You are here

Sampling and the law

Page 6 of 6

Re: Sampling and the law

PostPosted: Sat Jun 01, 2019 5:39 pm
by Guest
I have just bought "It's One For The Money" by Clinton Heylin. After skimming a few sections I think that possibly the concept of ownership in creative work should be abolished. On the final page he quotes a writer who says that it is the corporate entities that benefit in the end, the individual doesn't stand a chance.

I shall read the book carefully soon.

Re: Sampling and the law

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:12 pm
by Hugh Robjohns
Still Vibrations wrote:I think that possibly the concept of ownership in creative work should be abolished.

I'm intrigued.

If a creative person doesn't own their creations they can't choose to sell them. And if they can't sell them they can't earn an income from them... which means they must rely either upon sponsorship -- corporate or individual -- or the support of the state. Neither of which would probably be welcomed in many cases, even if actually available at all.

... or have I missed something crucial?

Re: Sampling and the law

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:17 pm
by Hugh Robjohns
Still Vibrations wrote:Even water, essential to life, we have to buy from avaricious companies...

No, you really don't have to.

There's nothing at all to stop you going down to your local river with a bucket and helping yourself to as much water as you like, whenever you like. :D

What you're paying the water companies to do is to collect it for you, clean it to make it safe, pipe it to your premises 24/365, and then take away the waste, clean it and recycle it... (you're also paying for their avaricious profits, granted).

H

Re: Sampling and the law

PostPosted: Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:46 pm
by Guest
Hugh Robjohns wrote:
Still Vibrations wrote:Even water, essential to life, we have to buy from avaricious companies...

No, you really don't have to.

There's nothing at all to stop you going down to your local river with a bucket and helping yourself to as much water as you like, whenever you like. :D

Brilliant idea, I only live five minutes walk from the Thames - but there again, on second thoughts . . . .

Re: Sampling and the law

PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:25 am
by N i g e l
Kraftwerk v Sabrina Setlur, 1997 song Nur Mir featuring a rythym loop of Metal on Metal

https://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/ ... in-20-year

link to Nur Mir video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KQLxP-UX_Y

Re: Sampling and the law

PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 1:36 pm
by blinddrew
Well that brings the EU and US broadly in line I guess, but I'm not convinced that it's the best thing for music in general.

Re: Sampling and the law

PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:05 pm
by N i g e l
To me the kraftwerk case is a good example.

They said NO!
The sample is a fairly obvious cut and paste.
The "derivative work" is going in a different direction to that of the original, so no conflict.

and yet its taken 20 years.....either it is or it isnt!

You could say that the 20 years of publicity has been good for the original artists.

How would you engineer the sample out of contention ?
Rendering to MIDI & changing the sounds still leaves the composition intact.
Rearranging the elements of the composition leaves the feel intact...

Its strange how sampling can be verbotten but copying a preset/technique can vary from being No way! to having a half life, to being ok.


Some random thoughts

M1 piano
Chers Believe
The Juno hoover sound
Peter Gabriels Shakuhachi flute sound
Bungalo Bill guitar solo
Strawberry flutes !

Re: Sampling and the law

PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:26 pm
by blinddrew
Not that anyone consulted me, :) , but i think it's a fairly regressive ruling. But at least we now have clarity.
N i g e l wrote:Its strange how sampling can be verbotten but copying a preset/technique can vary from being No way! to having a half life, to being ok.


Some random thoughts

M1 piano
Chers Believe
The Juno hoover sound
Peter Gabriels Shakuhachi flute sound
Bungalo Bill guitar solo
Strawberry flutes !
This is where we get into the mechanics of how copyright works. It exists on the recording and, separately, on the composition.
So you can duplicate/copy/mimic a sound, no matter how distinctive, but as long as it's your creation you're ok. But if you just sample that sound you need a licence.
The copyright on the composition exists separately and (should) just relate to the music as it could be written, not how it sounds once recorded.
This is why the Blurred Lines case was such a terrible ruling.