My colleague and I have finished an album which we're hoping to put out via Spotify, iTunes et al, but before we do we could do with knowing where we stand regarding some samples we've used.

All are spoken word samples which we have taken from various archive radio and TV broadcasts. A couple are anonymous, as in we don't know the identity of the person speaking - these are respectively a "1940s" BBC announcer talking about london buses and an unknown female chef giving a recipe for smoked haddock soup.

However a couple feature two very well known current TV presenters, whose voices would be instantly recognisable to most people.

So the question is, do we need to gain permission from said people before putting our music out commercially? Whilst obviously we know that sampling recorded music needs permission, we haven't been able to find out if the same applies to spoken word samples.

Any help much appreciated!

Yes you will need clearance.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar08/articles/sampleclearance_0308.htm

--------------------
http://soundcloud.com/richie-royale
http://www.mixcrate.com/richieroyale

Could I have a copy of the haddock soup recipe please?

--------------------
www.variousassortments.co.uk - www.myspace.com/variousassortments

Quote Richie Royale:

---

Yes you will need clearance.

<a href="/sos/mar08/articles/sampleclearance_0308.htm" target="_blank">http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar08/articles/sampleclearance_0308.htm </a>

---

Thanks for the response, but unless I'm missing something, that article refers to commercial recordings - ie songs that have been released on a record label. The samples I'm referring to are radio announcements or things Tv presenters have said, which have never been released commercially.

So if for example we sample a BBC weatherman saying "dry with sunny periods tomorrow" or Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear saying "Cor - look at the bodywork on that!", do we need to contact their agents? (they're not the actual samples btw!)

Someone will still own the copyright if it has been recorded, so you will still need to seek approval of its use.

There are a variety of companies that offer clearance services this is one:

http://www.sampleclearance.com/

--------------------
http://soundcloud.com/richie-royale
http://www.mixcrate.com/richieroyale

Quote paulprogram:

---

Could I have a copy of the haddock soup recipe please?

---

This is the sort of unhelpful replies you can expect to find here, although the others are quite right, in that you do need clearance.

However, having gone through clearance with EMI as a test, it just is not worth it. They wanted 50% writers credits and 100% mechanicals, just for 2% of warbling from a 70's soul singer who did not see a penny of it. We agreed to that because we just wanted the record out there to increase the gigs for that artist.

If you are a label in the underground I would just go ahead and release it, and I can guarantee you won't be in court because they only look for hits and the chance of money. Admittedly, this could happen, so deal with it by disolving the label if need be, but that is extreme and unlikely to happen. Meanwhile, your name is out there and you will be on your way.

Many famous artists use samples and people like Will i am really need to be careful, and this is probaly what is scaring you. We got our own back by not registering the track with PPL or PRS. They will whistle for their royalties and see nothing and neither will we, but the track is a dancefloor legend now for that artist and has often been played on late night Radio 1. It was worth it for the bookings.

Edited by atechnogirl (16/03/12 09:37 PM)

Quote atechnogirl:

---

Quote paulprogram:

---

Could I have a copy of the haddock soup recipe please?

---

This is the sort of unhelpful replies you can expect to find here,

---

Oh come on, where's your sense of humour? I thought it was funny.

--------------------
Ahh ha ha, ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

Don't taunt the sock puppet!

Quote atechnogirl:

---

If you are a label in the underground I would just go ahead and release it, and I can guarantee you won't be in court because they only look for hits and the chance of money. Admittedly, this could happen, so deal with it by disolving the label if need be, but that is extreme and unlikely to happen. Meanwhile, your name is out there and you will be on your way.

---

Agree with this totally, don't fear these big companies. Yes they can shut down a small label if they want to, but it will probably cost them more in lawyer fees than any sort of compensation they will win.

Quote:

---

Many famous artists use samples and people like Will i am really need to be careful, and this is probaly what is scaring you. We got our own back by not registering the track with PPL or PRS. They will whistle for their royalties and see nothing and neither will we, but the track is a dancefloor legend now for that artist and has often been played on late night Radio 1. It was worth it for the bookings.

---

Asking for clearance is asking for trouble. You are admitting to using it and bringing it to their attention and they will ask for obscene amounts of compensation. Do it, deny it and make sure the record label has no assets to lose if things get nasty. Most people get away with it.

Another possible approach in this sort of case is to go down the sample-a-like route and hire a voice artist to emulate the original recordings, like Lemon Jelly using Enn Reitel and John Standing. You just have a clear fee to pay and the owenership is all yours!

Of course, it could be a bit late in the day if your production is all done and dusted...

Quote atechnogirl:

---

If you are a label in the underground I would just go ahead and release it, and I can guarantee you won't be in court because they only look for hits and the chance of money. Admittedly, this could happen, so deal with it by disolving the label if need be, but that is extreme and unlikely to happen. Meanwhile, your name is out there and you will be on your way.

---

Exactly. Unless you expect major commercial success 'publish and be damned' just stick it out there.

if the big boys comes after you with threats (unlikely unless you have a hit) the worse that can most likely happen is you end up signing over the rigths to them.

And even if they get wind of what you've done and come after you without having had a hit (unlikely where's the profit?), think of the publicity you'd gain anyway and press release opportunities arising from it, so you win that way too!

--------------------

whilst this is what many do.... I'm not convinced anyone should be putting into print/text this sort of thing as "advice". It's surely a symptom of everything wrong in attitudes towards copyright.....

I totally agree - the original poster asked "Do I need sample clearance for spoken word samples?" and the official answer to that is 'Yes you do'.

Whether or not you may be involved in legal implications if you ignore this advice is another matter


Martin

--------------------
YewTreeMagic

Quote GlynB:

---

Quote atechnogirl:

---

If you are a label in the underground I would just go ahead and release it, and I can guarantee you won't be in court because they only look for hits and the chance of money. Admittedly, this could happen, so deal with it by disolving the label if need be, but that is extreme and unlikely to happen. Meanwhile, your name is out there and you will be on your way.

---

Exactly. Unless you expect major commercial success 'publish and be damned' just stick it out there.

if the big boys comes after you with threats (unlikely unless you have a hit) the worse that can most likely happen is you end up signing over the rigths to them.

And even if they get wind of what you've done and come after you without having had a hit (unlikely where's the profit?), think of the publicity you'd gain anyway and press release opportunities arising from it, so you win that way too!

---

--------------------
Samplecraze
Stretch That Note

Quote narcoman:

---

It's surely a symptom of everything wrong in attitudes towards copyright.....

---

Quite so.

Recordings obtained from BBC broadcasts, or from any other broadcasters, is inherently copyrighted and permission should be obtained from the rights holders if you want to use exerpts in your own matrial.

Sound On Sound supports the rights of copyright holders and absolutely does not condone any 'advice' in this thread or elsewhere suggesting that it is acceptable to abuse copyright in any way.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

I agree with you Hugh, but the reality is that many up and coming producers simply get robbed when it comes to royalties if they toe the line and clear. Can you blame them for not doing so, having seen my example? Certainly in the underground scene it goes on all the time. Copyright is there to protect US (the artists and producers), but does it really, or does it protect the record company? In my case the singer who we used was never mentioned in the publishing but she is still alive and we promoted her in a big way. The person who was the writer had been dead for ages and I wonder if his estate saw a penny. Somehow, I doubt it, and that is why I prefer not to clear anymore.

Edited by atechnogirl (27/03/12 09:15 PM)

If you think the way copyright holders are rewarded is wrong, then campaign to change that. If you condone ignoring copyright altogether, no one gets rewarded and, ultimately, we all lose.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

I changed my post since you replied Hugh, but I think for the scene I work in that being a little hermit under a stone probably works better. The reason for this is that we can't afford lawyers and prefer just to play stuff on the dancefloor for fun. I wish it could be fairer.

Quote atechnogirl:

---

However, having gone through clearance with EMI as a test, it just is not worth it.

---

well - it's the law........ so worth it or not !!.. I spent 11 years as an artist on EMI and left them unrecouped (they gave me close to a million quid)....... more often than not they were a very very fair lot. They look after their artists very nicely ------ although they can be real jerks!!! hahaha

Quote atechnogirl:

---

They wanted 50% writers credits and 100% mechanicals, just for 2% of warbling from a 70's soul singer who did not see a penny of it. We agreed to that because we just wanted the record out there to increase the gigs for that artist.

---

The art of negotiation is a valuable one. That's what connections are all about!! Should have asked me . How do you know the 70s singer didn't see a penny? surely

a) the label is allowed to make back it's investment - which may have been into 7 figures.
b) if the artist had recouped they would have seen their amount via the MCPS and the label accountability. Of course - there is a different argument about the fair structure of recoup but that is an entirely different argument. You cannot put all arguments into one case!!

Quote atechnogirl:

---

If you are a label in the underground I would just go ahead and release it, and I can guarantee you won't be in court because they only look for hits and the chance of money. Admittedly, this could happen, so deal with it by disolving the label if need be, but that is extreme and unlikely to happen. Meanwhile, your name is out there and you will be on your way.

---

1) that attitude is the ENEMY of ALL music. Even the underground. However, I understand why you think it....
2) I doubt you'd get a personal indemnity against such a thing. You would STILL be liable even if you wound up the company. You'd also be struck off the companies house register and unable to get more than a basic tax status. Careful when winding up a company!!

Quote atechnogirl:

---

Many famous artists use samples and people like Will i am really need to be careful, and this is probaly what is scaring you. We got our own back by not registering the track with PPL or PRS. They will whistle for their royalties and see nothing and neither will we, but the track is a dancefloor legend now for that artist and has often been played on late night Radio 1. It was worth it for the bookings.

---

Not registered with PPL and PRS starves you of other income! Its a double edged sword.

I get why you have these opinions but try to imagine being on the other side of it!! You cannot choose your laws and rules to obey if you want any chance of fairness in business!!

I don't understand your arguement atechnogirl... if all you are interested in doing is "play stuff on the dancefloor for fun" then why do you have such a problem giving the copyright owners 50% writers credits and 100% mechanicals?

If you're indeed in it for credit or profit, then why not use royalty free samples or skip sampling altogether?

If your track relies so heavily on a sample that you can't replace it, then shouldn't the copyright holder have a share in it? If that's the case, if it weren't for them, you wouldn't have a track.

Regarding the artist holding the copyright vs the record company holding the copyright, that's a totally different matter. However, in the cases where the record company does own the copyright (especially before the digital era when self-publishing was extremely difficult), I'd bet my shirt it's because they are the ones that fronted all the MONEY in the first place, not only to make the recording, but also for promotion, distribution, etc. In other words, without the record company, you probably would never even have heard of that artist.

I'm not saying that the record companies are always right, but the record companies took the financial risk and this is their reward. And that does benefit the artist because it gives the record companies a) incentive to financially back an artist and do a good job promoting them, and b) further capital for funding future artists.

As it stands, the law is what it is. And as Hugh said, if you want to change the law, do it by petition, not by breaking it.

Having got very frustrated trying to quote Narco (who I now imagine to be either Rodger Daltry or Paul McCartney) I can confirm that the lack of the name of that female '70's singer on the contract is very obvious by her absence.

My contribution here, was not to be confrontational but to provide an example of reality to someone who wondered if they could use this or that on their itune release.

I would also like to add that being staunch is very admirable, but I have had to cope with first day releases totally ripped and distributed on every rapidshare site on the net before they make any money on legitimate sites. It is just the way it is, and the producers must make their money by live gigs. Welcome to 2012, and yes, I run a record company too.

Edited by atechnogirl (27/03/12 10:34 PM)

I'm not trying to be confrontational either-- I genuinely want to hear your justification for your staunch stance, which many have rebuffed at this point.

Are you saying that others steal from you, so it's ok for you to steal also?

atechnogirl has already played a big part in getting two recent threads shut down (one was deleted entirely). Is this going to be the third? Place your bets now!

Quote atechnogirl:

---

I would also like to add that being staunch is very admirable, but I have had to cope with first day releases totally ripped and distributed on every rapidshare site on the net before they make any money on legitimate sites. It is just the way it is, and the producers must make their money by live gigs. Welcome to 2012, and yes, I run a record company too.

---

Well that's a piracy issue, not a label issue. But by not playing 100% by the former rules it's harder to complain about the pirate element!!


Hhah on being Daltry or Macca. I think they have made EMI and themselves rather more than I.

Oh my word Scramble! I do have something to add on the forum. I have a record company, I understand how to recoup royalties and I work with several musicians who earn their living through music. Your pop up comment is probably why some threads have been shut. I do react to trolling.

Quote atechnogirl:

---

Having got very frustrated trying to quote Narco (who I now imagine to be either Rodger Daltry or Paul McCartney) I can confirm that the lack of the name of that female '70's singer on the contract is very obvious by her absence.

My contribution here, was not to be confrontational but to provide an example of reality to someone who wondered if they could use this or that on their itune release.

I would also like to add that being staunch is very admirable, but I have had to cope with first day releases totally ripped and distributed on every rapidshare site on the net before they make any money on legitimate sites. It is just the way it is, and the producers must make their money by live gigs. Welcome to 2012, and yes, I run a record company too.

---

I think you are getting very close to the truth here, possibly a bit too much for some people.

My record company ignore samples unless they are obvious, and they are actually quite a big company with a lot to lose. Why? I don't know, they think its worth the risk and I'm not going to argue with them.

I think the essential point is that music doesn't need any more wallflowers, so if you absolutely need to do something then do it. Punk bands used to steal their guitars remember. That does make you a criminal its true but real artists aren't bound by the same rules as mere mortals.

Quote narcoman:

---

Hhah on being Daltry or Macca. I think they have made EMI and themselves rather more than I.

---

Are you Danny from the Script then? Or maybe that dancer in Steps?

Edited by Hugh Robjohns (28/03/12 10:04 AM)

Quote atechnogirl:

---

Are you Danny from the Script then? Or maybe that dancer in Steps?

---

I'm someone who plays fair and works on a basis of morality and integrity ( and despite common perception you'll find that the majority of the biz is like that..... It's the few twats that make life crappy in music). I deal with majors, indies, DIYers, corporate and ultra artists. There are idiots in all areas...... You can't tar all label people as dicks any more than you can say all artists are to be trusted. I've cleared more. Samples and licences than most will deal with in a lifetime..... And yet I've also managed to get the "right" deals by not throwing ones proverbial toys out of e pram when one doesn't get ones own way !! ?.. You give a little, you gets a lot....

Quote narcoman:

---

Quote atechnogirl:

---

Are you Danny from the Script then? Or maybe that dancer in Steps?

---

I'm someone who plays fair and works on a basis of morality and integrity ( and despite common perception you'll find that the majority of the biz is like that.....

---

By your posts, I can see that, and yes, the only people I know who have done well have been very nice people who everyone likes. I have also seen others drink too much or take too many drugs to ever be booked again.

Quote atechnogirl:

---

Quote narcoman:

---

Quote atechnogirl:

---

Are you Danny from the Script then? Or maybe that dancer in Steps?

---

I'm someone who plays fair and works on a basis of morality and integrity ( and despite common perception you'll find that the majority of the biz is like that.....

---

By your posts, I can see that, and yes, the only people I know who have done well have been very nice people who everyone likes. I have also seen others drink too much or take too many drugs to ever be booked again.

---

Exactly. It's all about relationships.

I think we should end this conversation before Feline and Scramble go mental.

The Notorious Big was always going to credit Mtume's Juicy Fruit . Though I imagine James Mtume was only to happy to have someone use his song and bring in some royalites - dunno. Don't know the deal.

However, I wonder whether Billy Joel ever saw any money from High Fidelity.

It really depends on who you are sampling and how much of it and what you do with it. But even then - it just reduces slightly your chances of being caught out. It will come down to what a judge decides if it does go to court. It's remains illegal to profit off someone else's work. Even if that work isn't now owned by the creator.

--------------------
I'm All Ears.

Quote johnny h:

---

My record company ignore samples unless they are obvious, and they are actually quite a big company with a lot to lose. Why? I don't know, they think its worth the risk and I'm not going to argue with them.

I think the essential point is that music doesn't need any more wallflowers, so if you absolutely need to do something then do it. Punk bands used to steal their guitars remember. That does make you a criminal its true but real artists aren't bound by the same rules as mere mortals.

---

Good to know that an esteemed organ such as SOS is not only, by dint of this thread, allowing - nay, endorsing/encouraging - theft of intellectual property, but our Johnny, it now seems, endorses physical theft.

Oh, happy days.

I'd like to ask Johnny a question. What distinguishes someone who knows a few guitar chords so steals a guitar ... or someone who wants to use someone else's work and talent and recording and just arbitrarily samples that (and the investment that went into making that recording) from a "mere mortal"?

My daughter is not a shabby classical violinist and has a future. Is it ok that she should steal a Guarneri (a Strad would be out of the question of course)? By your reckoning, that would seem to be acceptable, no?

And maybe, next time we're in the violin emporium, she should maybe pilfer a Vuillaume bow ... y'know, just slip it into her violin case when no-one's looking. It would be easy - it would f'ck the emporium's profits, maybe put them out of business but...

That all seems reasonable by your logic it seems.

Are you saying, Johnny, that (ahem) "artists" are somehow 'superior' and somehow exempt from the law compared with "mere mortals" such as, for example, I dunno, nurses or a brain surgeon or even a humble 'lollipop lady' leading children to safety on busy roads on their way to school ... or the chaps who empty your bins, whatever ... you know - people who abide by the law? What a load of total arse gravy!

You have excelled yourself at (once again) expressing personal opinion as an "essential point" AND, rather intriguingly, endorsed intellectual copyright AND physical theft.

Nice one!

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

...well, it was either some post punk irony or really the most genuinely stupid post in a long time!

Come on....make my day........someone, anyone.....



--------------------
Samplecraze
Stretch That Note

Quote hollowsun:

---

Oh, happy days.

And maybe, next time we're in the violin emporium, she should maybe pilfer a Vuillaume bow ... y'know, just slip it into her violin case when no-one's looking. It would be easy - it would f'ck the emporium's profits, maybe put them out of business but...

That all seems reasonable by your logic it seems.

Are you saying, Johnny, that (ahem) "artists" are somehow 'superior' and somehow exempt from the law compared with "mere mortals" such as, for example, I dunno, nurses or a brain surgeon or even a humble 'lollipop lady' leading children to safety on busy roads on their way to school ... or the chaps who empty your bins, whatever ... you know - people who abide by the law? What a load of total arse gravy!

---

It was obviously tongue in cheek.

I don't steal guitars or think its right. I have defended the protection of intellectual property here many times before. Please don't use the phrase 'arse gravy' - it really is a very unpleasant image.

Back to the original topic, the scope of the music is important. If its going on soundcloud only, its probably fine. Same for a vinyl release. If its a hit and you getting big sync offers the risk is too big.

I do think if a fair deal is possible then you should go for it. I know artists who have been blatantly sampled by big acts and then cut out of any royalties because the big artists can pay for bigger lawyers and rerecording of the sample. It helps to have a music lawyer you can talk to about these things - they will have a reasonable idea whether the person / company you are dealing with will be fair and ready to negotiate.

Quote atechnogirl:

---

I have a record company

---

Quote atechnogirl:

---

I run a record company

---

As you keep reminding us. Maybe you're out to out-narco narco!

Quote hollowsun:

---

Good to know that an esteemed organ such as SOS is not only, by dint of this thread, allowing - nay, endorsing/encouraging - theft of intellectual property, but our Johnny, it now seems, endorses physical theft.

---

I can't speak for Johnny H or his record company's ethical or moral values, or indeed their commercial practices, but I have made the position and view of Sound On Sound on this matter very clear earlier in this thread.

Everything else is the personal opinions of the individual forum users and, by signing up to the forums, they take full responsibility for those opinions and any advice they offer.

Needless to say, if this thread becomes abusive it will be removed, but I would hope that a calm and well reasoned case can be made here that might prove more positive in changing attitudes to see the value in repsecting copyright.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote atechnogirl:

---

Oh my word Scramble! I do have something to add on the forum.

---

You're certainly providing a lot of entertainment!

>I think we should end this conversation before Feline and Scramble go mental.

Feline's the one who goes bananas. (I prefer to be on a mountain top dressed as The Lone Ranger when I go mental.)

>Narco (who I now imagine to be either Rodger Daltry or Paul McCartney)

1 million quid divided by 11 years is about 90 grand a year. I think Macca and Daltry make a little more than that.

Quote johnny h:

---

It was obviously tongue in cheek.

---

Was it? Not to me or some others.

The inclusion of a smiley emoticon or something might have helped make it more obvious for the hard of understanding (such as myself!). I believe it would also benefit a very public and commercial forum such as this if it had been made abundantly clear that you were not, in fact, advocating IP and physical theft and that your comment WAS actually tongue in cheek (it's also all too easy to say something contentious and then backtrack saying "What?! It was just a joke!").

A lot gets lost in the dull exchange of text (plus it's often hard to know when you, Mr H, are delivering opinion as 'facts' or being humorous!).

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

I can't speak for Johnny H or his record company's ethical or moral values, or indeed their commercial practices, but I have made the position and view of Sound On Sound on this matter very clear earlier in this thread.

Everything else is the personal opinions of the individual forum users and, by signing up to the forums, they take full responsibility for those opinions and any advice they offer.

---

Good plan, Hugh!
It's a strategy that has worked well in the past for Pirate Bay, Kim-dot-Com and other interweb publishers

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote hollowsun:

---

A lot gets lost in the dull exchange of text (plus it's often hard to know when you, Mr H, are delivering opinion as 'facts' or being humorous!).

---

I recon Mr H is usually "being humorous"...

Yes, and he's not being atechnogirl.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote chris...:

---

Quote atechnogirl:

---

I have a record company

---

Quote atechnogirl:

---

I run a record company

---

As you keep reminding us. Maybe you're out to out-narco narco!

---

I don't even know what that means.

Quote feline1:

---

Yes, and he's not being atechnogirl.

---

And I don't know what that means.

I think Feline meant to write "When he's not being atechnogirl", ie. you're Johnny H's sockpuppet (even though you're clearly not.)

Quote Scramble:

---

I think Feline meant to write "When he's not being atechnogirl", ie. you're Johnny H's sockpuppet (even though you're clearly not.)

---

No I mean literally what I said. It's just a coincidence that they all pop up in the same threads typing the same type of stuff. Why can't people just accept that?

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Maybe they just don't care... I know I don't... And by your logic the fact that you also appear in the same company so regularly must surely mean you're another fictitious trolling character.

Life is way too short to pay any attention to anonymous forum posters. How about discussing the topic rather than the posters?

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

These kinds of threads are always really interesting for this reason: none of us who are composers, artists, songwriters, etc., want our material pirated/stolen/torrented/downloaded for free. So it's always interesting to see a vehement defense of artists doing the same thing, but to larger entities, in some of these SOS threads. Which suggests that the common thought is, "It's not OK to have it done to you if you're the little guy, but it's OK to go ahead and do it if you're the little guy taking from the big guy." Which begs the question, "At what point have you crossed the threshold from being the little guy to being the big guy?" because that whole line of thinking implies an existing line between little guy and big guy. If you're little guy stealing from big guy, at what point will you stop? When you're making £100/month from your music? £500? £1000? Does that threshold become £5000 if you perceive that the entity is an evil one like an EMI, or maybe £10,000 if you perceive them to be a behemoth like the BBC?

A little extra practical info from the US side of things, if you're pulling from US-made movies or TV shows: sampling a line of dialog involves more potential risk and liability than just a letter from a lawyer saying "cease and desist." Pull a line from the movie and you're on the hook for claims not only from the studio and the talent themselves (and SAG), but from the WGA who reps that writer, and the DGA who reps the film's director.

I'm with Hugh: best to just not go there.

Kerry

Quote Eastcoaster NYC:

---

These kinds of threads are always really interesting for this reason: none of us who are composers, artists, songwriters, etc., want our material pirated/stolen/torrented/downloaded for free. So it's always interesting to see a vehement defense of artists doing the same thing, but to larger entities, in some of these SOS threads. Which suggests that the common thought is, "It's not OK to have it done to you if you're the little guy, but it's OK to go ahead and do it if you're the little guy taking from the big guy." Which begs the question, "At what point have you crossed the threshold from being the little guy to being the big guy?" because that whole line of thinking implies an existing line between little guy and big guy. If you're little guy stealing from big guy, at what point will you stop? When you're making £100/month from your music? £500? £1000? Does that threshold become £5000 if you perceive that the entity is an evil one like an EMI, or maybe £10,000 if you perceive them to be a behemoth like the BBC?

---

I think you are slightly misreading the point...

A fair royalty is a fair royalty, but the chances of getting one diminish when you are dealing with people who have significantly more money than you. If you wish to clear a sample from a big label they can demand quite obscene amounts of money. The odds are always stacked up against the little guy.

As I posted earlier (before all that conspiracy theory nonsense), it works both ways. My friend who had a very well respected post-punk band back in the 80s were sampled by an extremely big electronic act who subsequently refused to acknowledge them or give them any royalties whatsoever. They simply rerecorded the part and the band were unable to pay the legal fees to fight the label.

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Maybe they just don't care... I know I don't... And by your logic the fact that you also appear in the same company so regularly must surely mean you're another fictitious trolling character.

Life is way too short to pay any attention to anonymous forum posters. How about discussing the topic rather than the posters?

Hugh

---

Absolutely Hugh and let's not forget we have a very handy button which allows us to ignore certain posters!

Quote johnny h:

---

Quote Eastcoaster NYC:

---

These kinds of threads are always really interesting for this reason: none of us who are composers, artists, songwriters, etc., want our material pirated/stolen/torrented/downloaded for free. So it's always interesting to see a vehement defense of artists doing the same thing, but to larger entities, in some of these SOS threads. Which suggests that the common thought is, "It's not OK to have it done to you if you're the little guy, but it's OK to go ahead and do it if you're the little guy taking from the big guy." Which begs the question, "At what point have you crossed the threshold from being the little guy to being the big guy?" because that whole line of thinking implies an existing line between little guy and big guy. If you're little guy stealing from big guy, at what point will you stop? When you're making £100/month from your music? £500? £1000? Does that threshold become £5000 if you perceive that the entity is an evil one like an EMI, or maybe £10,000 if you perceive them to be a behemoth like the BBC?

---

I think you are slightly misreading the point...

A fair royalty is a fair royalty, but the chances of getting one diminish when you are dealing with people who have significantly more money than you. If you wish to clear a sample from a big label they can demand quite obscene amounts of money. The odds are always stacked up against the little guy.

---

I don't think I missed the point at all: as copyright holders, they can charge whatever they want for a use of a sample, just as we as copyright holders (artists, composers, songwriters) can charge whatever WE want to charge for the same thing, or for a license fee for use in a program, etc. The fact that the little guy can't afford it is not justification for stealing it. Your argument in the post just above seems to hinge on that exact point: since the little guy can't afford it because the big guy wants too much money for it, then the little guy should be allowed to just take it. Which kinda brings me back to my original point: at what point are you no longer the little guy, and what threshold suddenly makes the other guy the big guy? You say "a fair royalty is a fair royalty" - but what if the little guy can't afford the fair royalty? Is that OK to then steal it, even if the royalty is deemed by you to be fair, because he can't afford it?

Kerry

Quote johnny h:

---

I think you are slightly misreading the point...

A fair royalty is a fair royalty, but the chances of getting one diminish when you are dealing with people who have significantly more money than you. If you wish to clear a sample from a big label they can demand quite obscene amounts of money. The odds are always stacked up against the little guy.

---

such is life in general. Prettier boys get prettier girls. Muscle men can pick up heavier weights. taller people can reach higher shelves.....

Labels aren't without niceties though.... It all comes down to your skill as a negotiator and how you turn things to your advantage.

Quote johnny h:

---

As I posted earlier (before all that conspiracy theory nonsense), it works both ways. My friend who had a very well respected post-punk band back in the 80s were sampled by an extremely big electronic act who subsequently refused to acknowledge them or give them any royalties whatsoever. They simply rerecorded the part and the band were unable to pay the legal fees to fight the label.

---

rerecording the part isn't saying. they would only be entitled to royalties from a cowrite. You don't need huge legal fees to go for royalties.... You talk to the MCPS and MU. And you use your skills as a negotiator!!! Did the post punk boy go in hardball? If there is a genuine case point me to it..... Ill get the money!!

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Maybe they just don't care... I know I don't... And by your logic the fact that you also appear in the same company so regularly must surely mean you're another fictitious trolling character.

---

I don't express the same views, and I don't use the same prose style. I also appear as Feline1 all over the internets and have done so since about 1998.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

My heart bleeds for these poor artists who can't write their own tunes or come up with their own sounds. Why isn't there a smiley for sobbing? I might have to draw a painting of a dove and a teddy crying to express my sadness. (I can't draw very well, though, so perhaps I'll just copy someone else's).

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Life is way too short to pay any attention to anonymous forum posters. How about discussing the topic

---

Sounds good - except that IMHO there appears to be some benefit to identifying those who ( under whatever alias(es) ) frequently and deliberately post misleading info, presumably in an attempt to cause confusion and/or stir things up.

( you guys know who you are )

I find this type of "reputation" info makes it a helluva lot easier to know what weight to attribute to which posts, and therefore my understanding of the topic is improved. Which is nice.

Quote narcoman:

---

rerecording the part isn't saying. they would only be entitled to royalties from a cowrite. You don't need huge legal fees to go for royalties.... You talk to the MCPS and MU. And you use your skills as a negotiator!!! Did the post punk boy go in hardball? If there is a genuine case point me to it..... Ill get the money!!

---

PM sent

I have the same problem.
My album has samples mainly from the 1950s - US ads, US and British TV, film speech samples and David Starkey!!

How do I go about finding out who owns the copyright to get clearance - most were sampled from off-air videos taped in the 80s and 90s?

My experience of samples, work like this...Ann Peebles tiny sample..ask EMI nicely...they wanted 100 percent mechanicals, we said ok and failed to register it. Use your music as an advert and make your money from the gigs. There are so many bandits in the industry, so learn how to be one!

Having just read back this thread, where people who earn no money attack atechngirl (me) I wonder if this is a good forum to be on when you are starting out. Trust nobody and be clever.

Edited by balvenie (24/11/12 11:16 PM)

Quote balvenie:

---

My experience of samples, work like this...Ann Peebles tiny sample..ask EMI nicely...they wanted 100 percent mechanicals, we said ok and failed to register it. Use your music as an advert and make your money from the gigs. There are so many bandits in the industry, so learn how to be one!

Having just read back this thread, where people who earn no money attack atechngirl (me) I wonder if this is a good forum to be on when you are starting out. Trust nobody and be clever.

---

Its clear gigs are where the money is for a lot of artists but I wouldn't worry about being super paranoid. Just get some good people around you (in the real world) who know what they are talking about. And listen to them.

Quote balvenie:

---

My experience of samples, work like this...Ann Peebles tiny sample..ask EMI nicely...they wanted 100 percent mechanicals,

---

I've always found the majors to be a bit crap with the little things - so not surprising really. They somewhat lack vision.

Quote balvenie:

---

we said ok and failed to register it.

---

..pretty much what I did in the past - although not really the right thing to do. Learned the hard way after selling a lot of records with a sample in; it bites very hard once you're noticed (and cost me a lot). I guess its a judgement call for every artist to make on a case by case basis.... the only advice I'd be prepared to put my name to (anonymous or otherwise) is "clear it or don't use it".

Quote balvenie:

---

Use your music as an advert and make your money from the gigs. There are so many bandits in the industry, so learn how to be one!

---

I dunno. Know where you're coming from but fighting fire with fire is hard work - and in the scheme of things its not really a route to money for this simple reason; as soon as there IS money you'll get some variant of legal action (or the threat of some that will never materialise). What WILL happen is the label will get an injunction against the label trading. Then a whole pain in the ass happens and the label will find it's artists not being very friendly anymore. If you're self releasing then you can make your own judgements.

Further - when you deal with the sort of projects I do (or rather my company does) it is very unwise to warrant an uncleared track for use in a movie, advert or video game and take the bucks whilst providing them (the film company with big lawyers and insurance) with an uncleared track. At best it's "pay the damages".

Quote balvenie:

---

Having just read back this thread, where people who earn no money attack atechngirl (me)

---

Most of A-Girls posts were very very useful but were unfortunately over-shadowed by contributions of "you're all too old " or "you don't earn money". Pity really.

Quote balvenie:

---

I wonder if this is a good forum to be on when you are starting out.

---

It's good for novices and experts alike. It's not so good for "grinding axes".

Quote balvenie:

---

Trust nobody and be clever.

---

Be clever - absolutely. Trust no-one? Learn who TO trust is better advice.

Quote narcoman:

---

Quote balvenie:

---

Trust nobody and be clever.

---

Be clever - absolutely. Trust no-one? Learn who TO trust is better advice.

---

That is good advice yes. There are some people who really know their stuff. If you get them on your side it will help a lot. Paranoia and mistrust is not the way forward.

Quote atechnogirl:

---

If you are a label in the underground I would just go ahead and release it, and I can guarantee you won't be in court because they only look for hits and the chance of money. Admittedly, this could happen, so deal with it by disolving the label if need be, but that is extreme and unlikely to happen. Meanwhile, your name is out there and you will be on your way.

---

Unless you're gonna be making serious money, this is the way to go IMO ^

Looking at it from the artistic perspective... if an artist takes cuttings from a newspaper and includes them in a collage (with the words clearly legible still) is he expected to get the authority of the writer of each newspaper article before displaying his work of art? Or just get on with it?

Using anonymous sound samples to create a completely new piece of work is arguably the musical equivalent of the above....depends how much of the original is used.

Using a clearly recognisable sample extensively, or a well known celebrity voice, and basing a piece on that is another matter if it's the main focus. As someone else said, it's a judgement call.

If you make any money, they'll find you

--------------------

Quote GlynB:

---

Quote atechnogirl:

---

If you are a label in the underground I would just go ahead and release it, and I can guarantee you won't be in court because they only look for hits and the chance of money. Admittedly, this could happen, so deal with it by disolving the label if need be, but that is extreme and unlikely to happen. Meanwhile, your name is out there and you will be on your way.

---

Unless you're gonna be making serious money, this is the way to go IMO ^

---

The problem with giving that sort of advice is simple; One is now part of the circle of endorsement and if there is a problem One has entered into liability. It matters not one jot that most will do it that way; but it is an inadvisable thing to enter into print such traceable advice! No hit? No problem... nobody cares.... big hit? uh oh....For your own protection; don't offer advice that flows contra to the law even though you may say different down the pub. Copyright is a hot potato at the moment and sooner or later this WILL smack someone on the butt.

As for "dissolving a label" to get out of liability? Bad advice. You may still be personally liable.

Quote GlynB:

---

Looking at it from the artistic perspective... if an artist takes cuttings from a newspaper and includes them in a collage (with the words clearly legible still) is he expected to get the authority of the writer of each newspaper article before displaying his work of art? Or just get on with it?

---

As a piece of art then that would be up to each individual to complain. To USE said piece of art in a book or in a newspaper - different again. Tricky ground and there isn't a blanket response.

Suffice to say - the advice one may give down the pub is not really the same as putting it in print and the internet counts as print. I may well give very different advice "off the record". A forum is "print" and is used to varying degrees of success to point the finger of accusation.

Quote narcoman:

---

Quote GlynB:

---

Looking at it from the artistic perspective... if an artist takes cuttings from a newspaper and includes them in a collage (with the words clearly legible still) is he expected to get the authority of the writer of each newspaper article before displaying his work of art? Or just get on with it?

---

As a piece of art then that would be up to each individual to complain. To USE said piece of art in a book or in a newspaper - different again. Tricky ground and there isn't a blanket response.

Suffice to say - the advice one may give down the pub is not really the same as putting it in print and the internet counts as print. I may well give very different advice "off the record". A forum is "print" and is used to varying degrees of success to point the finger of accusation.

---

Point taken, especially true following recent events regarding a senior Tory politician!

--------------------