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.
Well, from the sound of Eminem's going rate ($10million plus) it might be cheaper to just use the songs and then pay a smaller settlement fee. Just maybe...
The guitars sound good, now give me about 10db more on the cow bell.
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.
Also has a story on this. The kicker is it all rhymes!
-EB
Do you ever walk alone like a drifter in the dark?
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.
Do the artists have any say in any of this sort of thing? For instance, is it likely Eminem told his people to go after Apple or are his people going after Apple regardless if he likes it or not?
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
The ad agency bought the song from iTunes for $1 and assumed they could use them.
Is it just me, or is this not a big deal? To me this doesn't indicate that Eminem has any problem with other artists sampling his music, but with it being used in commercials without permission. I mean, come on, just because this is Apple and we all love iTunes and the iPod doesn't make it right. Many people view artists allowing their music to be used in commercials as "selling out", and in Eminem's case, I could see this being even more of an issue than normal.
It's a good thing that eminem is suing Apple for the lost revenue. Maybe now he can buy that cute little Miata that he's had his eye on...
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.
It was a 10 year old girl singing the song (acapella) for like 8 or 10 seconds. Hardly a sample or anything.
:(
However, laws are laws, as stupid as some of them may be. Apple should have known better.
Thanks to that 10 year old girl, he won't be able to buy his own gold-plated shark tank this year.
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'm sueing Apple for using my silhouette!
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.
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!!!!
One of the most notorious examples of sampling irony is the Negativland/Coca-Cola connection. The California-based band Negativland, copyright infringers of the highest reverence, "illegally" sampled a 1966 religious record and calls their version of the song "Michael Jackson". Samplist Fatboy Slim decides to sample Negativland's song, licenses the Negativland version of the religious sample from SST records, and also calls the song "Michael Jackson." After Fatboy's ensuing popularity, creative advertising executives decide to license Fatboy Slim's song for a Coca-Cola television commercial. Result: Coca-Cola unwittingly engages in copyright infringement. Negativland, whose calling is to debase advertising on all levels, find their music selling soft drinks. Fatboy Slim deposits a huge check in his bank account.
Negativland writes: "The track 'Michael Jackson' from this Fatboy Slim CD ['Better Living Through Chemistry' (Astralwerks) 1998] samples from the Negativland track 'Michael Jackson' from our 1987 release 'Escape From Noise' on SST Records.
"Stupidly, Fatboy Slim went to SST Records to get permission to use this sample. SST charged him $1000, which they are keeping all for themselves, of course. Besides the fact that Fatboy could have kept his $1000 and taken the sample from us without permission and we wouldn't have cared, the Negativland sample he used was itself appropriated by us without permission from a religious flexi-disc originally issued in 1966. [In fact, a Negativland member LITERALLY stole this record from the basement of a church in Concord CA.]
The article I sampled this from is here
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!"
Dr. Dre hires musicians to play baselines differently so that it will fit the legal requirements and he will not be required to pay royalties to the person he is "sampling".
If he copies a baseline verbatim (or actually samples their record), he pays them a royalty.
This isn't his decision, this is the decision made by the politicians that made the laws so restrictive. Paul's Boutique could never be made today, because the sampling is too extensive and it would be impossible for the record company to clear the record legally.
Advertisers must license every song that they use in their advertisements. Unlike "sampling," advertising has always worked this way, afaik. I see very little wrong with The Rolling Stones charging Billy G so many millions to use "Start Me Up."
So, go white boy go white boy go white boy go. Take those fat cats down. They knew they were supposed to get a license.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
One of the comments on spymac about this sums up the suit.
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.
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!
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.
... and in related news, the Mars Candy Company is reportedly suing Eminem for trademark infringement to the "tune" of $10M.
It's not fair use. It's a public broadcast, in an advertisement designed to make money. Nice try though.
Haida Manga
It has nothing to do with "samples". For those to lazy to look, they're just ads where various people are singing a capella, ostensibly along with the songs on their iPods.
They don't need to be cleared with the record label or artist, as this type of non-complete "reproduction" is legally allowable. It does not constitute an endorsement by the artist, and Eminem is a retard for even thinking that it does.
But in the US you can sue anyone for anything, so I guess we'll see how it turns out.
May I have your attention please?
..... i think ill stop before ruffle any more feathers.
May I have your attention please?
Will the really stupid intern who did not license the music from the original artist please stand up?
I repeat, will the really stupid intern who did not license the music from the original artist please stand up?
We're going to have a problem here..
Y'all act like you never seen a slashdotter before
Jaws all on the floor like Intel, like AMD just burst in the door
and started whoopin their ass worse than before
they first were
Please im not funny so make sure to mod me down to -3 offtopic, thanks again!
A Fatal OE Exception has occurred, Sig will now reboot.
Well, M and M are his initials...
-sam
I was just here, where did I go?
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.
In the article, it says that it was a performance of the song done by someone else. This type of use does not need to be cleared, even for advertising. How many ads haven't you seen that have a well known song, but performed by someone else?
Eminem, however, is listed as part composer for this commercial and every time it is played, he will/should be reimbursed for his efforts. But I can tell you that those rates are nothing to write home about.
The only time you need clearance, or a license, to use a recording for a commercial is if you use, well, the actual recording. This could be the case, as the soundtrack for this performance may contain samples from the original, but there is no way to tell from the articles.
If those samples do not exist in the commercial, Mr. Slim is acting kinda Shady in this case...
dont be silly.
String got writing credits on Puff Daddy's cover of Every Breath You take. (The cover is called "I'll be missing you.") I can't believe how many people think Puff Daddy got away with something there. Shit, Stevie Wonder got writing credits on "Wild Wild West", another unoriginal hiphop cover that most people think was blatantly ripped off.
Not that re-recording a bassline can get you out of copyright litigation, since copyright infringement has nothing to do with the bits, and everything to do with the order and arrangement of notes, regardless of what instrument plays it, or what key you transpose it to.
"Old man yells at systemd"
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. Regardless, it didn't stop the Rolling Stones from successfully suing for 100% of the publishing rights...
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...
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
This provision is what lets Marilyn Manson cover "Tainted Love" and "Sweet Dreams," Type O Negative cover Cinnamon Girl, Tori Amos cover Smells Like Teen Spirit (and, well, every song on StrangeLittleGirl, plus Bad Company on her Under The Pink tour, plus...)
As an aside, it's kind of ironic that Eminem is suing for use of his work, when Dido had no idea he had sampled her work ("Stan") until she heard the CD. Luckily she was "blown away" and agreed to it - and later toured with him...
geek. lawyer.
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
Which is of course more proof that IP law in the U.S. as it is now practiced is antithetical to the founding fathers reason for allowing it. How can it be promoting the arts and sciences when failing to get clearance for a single sample means that all revenue from an entire album is no longer the artists?!?! Sampling does NOT harm the origional artists just as small quotes and attributions in written works do not harm their origional authors. Heck you should be able to create a work made solely from samples so long as you list where the samples are from, that would be in line with how copyright works in the written world.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
He wrote it, did he not? That makes it his work, doesn't it?
You ever wonder why no one sings "Happy Birthday To You" on TV? That's right. It's a copyrighted work they would have to pay money to perform.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
I saw an interview with Robert Plant on VH1 Classics a couple of months back, in it he stated that really there is only so many notes to go around, everyone copies someone at some point in their careers.
Musicians (and actors) as gazillionaires is a relatively new thing in our society, I think a lot of them are really losing it though. In the old days musicians were paid much like the rest of us, for doing a job, ie, playing music for an event or for a group.
Do I think Eminem deservers $10mil to compensate for some 10 year old girl blurting out his "creation"? Heck no, give the guy a couple of hundred bucks at most, but move on.
These folks would be more than happy to collect royalties off us all when we hum their tunes in the shower.
It's time we brought some of these "stars" back down to earth a little. It's a never ending cycle and it's the consumer who is burnt because of it, is any actor worth $20million for 3 or 4 months work on a movie? I don't think so myself, but because some suits in Hollywood think so we're now paying $10 a ticket at the movies, meanwhile these "stars" pump out garbage like Gigli.
And WTF is with Britney Spears? I saw some video of hers yesterday and she's selling nothing but sex appeal, her singing stinks and she has little talent, but I guess wriggling yer bum is worth millions in the US. How about getting her to put on a concert where she actually stands still and sings her songs rather than runs around lipsyncing everything.
It had to already be mentioned, but if not here it is. The Slim Shady LP sampled a song called Pigs Go Home and was sued by the current copyright owner, a 70 year old grandmother.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter
A little girl in a commercial sang a small part of a song written by some overrated guy who does that rap stuff.
The singer is suing for some stupid amount.
He should lose because he's a dickhead.
He won't lose, however, because we have a legal system constructed by, for and of the dickheads.
I hope this helps. :-)
--- Ban humanity.
You failed to specify, using an instantly made up and barely decipherable acronym, whether:
1) You are a lawyer
2) You are not a lawyer
3) You intend to be a lawyer
4) You are married to a lawyer
5) You know a lawyer
6) You know how to spell lawyer
Without a disclaimer, I'm left to conclude that you MUST BE a lawyer (or, more likely, a high ranking judge) and as such I will be citing your Slashdot post in a case I currently have before the Federal appeals court.
If I lose, expect to be sued.
Eight Mile Style filed the copyright infringement suit ... At issue is an ad for Apple's iTunes pay-per-download music software, in which a 10-year-old sings Eminem's "Lose Yourself."
I agree. If a 10-year-old is singing the song, then it is a new performance (unless Eminem has a time machine.) To use Eminem's song for a new performance requires "mechanical rights", which are automatically granted for a set fee. Mechanical rights are applied for selling something that includes the copyright (but not perfomances) of an artist. I believe that should apply to advertising that does not include the artist's performance, but IANAL.
Most songs are handled by the The Harry Fox Agency (HFA). Eminem has 50 songs listed at Songfile.com, which is HFA's online license application for low volume use. The list does not include "Lose Yourself". If the song is not handled by HFA, then you must contact the publisher directly.
There is a lawsuit, so somebody believes they had the right to tell Apple they could not use lyrics in a commercial. But it is not about a "sample", because Apple did not use a "sample" of Eminem's performance.
I spend my life entertaining my brain.
also from here this bit about the song and copyright law:
So for those arguing that a "cover" of the song can sung without obtaining any rights, I would have a say that a precedence has been set and it does not appear to be in favor of Apple and Chiat Day.
I like microcars
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.
Here's how it works:
When the Mom-and-Pop band goes into the studio to record an album, they emerge with two related yet discrete products. A collection of songs (the notes, lyrics, chords, tempo, modulations, etc... essentially metric data that can be easily reverse-engineered) and a collection of recordings (the tape or disk, containing the actual bits or electromagnetic flux representing the specific performances of the metric data by musicians).
Look closely on any retail CD you own. The *songs* will be copyright-ed (copywritten?) by the author (as in, "Big Stanky Lovin'" copyright 1999 Herb Stank). Somewhere in the vicinity, there will also be a note that "the copyright in this original sound recording is owned by Universal Music Group". What this means is that Herb Stank may have written the song, but that Universal owns the master tapes of this recording. Usually somewhere in there is the standard disclaimer about "all rights reserved".
The rights that the record companies are reserving are the right to sell CD's; the right to control who performs the recording live; the right to make and sell sheet music of the recording; the right to sell these rights to an interested party. These are all forms of publishing, which is the only thing the record company cares about, because publishing is the only part of the music industry that actually makes money. That little blurb on the CD about "lyrics reprinted by permission"? It's not the songwriter's permission. It's Universal's. And if that blurb weren't on there, technically Universal could sue their own band (and believe me, that's an all too common occurance). And yes, they could decide to get their undies in a bundle and keep you from even printing your lyrics on your own CD. And yes, technically once you sign that dotted line, Universal could sue you for ever performing your own song live.
This might seem like a lot of rights for the record companies to have, considering they didn't write the song. This is why many musicians, independant and otherwise, form their own publishing companies. As long as Mom-and-Pop's-Publishing is the first to obtain the publishing rights to a song (and there's no reason they shouldn't be if the band isn't signed), the Mom and Pop band is in a much better position to negotiate with the record company to retain some of these rights, or to have them revert to Mom-and-Pop's-Publishing after a set period of time, then they would be if they just signed right up to Universal.
So, when rapper X sticks the CD from the Mom-and-Pop Band in his computer, fires up audiograbber and rips off a chunk of "Big Stanky Lovin", written by Herb Stank, performed by the Mom-and-Pop band, published by Mom-and-Pop's Publishing Inc., and (most importantly) OWNED by Universal, there can be four pipers to pay. But usually it's just the big one, since the big one has bought the publishing rights from the littler three. In fact, the most common scenario is that if Universal likes the Mom-and-Pop Band so much, they typically will buy Mom-and-Pop's Publishing as part of the deal. Which still leaves the artists pretty screwed, but at least they got more money.
On the other hand, if rapper X is smart and has his guitar playing friends reverse engineer the metric data contained within the digital (or analog) data of the sound recording, then you eliminate the record company being able to come after you for stealing their recording. OF course, they'll still come after you for stealing their song, but that's almost impossible to prove if you are clever enough...
Some legal protection does still exist for the fair use (although they don't call it that) of this metric data. There are certain legal requirements one must meet when attmpting to copyright a song (you can't copyright a two-note phrase). Etc...
b.echthros
They will never stop until somebody makes the
"Well, talented artists are good enough to make their own music, so they don't have to sample. Eminem couldn't play a musical instrument if Suge Knight was threatening his life..."
Comments like this rub artists like myself the wrong way. Let me paint you all a little picture of my world, maybe this will help in understanding why sampling is part of the industry.
I'm a 3D artist. When you work in 3D, there are a lot of subcategories that one can go into. You can do texturing, character animation and rigging, visual effects, matte painting, and a few others that aren't readily popping into mind. I specialize in modelling with a secondary skill in design. What I mean by that is my talent in other areas isn't so strong. Am I talented a talented? There are lots of people who would say yes. Can I do character animation? Nope, I haven't climbed those steps yet. Does that mean I'm not a 3D artist? No.
So what do I do if I'm commisioned to do a project that requires other areas? Simple, I either license other stuff, or I get another person involved. Right now, I'm working on an Ore facility designed to operate on the surface of an asteroid, it's for a game. I've designed the station, gotten that approved, and now I'm building it. The thing is, my client needs it rendered with a backdrop. He has a very specific goal in mind and I have to complete it. I have so much time to get it done in. One of the things I need to do is make a realistic terrain for it. Well, that's not really my area. For one thing, I need textures for it. (note: What I'm about to describe is like sampling.) Now, I can't go to an asteroid and take some photos that I own the copyright to. So what do I do? Well, Nasa is pretty darn cool. They've got a lot of photos of the surface of the moon and on Mars that I can put together in Photoshop to create a new environment. This involves taking small pieces of their images and putting them together into something new. Nasa's agreement is pretty open about that. It says I can use their images provided I say "Courtesy of Nasa" in the credits. In addition to those images, I have a royatly free photo CD I purchased that more or less says "use it as you like, you've paid for it." So here I am, 'sampling' other artists work to meet this goal. I'm doing this LEGITIMATELY and ethically. (In other words, they'd be happy for this use.)
Now, there are exceptional artists out there who'd do it all. They'd probably design it, build it, hand-paint the textures, and do a lot of other things that somebody with years (decades even) of experience under their belts. (Craig Mullins, for example.) However, I'm not there yet. Most artists aren't. That's not because they suck, it's because it takes a long time to get there.
So let's get to Eminem here. So he can't play an instrument. So? That's not his talent. His talent is the lyrics he puts together. I can't say I'm a fan of his, but I have listened to his music, and he's definitely a guy with a style about him, and is most definitely an artist. Has he sampled music? Yep. There's a song called Stan that uses some chunks of some of Dido's work in it. If he were a 'talented artist', the way the parent poster is describing them, would this be a bad move? No for a couple of reasons: 1.) It fits the song. You have to hear it to understand, but it was an appropriate choice. 2.) He licensed use of that song. The result? A better piece. Could he have pursued his own? Eh maybe. Would that be automatically better? Automatically? No. It really depends on what your goal is.
Sampling is not an evil. It can be done wrong. You can grab a riff from a song and not get the permission to do it, that'd be awful. Artists are very protective of their work. I could grab a texture from somewhere and not acquire for it, that'd be equally wrong. Somebody could download somebody else's work and put their name on it
"Derp de derp."
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