overall song structure. Something has obviously been created.
And that "something" has a name, and its name is "a derivative work".
Puffy essentially steals all the music from a song and sets different lyrics to it... like Wierd Al.
Not like Weird Al at all. Sean Combs pays licensing fees to the songwriters of the Police, Led Zeppelin, etc. songs that he 'remixes' into his own work.
Al Yankovic is creating works of parody, which he is allowed to do without paying license feea. Still, he (usually? always?) seeks the permission of the artists whose music he parodies, and most enthusiastically give their blessings.
The original song is Forget-Me-Nots by Patrice Rushen. According to this site, Weird Al has also done a version of it.
She came sliding down the alleyway like butter dripping off of a hot biscuit.