Slashdot Mirror
Eminem Sues Apple for Sampling his Samples
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."
Let's go slaughter it... who cares if it would've produced more for us in the longrun.
Eminem is sooooo worried about being taken seriously as a artist isn't he?
First Weird Al and now Apple... I hope no one ever buys that loser's albums ever again and he can go back to being poor white trash again.
If you RTFA then you'll find that Apple didn't "sample" the song at all. Jeez. Can we get some standards here? The entire "story" here is that hip hop artists sample and then one is complaining about sampling, except that he isn't...
John.
The most popular "legal" music download service is now taking heat for illegal use of music.
His label, 8 Mile Style, owned by him, arranged for him to be one of the first exclusive artist on the iTMS. Now the label is suing Apple for a song that wasn't legally copyrighted until long after that commercial was run on MTV. Its a ploy to get his name in the papers and keep it there. Ya know he bitches about people not leaving him alone and boycotting him.. then goes and does this over something so little.. ironic.
if what Eminem claimed is true, ie Apply used one of the hip- hop superstar's songs in a television advertisement without permission, then it's a legitimate action isn't it?
now we're asking why a super-rich like Eminem bothers to stop free advertising. however we must think of a bigger picture where lesser-known artists are not getting a fair share and have no where to go.
What a hypocrite.
This Eminem (TM) guy's case is probably on shakey ground.
Well, duh, that's probably why they didn't hire him to endorse it, and instead paid someone else to sing a portion of the song indicating the kind of things that someone might expect to find on iTunes Music Store. Apple probably doesn't give a damn if Eminem endorses the service or not; they just want to inform prospective customers about what kind of music is available on it, not of Eminem's paid opinion of the service.The song was rapped by a 10-year old in a commercial. If it was hummed, would it count? This is the state of the music industry today, isn't it? An artist tries to get everybody singing their song and then sues anybody singing their song. Maybe the RIAA and SCO are not so different.
Stay tuned for new sig...
I agree. Even more so this could be seen as an endorsement by Eminem of iTunes. Something he may not actually want to do.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
To paraphrase the saying:
Sometimes it's easier to pay for forgiveness than to ask permission.
KFG
Ive heard this arguement a lot, and i have to ask this: If you continued this, at what point does it stop becoming free advertising? Playing songs on radio, free advertising. Copying CDs, free advertising. Kazaa, free advertising. Concerts, free advertising. WHEN ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO GET PAID?! Everything advertises something else.
Apple did not use Eminem's song in their commercial.
t ml.
Apple did not sample Eminem's song in their commercial.
Apple did show a 10-year-old girl COVERING the song, in Acapella.
Not only could this easily be definied as a cover, which requires no payment of royalties, but I would see it as a parody, which is covered under fair use.
I suggest you all review the Stanford Copyright & Fair Use Guide at http://fairuse.stanford.edu/web_resources/index.h
There is no case here, mark my words... Apple will win this suit, as Eminem has no case.
Good point. I suggest you go watch "Bicentennial Man" with Robin Williams, and apply your argument to his quest for being acknowledged as "human". The idea is very similar. It's all about basic dignity. If you agree with Asimov's robot wanting acknowledgement that he's human, then you have to agree with homosexual couples wanting acknowledgement that they're no different than any other couples.
I'm on their side on this one, without being gay. It's all part of our great slow march towards true fair and equal treatment by the law.
Daniel
Carpe Diem
Why not take it up a notch?
Eg: Talented musicians are good enough to make up their own notes and tonalities, so they don't have to play from the western 12 note scale or use the same V-I cadence that is in 90% of all songs ever written.
Whether or not you play an instrument (I play 5) has little to do with your value as a composer of original music. The same people who decry sampling or rapping as unoriginal probably don't know that all the Greats (from Beethoven to the Grateful Dead) either had people go to concerts to transcribe ('sample' the sheet music) competitors' songs, or based their entire careers on covers (in the case of the Grateful Dead.)
It is always amusing to see people try and establish a relationship between the process used to create music, and the relative originality or perceived value of that music.
"Old man yells at systemd"
But if I pay for the mechanical license to cover a song, and then cover it, why can't I license out my performance to an ad company?
Because that's the way the law is.
Isn't that how the cover versions show up in ads in the first place, because the original artists don't want to license their performances?
No. When you hear a cover song in an ad, it is only because the artist has licensed the song for use "as a cover only." The company then goes and pays someone else to record a cover version.
What you're saying is: Mechanical license is paid for eight-year-old girl to cover "Lose Yourself:" legal. Eight-year-old girl licenses performance to ad agency: illegal. How is that possible?
That's right. If you want to go and record yourself singing "Lose Yourself" you can do so -- and you can sell your cover on a CD (and pay a compulsary license per copy sold to Eminem every 3 months).
But you can't use the song in a commercial. That's the law.
Artists dont have to get permission from the copyright holder to release a cover. They DO have to pay them however. Check Lessig's site for related discussion
I agree that Apple should have cleared the lyrics first.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
It wasn't a concert, it was an orchestral version of The Last Time and the sample was barely audible.
Barely audible? It was practically the only thing in the song.
Yeah, I agree with that assessment. If that's the grandparent's definition of "barely audible" then he needs a new hearing aid. The sample was the song, from the first note to the last. A few drums and a base on top of it didn't change a damn thing.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
The recording companies and the publishing companies are almost ALWAYS two seperate entities.
The right to sell sheet music of a particular song is held by the publisher, NOT THE RECORD LABEL! The record label has to pay the publisher in order to record the song (this is called a mechanical royalty).
In order to perform a song live the venue (or promoter) must have authorization from a performing rights orginization (SESAC, BMI, or ASCAP). This is usally a blanket license. The record label has NOTHING to do with this!
Also anything that is copyrightable (such as a song or work of art) is copyrighted the instant it is put onto a transferrable medium. It doesn't have to be registered with the US Copyright Office for it to be copyrighted. Registering it with the USCO does help incase there is ever a dispute they can say "it was registered on this date such and such etc"
My degree is in the recording industry. I know what I am talking about:
http://www.MTSU.edu/~record/
Libertas in infinitum