I know some bands like Parliament Funkadelic and James Brown let anyone sample anything they want (way cool). But most (like metallica) get all bitchy when someone samples their shit. They demand cash or make you stop using them (or both). Someone recently told me that the Beastie Boys figured out you can sample anything as long as the sample doesn’t go over a certain time limit (somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 seconds). They used this to their benefit when making “Pauls Boutique”. That classic album has samples on top of samples and they didn’t get permission for any of it.
I can’t confirm the truth of what my friend told me. So, what is the straightdope on this one? How long of a sample is a legal sample?
I’m not sure that the length of the sample would be the only factor to consider. I have a friend who does digital artwork which often incorporates images from other works (photos, text, paintings etc.) in his collages, and apparently the extent to which you can use such material is governed by the principle of reasonable use. This, according to my friend, has much to do with: how far you remove the work from its original context; whether or not the new work is likely to compete with the original in terms of audience, market etc.; what proportion of your new artwork is taken up by the original; and other stuff like that. Apparently this principle governs the arts in general, and i know that (in a slightly different way) it also covers scholarship and the amount of words or sentences that you can quote from an already-published piece witout going cap-in-hand to the publisher.
This doesn’t give a specific answer to your question, i’m afraid. Also, i’m not sure if all the fuss over sampling and other alleged copyright infringements (Napster etc.) have led to more strict definitions within the music business.
There is no set rule about how much sampling is allowed. It’s determined on a case-by-case basis by the courts, assuming that the original artist want to take it to trial in the first place.
Music must be licensed (which is different from copyright). If you play someone’s song, they’re entitled to a payment (handled by ASCAP or BMI). Again, a court would have to rule on a case-by-case basis, but if you’ve taken a recognizable portion of a song, you’ll likely have to pay.
Note that the original artist can’t stop you from recording his song. You don’t need to ask permission. But you do need to make a payment. The Beastie Boys could have taken anything they wanted, but a payment had to be made to ASCAP (their record company probably did it as a few cents on each album sold, and let ASCAP determine who got paid for the samples).
In the movie "Jekyll and Hyde Together Again they use only the first four notes from the “Twilight Zone” theme. The movie credits give the complete “used by permission of” information.
i think when a song says “used by permission of” it means that they have gotten permission from the artist in question to use it without paying royalties, or paying royalties that are less than standard. my solution to all this is to put heavily-sampled songs on the internet for free rather than an album, so then they can’t really sue you if you haven’t made any money.
The problem, i think, is that you don’t have to make mney from it yourself to be sued. I believe that all the plaintiff would need to do is show that people having free access to your music over the internet has denied you the opportunity to make income from sales of your product. This seems to be essentially the argument of metallica et al. against napster - not the fact that someone else is making money from their music (which wasn’t really the case anyway), but the fact they were denied the chance to make money.
I remember reading that one of the legal criteria was whether the resulting sample could be reasonably recognized as the work of the original artist. Jan Hammer was sued by a percussionist for sampling a minute drum pattern. Can’t remember how the case was settled. OTOH, the Verve never made a cent on “Bittersweet Symphony” because they sampled a Stones song where Allan B. Klein (agent/lawyer/capitalist) held the copyright. They never got his copyright clearance and it cost them dearly.
There’s no reason to believe that. It may only mean the performer was asked, but paying royalties is a different issue even if the performer gives permission (he may give permission only if royalties are played).
Sure they can. Making money is irrelevant. They can go after you and bankrupt you, even if you haven’t made a cent.