Sampling, mechanical rights, publishing rights.

[Alley_Dweller]

In this article Cecil says:

To legally sample part of a recording — i.e., digitally re-record it and use it as a component in a new piece of music — you need the permission of two sets of copyright owners: the person — or, more likely, the label — that owns the rights to the recording itself, called the mechanical rights; and the owner of the rights to the underlying composition, or publishing rights, often but not always the songwriters.

That’s not quite right.

What the record label typically owns is called the “master rights.” This refers to the master copy of the recording. If you want to reproduce the contents of the master copy, you must obtain a “master use license.”

The composer of the song originally owns a collection of rights called “publishing rights.” These are typically administered by (or sold to) a music publisher. These rights include public performance rights, synchronization rights, and mechanical rights, among others. Anyone who wants to make a phonorecording of a song, whether it is an original recording or a copy of an existing recording must obtain a mechanical license.

So in order to sample a recording, you need a master use license and a mechanical license.

There’s precedent for this: if I’ve written a song that you want to record, I can’t stop you as long as you comply with certain legal requirements, which include paying a predetermined royalty.

Actually, compulsory licensing does not exist until after an authorized commercial recording has been released. That can include your own recording. So don’t worry, if you write a song and want to be sure that no one records it, you can do that. But once you let some one do it, you open it up to everyone. (This is US law which may or may not be the same as the law elsewhere.)

[John_W.Kennedy]

It goes back to the days when Congress was afraid of a sweetheart deal with ASCAP creating a monopoly in the music-box industry.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

While I wouldn’t say that Cecil got it wrong, I would say that Alley Dweller got it right.

I hope that this link will work for everyone:[

“Sampling” involves taking an existing piece of copyrighted music and combining it with another to create a new work. While sample usage has been especially prevalent in hip-hop and electronic music over the last 30+ years, samples have also been incorporated into other genres and present challenges in every scenario. Sample clearances are more complicated than cover songs since they can involve two separate copyrighted works (the music composition and the sound recording), multiple rights-holders, and are always subject to negotiation.

For instance, if you want to sample the synth line from Van Halen’s “Jump”, you would need to secure licenses from the record label (for the master), as well as the music publisher (for the underlying musical composition).

If you decided to re-create the synth part yourself as a music bed, it would still require negotiating directly with the music publisher (if they didn’t decide to reject the use entirely). Unlike a mechanical license, sample usage is not governed by a compulsory license and requires directly negotiating with all parties. The cost can range from cheap (gratis) to costly depending on the sample(s) being used. Without licensing from the appropriate copyright owners, you are liable for copyright infringement and can be sued for substantial sums of money.

Record labels and music publishers alike have in-house licensing contacts who handle such requests (some even having online forms). There are several agents and legal consultants who specialize in sample clearance and can assist if you choose to hire one.

](https://www.ascap.com/playback/2011/01/features/limelight.aspx)