In other words: Google's motto "it’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission", is not one DJ/producers should follow.

Oops!

And thus the Lawrence Lessig remix concept is clearly on the table for open debate.  It's a 10% thing.  10% of the industry thinks this ought to be okay.  BIG PROBLEM.  10% of society (Tea Party Whack-o's) also think Americans should be able to own and use ANY weapon available.  What's with the 10%?  Oh yeah, and Lawrence Lessig is a complete boob.

"In other words: Google's motto "it’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission""

You sure that isn't the other way around?

Not even Google can be that wrong...

Just an FYI. KCHere is more info on the legality of sampling authored by an entertainment lawyer.

http://musicgoat.com/music-sampling-a-war-rages-within-the-music-and-art-community-on-a-legal-battleground

"Ignorance that still exists regarding copyright..." may not be the best choice of words.  These things aren't as cut and dry as you may think.  If it goes to the courts it could be years before a decision is made.  The "con los terroristas" sample is less than 1.5 seconds long and while I agree the artist should have asked for permission, it's very possible that a court may rule in favor of the defendant on this one.  There are simply too many factors involved.

Ironic that the very issue you're complaining about applies to Roger Sanchez, the same artist that you've co written with in the past.    http://www.discogs.com/Roger-Sanchez-Turn-On-The-Music/release/581503

"These things aren't as cut and dry as you may think."

Sure they are.

Ummm.... Not really.  50 Cent and the Game have been involved in a  sampling case over "How we do" for 7 years.

As the user above, Cory Koehler, points out in the link that the supreme court ruled in favor of 2LiveCrew for unlicensed samples of Roy Orbison. 

Moses Pelham, a german rap producer, used a 2 second sample of a Kraftwerk song.  Originally, the court sided with Kraftwerk, but the ruling was overturned (in Germany of all places!!! Copyright is CRAZY there).  

There are hundreds of examples out there... 

"Ummm.... Not really."

Yes -- really.

Here's the rule: Clear your stuff, or pay later. Don't rely on parody, fair use, good luck or magic. Once in a blue moon, it may save your a$$. Most of the times, it won't.

Besides, it's so much more fun to create your own stuff.

Clearly your argument would hold up in a court of law.   

Even better -- listen to what I tell you, and you won't have to go to court at all.

The sample is used repeatedly throughout the song, and the "Ta" at the end of "terrorista" is one of the principal ingredients in the song's beat.

Baauer is an idiot, in other words. Any female in his life (or a friend's friend or whatever) could have recorded a sample that would have worked just as well. It's not even a musical sample, it's not impressive at all, but it is infringing.

I wouldn't call it ironic. I'm surprised you got the impression I'm complaining, when it's an observation and advice to not use samples without approval. My publishing contract required me to inform my publisher if I used a sample, and I truly believe in giving credit where credit is due.

Did you get permission for the video frames you copied in this article with the people who filmed them?

I reckon She'll get away with NewsWorthy FairUse.
#OnlyTheBrave

Uses of the master sample are as black and white as you can get.  While samples of the underlying composition can be litigated based on the substantiality of the work used and of the commercial impact on the original, liability for infringement is pretty much automatic when the master is also used.

Is there no de minimis rule for sound recording?

This has been litigated before. see Bridgeport Music v. Dimension

However, it doesn't mean that every circuit will agree that the de minimis rule for sound recordings should be eliminated simply for "considerations of practicality."

Hi laywer...

Why are people scared to ask if this is a racial issue?   I never see black people getting sued  for theft of msuic....15,000 RIAA suits how many were in minority areas?   

Are you serious?!!

Money doesn't recognise any other color, but Green.

Beleev me, there are many dormant cases just waitng for a sampled SR to go Viral. They will creep out the woodworks like a pestilence.
Litigation is expensive. If there's no pot-of-gold at the end of the Rainbow, f*ck the trip, and the Leprechaun.

The article had nothing whatsoever to do with Google. What a stupid way to end it!

Just to preempt some of the inept replies I am likely to receive, whether or not there is any truth to the Google statement is entirely beside the point.

Imagine if a newspaper article about industrial pollution in New Jersey ended with a line out of nowhere criticizing the destruction of Brazillian rainforests. That would be a pretty dumb nonsequitir, even if they are both environmental disasters.

Mm, don't know. It's a bit like 'Carthage must be destroyed', isn't it? And that worked out pretty well. Eventually...

An interesting article derailed somewhat by the end quote. What a foolish way to end it. I refuse to link this out to my students and will share it from another source. Lame.

Ahhhh, this is disappointing. I had left an email for Mad Decent over another release that had sampled a different song regarding being smart in how the action of sampling was held but had no response. I really like this label, but am sad to see it come across these kinds of issues.

Helienne,

i would also like to know more about your professional relationship with Roger Sanchez... Did your songs get sampled as well? Did you do anything about it??  What was the outcome?

Hi Rita, apologies for the late reply. I'd be happy to! I co-wrote four songs with Roger for his album Come With Me, which he did after Another Chance, including the single Turn On the Music. As far as I know none of my music has been sampled by other artists, so can't say I have any personal experience in that area.

Actually, Rita, it just dawned on me that I have had my music sampled before. They contacted me said they would give me a few percent of the publishing (can't remember how much now) if they could use it, sending me a copy of their track to show how much they'd used. Seemed reasonable to me, so I signed off on it. Easy peasy.

I think they meant: it's easier to deal with it later than do the research and attempt to get permission by technically cold calling type outreach. but sheeeeesh what a f*ck up on Mad Decent's part.. no bueno. 

Technically, fair use is not supposed to apply to any commercial recordings that are sold for a profit.  The original intent of fair use was only to protect the following:

"...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright"

In the case of any samples used in recordings that "make money" for the artist, the original master owner and copyright owner(s) are legally entitled to share in the revenues.  It doesn't matter how short the sample is either...that is an "urban legend" of sorts.

"It doesn't matter how short the sample is either"

Well, it's one of the factors that determine the size of the compensation.

Did you miss the part where it says "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" is a factor in if something is fair use or not? Are you braindead or just blind?

Well, I'm not the 'visitor' you responded to, but it's very important that you understand the difference between the copyrighted song (melody/lyrics) and the copyrighted sound recording (samples).

When we're talking about the melody, amount is indeed extremely important. While there are no exact rules, you can usually get away with 5-6-7 consecutive notes, especially if these are quarter notes or less, e.g. the stolen sequence is shorter than two bars.

Samples are entirely different creatures. In many cases, you can get with one-shots -- especially single drum hits -- but that's it.

And fair use applies to commerical works as well. Otherwise Weird Al would be in jail twenty times over.

Seriously, don't listen to commentards online giving away false information. The statue is here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

It's not fucking rocket science people.

"And fair use applies to commerical works as well."

No. The only exception is parody -- and don't expect that to work outside the US.

Like you say, it ain't rocket science and the golden rule is simple:

Clear your samples, or pay later.

Everybody knows Wierd AL's situation fell under Parody. get real and check your facts.

You should be looking at Gregg Gillis 'GirlTalk'.
Now that is a real Harlem Shaker!!

"The "Do the Harlem Shake" sample is an a tiny, non-central piece of the original track - wouldn't that fall under fair use?"

No, fair use primarily applies to non-commercial situations, such as education or reviews, and this is clean cut commercial case.

The only possible defense would be to prove that the right holders knew -- but ignored -- that the sample were used previously on the 'Con Alegria' remix.

Another one bites the dust....

Don't you mean "Under Pressure"?

this is ridiculous.  they're words for crying out loud.  these artists didn't copyright the phrases that they are claiming ownership of, and there's no way of definatively proving the samples are actually drawn right from the original songs.  if they were, in fact, taken from the original works, the samples are still modified and manipulated making them unique.  this is like a musician claiming the right to a particular chord progression or a beat structure.  and $83K...seriously?  how much of that money do you think actually went to bauer?  and how much money do these other hacks intend on getting their hands on.  it wont even be enough to pay for their legal fees.  sad day for the music community.

So many misconceptions about copyright so little time.

Some terms you might want to look up and a couple of lawsuits to boot.

copyright exists the moment a work is created

underlying work

sound recording

de minimis

transformative work

statutory damages

Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films

Newton v. Diamond

elements of proving copyright infringement - access, copying etc.....

After you have read up on copyright then come back and make an informed comment.

Bonus - you will then know more about copyright than the majority of people.

"So many misconceptions about copyright"

Almost one per line... :)

thanks, will do.

"these artists didn't copyright the phrases that they are claiming ownership of"

Wow man, you're something else...

Face it, If you can't play it, or write it, or record (produce it), you probably stole(sampled) it ! As Buddy Rich said " sit down, shut up and play some f....in music!. Creativity has been vastly reduced in our present times  as far as music goes. Writing code is another matter.

Face it, If you can't play it, or write it, or record (produce it), you probably stole(sampled) it ! As Buddy Rich said " sit down, shut up and play some f....in music!. Creativity has been vastly reduced in our present times  as far as music goes. Writing code is another matter.

lol GG

"In other words: Google's motto "it’s easier to ask forgiveness than permission", is not one DJ/producers should follow."

Load of bollocks. Dance music as we know it wouldn't exist if this were the case. Well done to everyone who agrees with this for not understanding the history of electronic music up to this point.

Stupidly, back in the early 90's I had a similar situation. We had a top 10 hit using a Lionel Richie sample with my act Umboza. We cleared that for £10k and 50% publishing. Only thing was, we forgot to clear, or didn't even think we need to clear the vocal sample that started the song off. It was from a Spanish language tape. Cue the chap coming out the woodwork when it hit. He ended up with 20% and £15k. One of life's lesson learnt there and then 

I wonder if theres a clause in the record deal that indemnifies the record label in the case of a copyright dispute

Rags to riches to rags lulz

Bauuer is laughing his way to the bank. He is making tons of money on tour now that he never would have without the song. It doesn't matter that he will have to share his earnings off the single. He created a hit and now he has a name. Look at the big picture ya'll