When is a sample so edited or altered that it is not copyrighted?
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 42 posts since 10 Sep, 2019
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
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.
- KVRAF
- 15206 posts since 8 Mar, 2005 from Utrecht, Holland
Straight answer: it never is! The original recording, even when edited or chopped to 1ms length, remains copyrighted.When is a sample so edited or altered that it is not copyrighted?
Yes, it is. But rarely acted upon *)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?
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.
My MusicCalc is served over https!!
My MusicCalc is served over https!!
-
- KVRAF
- 2362 posts since 17 Apr, 2004
"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.
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.
Voted KVR's resident drunk Robert Smith impersonator (thanks Frantz!)
https://open.spotify.com/artist/2myYesRBRgQB3LkZzEYdt5 | https://soundcloud.com/steevm/
https://open.spotify.com/artist/2myYesRBRgQB3LkZzEYdt5 | https://soundcloud.com/steevm/
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 42 posts since 10 Sep, 2019
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?
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?
-
- Banned
- 41 posts since 16 Mar, 2015
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.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?
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.
- KVRAF
- 25051 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
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”.
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”.
- KVRAF
- 25051 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
Nice pose, excellent strawman to beat up on. and Stockholm Syndrome no less, not extreme at all!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.
/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.
- KVRAF
- 1569 posts since 19 May, 2011 from North Carolina
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.
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.
- KVRAF
- 25051 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
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.
https://youtu.be/RwR5PcddsIc
The person originating a thing has rights by it.
- KVRAF
- 25051 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
Right, hack up a rainstorm, be original
- KVRAF
- 2772 posts since 22 May, 2017
"Be original" 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.
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.
- KVRAF
- 25051 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
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.
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.
- KVRAF
- 25051 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
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
I like this as much richer than some hackup of Amen
https://youtu.be/4jJJHfL1yQA
For teh DnB
- KVRAF
- 25051 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
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
https://youtu.be/WbpB4RRmRpc
This was original by any useful definition of the term per music, sorry