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.
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.
I was always under the impression that copyright happens at the time of content creation. Therefore, the song would have been "legally copyrighted" when the lyrics were conceived.
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.
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