When is a sample so edited or altered that it is not copyrighted?

Sampler and Sampling discussion (techniques, tips and tricks, etc.)
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

Sorry if this info is readily available or well known: I'm new to sampling.

I bought a Korg Volca Sample. Nice little hobby machine for on your lap and to mess w/ samples. Love it as an introduction into the world of sampling. I'm thinking about uploading to Youtube a tutorial or some stuff that I've created. Problem is that I've used the famous drum break from "Funky Drummer" by James Brown for some of them. I know that it's absolutely impossible and, since the 'De La Soul' debacle in the 80's, illegal to do that.

However, if you chop/slice a copyrighted drum break into samples of the individual "instruments" (i.e. snare drum, bass drum etc.) and make your own drum rhythm is that illegal too?

Also I've got some little snippets from classic drum breaks completely mangled up w/ flanger etc. Almost unrecognizable. Will that bring me into trouble? Is there a way to alter and edit a sample in such a way that it's not illegal anymore? I've seen a documentary (see below) about the Amen break ("Amen Brother" by The Winstons). A lot of people in drum 'n' base/jungle use the sample not directly but copied from another record. They don't even know where it is from, let alone how to pay the royalties. However, during the years the sample got altered so much that it is almost unrecognizable and therefore I cannot imagine anybody in the documentary to get into trouble for using it. Or am I wrong?.

So is there a way to use classic breaks without getting into trouble?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac
Last edited by MeneerJansen on Mon Dec 09, 2019 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post

When is a sample so edited or altered that it is not copyrighted?
Straight answer: it never is! The original recording, even when edited or chopped to 1ms length, remains copyrighted.
if you chop/slice a copyrighted drum break into samples of the individual "instruments" (i.e. snare drum, bass drum etc.) and make your own drum rhythm is that illegal too?
Yes, it is. But rarely acted upon *)

In practice *) : there have to be substantial amounts of money involved before the owner will take the trouble to chase you down. Or google's algorithm will have to find a simularity. So simply don't play the break in solo.

*) this is not legal advice, I am not a lawyer
We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. Image
My MusicCalc is served over https!!

Post

"Never" is correct (with the caveat that after a century or so, the work will no longer be under copyright). If you take an existing sample as your basis, you are creating a derived work. It doesn't matter if it's unrecognisable.

Unrecognisable only factors in to how likely you are to get caught. And getting caught doesn't mean you will be sued either. Copyright is a civil matter, so it is up to the owner of the copyright to initiate proceedings. They are not compelled to.

So just don't do it. It it's so far removed from the original to be unrecognisable, there is no reason to create a derived work in the first place. Why throw yourself into potential legal hot water for no reason whatsoever?

You can however license the original work. That's how you stay legit. However, the copyright on the original work obviously still remains.

Post

I was afraid that the answer would be: "Never." because that makes perfect sense to me. Bummer nonetheless.

Do y'all still make music with legal samples the way Public Enemy did? And if so, where do you get your drum breaks from? From the internet or do you make them yourself? I found a lot of topics here w/ free sample libraries but I can't find a drum break that I really like quick, and you never know if they are really royalty free because you don't know where they came from.

There is a whole section here on KVR on samplers and sampling. Is old school 80's like sampling still a thing or did the classic sampling style die after the lawsuits of the eighties?

Post

MeneerJansen wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 4:49 pm I was afraid that the answer would be: "Never." because that makes perfect sense to me. Bummer nonetheless.

Do y'all still make music with legal samples the way Public Enemy did? And if so, where do you get your drum breaks from? From the internet or do you make them yourself? I found a lot of topics here w/ free sample libraries but I can't find a drum break that I really like quick, and you never know if they are really royalty free because you don't know where they came from.

There is a whole section here on KVR on samplers and sampling. Is old school 80's like sampling still a thing or did the classic sampling style die after the lawsuits of the eighties?
Copyright law and its application in the use of new artworks are not quite as black-and-white as other commenters have claimed. I always like to cite my sources, but art is morally grey. If you significantly alter or transform the original work, you can claim originality under the "Fair Use" doctrine. I have done so in the past, been flagged, and let pass without consequence because I cited the works used, the publisher, and the context. If you fail to creatively transform something (Vanilla Ice) and use it as the basis of a work intended for commercial purposes without seeking license or giving credit, you deserve what you get. Plenty who drove it like they stole it and got away, unfortunately.

That said, the history and development of copyright law heavily favors publishers, and not creators. The argument over sampling and its legitimacy in music was really an argument over the popularity of rap and hip-hop, and laws regarding samples in music were crafted to oppress the hip-hop community. Even if it's doing okay now, don't ever forget the PMRC and Eagle forum, as well as Republicans in general, wielded copyright law as a weapon against a cultural phenomenon. We still feel the fallout of that round of the culture wars, and I consider those who argue in favor of an absolute morality regarding sampling as suffering Stockholm syndrome.

Finally, you can find tons of sample packs on various subscription services. It might be worth your dime and time to get a free trial and see what you like. You can always find alternative means to buy most developer's samples without being beholden to a monthly contract. I feel like I hardly browse the internet without the Googluh throwing up an ad for some sample site.

Post

I’d like to see the bit in Fair Use where crediting sources is sufficient.

really an argument over the popularity of rap and hip-hop, and laws regarding samples in music were crafted to oppress the hip-hop community.

“crafted to oppress...”
bullshit. Taking something that isn’t yours to put your name on it is...
there’s a word for that... wait for it...
Stealing. Cite your source for that, it doesn’t sound like a conspiracy theory at all! Lol

But Art and identity makes for a “moral grey area”.

Post

Wholiveira wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 8:10 pmI consider those who argue in favor of an absolute morality regarding sampling as suffering Stockholm syndrome.
Nice pose, excellent strawman to beat up on. and Stockholm Syndrome no less, not extreme at all!
/sarcasm

”Publishers not creators” excludes a whole middle, the creators who self-publish. if you don’t and expect to thrive in the hell of commerce, well...


I have read Fair Use carefully, and these assertions you make here just aren’t there.

Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair; instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, “transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.

Nature of the copyrighted work: This factor analyzes the degree to which the work that was used relates to copyright’s purpose of encouraging creative expression. Thus, using a more creative or imaginative work (such as a novel, movie, or song) is less likely to support a claim of a fair use than using a factual work (such as a technical article or news item). In addition, use of an unpublished work is less likely to be considered fair.

Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Under this factor, courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. If the use includes a large portion of the copyrighted work, fair use is less likely to be found; if the use employs only a small amount of copyrighted material, fair use is more likely. That said, some courts have found use of an entire work to be fair under certain circumstances. And in other contexts, using even a small amount of a copyrighted work was determined not to be fair because the selection was an important part—or the “heart”—of the work.

Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread.
Last edited by jancivil on Fri Dec 13, 2019 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post

---
Last edited by Chapelle on Sat Oct 07, 2023 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post

I kinda miss the days of finding an old record that no one has sampled and coming up with something original - not that I did a lot of that in the 90s, but it was a thing.

But there's a lot more awareness and it's hard to make the excuse (even if just for your own ethical reasoning) that you didn't know (you could ask, and you did, so too late ;) )

But there are also tons of resources - free and inexpensive - for samples and loops. freesound.org is a good - start field recordings, etc., that often make up great drum tracks when sliced and processed (and each sample has a clear Creative Commons licence so you know where you stand on attribution, etc.) The big players (Splice, Loopmasters) are not that expensive and have enough content that, being creative, you will still sound original. And you'll sleep better at night. :)
Last edited by JoeCat on Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post

As a point of fact, enforcement of copyright per samples was driven by creators suing, not government. Sorry to go this far addressing off the topic but things which just aren’t true were stated like facts.

https://youtu.be/RwR5PcddsIc

The person originating a thing has rights by it.

Post

JoeCat wrote: Fri Dec 13, 2019 8:42 pmfreesound.org is a good start field recordings, etc., that often make up great drum tracks when sliced and processed (and each sample has a clear Creative Commons licence so you know where use stand on attribution, etc.)
Right, hack up a rainstorm, be original

Post

"Be original" :roll: All artists "steal" from other artists in one way or another, it's been that way since the beginning. Nothing is truly original anymore. It's all been done before.

Musicians can be original while still using samples. If you believe otherwise, you evidently lack an open mind. Sampling and especially sample manipulation can be an art form in itself.

Post

Yawn


Much easier to fabricate a strawman to bash (“If you believe otherwise,”)
than deal honestly with what someone actually the fvck wrote isn’t it.

“Sampling and especially sample manipulation can be an art form in itself.”
And a new goalpost appears!

Nothing is original is the perfect excuse. The statement ‘Everything has already been done’ seems to show a really restricted and pedestrian view of things, if not a dearth of authentic intellectual curiosity.

I was affirming grab a field recording to work with and you think only to insult that? Get lost.

Post

Grabbing someone else’s drums record is by definition originating less than one who *drums* out of their own lights.

I like this as much richer than some hackup of Amen
https://youtu.be/4jJJHfL1yQA

For teh DnB

Post

I really go for Varese’s sampling of the factory for this one, ca. 1953, myself.
https://youtu.be/WbpB4RRmRpc

This was original by any useful definition of the term per music, sorry

Post Reply

Return to “Samplers, Sampling & Sample Libraries”