Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Eminem Sues Apple for Sampling his Samples

Posted by michael on from the isn't-it-ironic-don't-you-think dept.

EvanKai writes "To celebrate Grey Tuesday, Eminem sues Apple to show his support for hiphop and sampling. CBS MarketWatch is reporting that 'Rapper Eminem's music publisher is suing Apple Computer Inc., claiming the company used one of the hip-hop superstar's songs in a television advertisement without permission. Eight Mile Style filed the copyright infringement suit late last week against Apple, Viacom Inc., its MTV subsidiary and the TBWA/Chiat/Day advertising agency.' While the ad in question no longer appears, several similar ads can be found here. I can't believe Chiat Day failed to clear the use of these songs with Pink, Mariah Carey, and The Who... or whatever major label actually owns the rights."

11 of 690 comments (clear)

  1. The Register by Eezy+Bordone · · Score: 5, Informative

    Also has a story on this. The kicker is it all rhymes!

    --

    -EB

    Do you ever walk alone like a drifter in the dark?

  2. Re:Eminem by bad+enema · · Score: 5, Informative

    Eminem, or M&M as you call it, comes from the fact that his real name is Marshall Mathers - hence the M and M.

    Slim Shady...well that's just pure egotism.

  3. Re:Sampling by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Informative

    No. They sample all the time, espescially in hip hop/rap, but they clear it with the copyright holders.

    The Verve lost a huge lawsuit for "Bittersweet Symphony", the sample they used was from a Rolling Stones concert, for instance.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  4. Re:How ironic! by dbesade · · Score: 5, Informative

    Anyone who creates a work of literature, if it be lyrics, a book, etc, has a copyright, but then if they choose they can become a registered copyright, which is a legal copyright, it holds up in court a lot better than just saying "hey I wrote that you fruity bastard!"

  5. Re:Sampling by the+Man+in+Black · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not "freely". Publishing rights and royalties are always worked out ahead of time, even for the smallest of samples. Failure to do so results in disastrous lawsuits and LARGE royalties being paid out to the original artist/publisher. This happened when Peter Gunz & Lord Tariq sampled Steely Dan's Black Cow for their Deja Vu (Uptown Baby). Steely Dan was awarded six figures plus sole writing credit and rights to all future publishing, which pretty much meant that Lord Tariq & Peter Gunz made about $5 off the platinum single.

    --
    El riesgo vive siempre!
  6. Law likely on Eminem's side by saddino · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is an interesting case. Anyone has the right to "cover" a copyrighted work, as long as the compulsory license is paid to the publisher (usually a per performance, or per mechanical fee).

    However, in the case of endorsement, a specific license is indeed required (my wife - IANAL, but she is, ahem -- handles these from time to time). If the kid "singing" the song can be construed as an endorsement (probably), then Eminem deserves compensation.

    Also, his likely fee ($10M) is definitely in the ballpark. You'd be amazed how much established artists make for these licenses. In fact, using an original song is usually so prohibitively expensive, that the licensor usually opts for a license to use a "cover" version only (much cheaper, but still a lot of money). That's why when you hear famous songs in commercials, they're often covers. FYI, in these cases, the language in these contracts usually requires a cover not to sound exactly like the original recording.

  7. Re:How ironic! by li99sh79 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Yep, ironic for a guy whose stage name is a blatant phonetic copy of M&M candies. Kinda like the whole Windows/Lindows thing.

    Well, M and M are his initials...

    -sam

    --
    I was just here, where did I go?
  8. Re:My understanding... by hchaos · · Score: 5, Informative
    The song is 5:20 long. A ten year old kid sang 10 seconds of the song or 3.125% of the song. They used no actual music or clips of the song just a kid saying 3.125% of the words to the beat.

    So it's a bit either way IMHO. has no music, tunes, singing or the original recording by eminem. I don't know about the legality of it, but I presume with such a minor amount of 'copying', apple's ad agency thought there was no need to get permission, but eminem obviously disagrees.
    Federal copyright law happens to agree with Eminem in this case. Copyright does apply to song lyrics, there is no such thing as "fair use" for commercial purposes, and the percentage of the song used is irrelevant, because 1) it is clearly identifiable as lyrics unique to the song, and 2) is clearly intended by the advertiser to be recognized as the Eminem song.
  9. Re:Sampling by irn_bru · · Score: 5, Informative
    Actually the full story can be found here

    Not only did they The Verve lose a lawsuit against The Stones, but also has successful legal challenges from Andrew Loog Oldham who owns the rights to all Pre 1968 Stones songs...

    Worse than that, because the courts has ruled the due to the Sample, The Verve did not own the song, the Stones management then licensed the song to be used in adverts for Nike and Vauxhall...

  10. Re:Still Waiting on Lawsuits... by freshman_a · · Score: 5, Informative

    queen did sue vanilla ice.

    van halen did sue tone loc.

    the WCW/WWE did have to pay the estate of jimi hendrix for use of hendrix's music.

    it took about 5 minutes on Google to confirm those 3. not sure about the rest though. i can't spend all day on google now, can i?

    --
    Slackware
  11. Compulsory licenses and Apple's use. by mark_wilkins · · Score: 5, Informative
    OK. So.

    As others have pointed out, Apple's ad agency used an entirely new, original recording of a person singing the song in question.

    Such use is covered by the compulsory license provisions of 17 USC 115, part of the copyright title of the United States Code:

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/115.html

    As long as Apple provided notice to the copyright holder (usually the publishing company that owns the publishing rights to the music and lyrics) and paid the compulsory license fee, they're in the clear. They do NOT need permission for this.

    Furthermore, since Eminem's likeness and the sound of his voice were not used at all in the ad, it's highly unlikely that there's any merit at all to the assertion that he is somehow entitled to fees for an endorsement of their product.

    Since the licenses described in 17 USC 115 are compulsory and the fees are explicitly spelled out, that chunk of statute probably precludes any further claims Eminem could make unless what they did in the commercial went beyond the scope of the compulsory license. Based on what I saw in those ads it almost certainly did not.

    This one's probably dead on summary judgment. I'd be surprised if Apple even tried to settle this one for more than their projected legal costs to get to a ruling on that.

    -- Mark