| Author | Message | ||
  Garo (gary_james) 3-Pundit Username: gary_james Post Number: 33 Registered: 5-2004 Posted From: 68.162.73.160 |
Today, I heard the song which sampled Hall & Oates' "I Can't Go For That" for the entire rhythm and backround, and it made me wonder. Who okays the use of the song being sampled and does the Producer, Composer, and Artist have any say? Who is involved in working with the master and re-working it for the sample and Is the original Producer involved? Finally, is payment made to the original parties the same as if the song had been covered by the new artist? How are the royalties paid and to whom? | ||
Charise (mistrivia1) 6-Zenith Username: mistrivia1 Post Number: 543 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 198.81.26.46 |
Garo, what song was that?? | ||
Garo (gary_james) 3-Pundit Username: gary_james Post Number: 34 Registered: 5-2004 Posted From: 68.162.73.160 |
Charise, Don't know the name of the song or artist, but I heard Darryl Hall make reference to it at an appearance-- could have been the A & E live request show. | ||
Juicefree20 (juicefree20) 6-Zenith Username: juicefree20 Post Number: 2253 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 24.46.184.162 |
The only song that I remember that used I Can't Go For That for an extended period was De La Souls 1989 Rap classic "Say No Go". | ||
Gil (gil) 4-Laureate Username: gil Post Number: 134 Registered: 5-2004 Posted From: 68.223.16.2 |
Simply Red's last hit song was based entirely on "I Can't Go For That (No Can Do)". I think it was called "Sunrise". (Message edited by gil on September 06, 2004) | ||
Eli (phillysoulman) 6-Zenith Username: phillysoulman Post Number: 1549 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 205.188.116.138 |
Gary, The issuing record company is 'suposed' to request a mechanical license from the publisher(s)) of the composition based on an agreed upon rate based on the length and content of the sample, the rate being anywhere from 25% to 100% depending on the publisher's whim. 75% is a common usage amount. The song's performing right's organization, BMI, ASCAP etc., is also notified of the new usage and a new clearance form is isued based on the title of the "new song" which includes the sample, which inclues the name(s) of the new writer(s and pub(s)) on the song's credits.. | ||
Gil (gil) 4-Laureate Username: gil Post Number: 135 Registered: 5-2004 Posted From: 68.223.16.2 |
Good job Eli, I was just trying to type what you just said, and make it coherent. I guess that's why you're the professional!! | ||
Eli (phillysoulman) 6-Zenith Username: phillysoulman Post Number: 1550 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 205.188.116.138 |
Thanks Gil!! | ||
dvdmike (dvdmike) 5-Doyen Username: dvdmike Post Number: 351 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 65.208.234.85 |
I think a lot of people get confused about what sampling means. Sampling means to "sample", to use bits and pieces of a previously recorded track, not to use the entire track, which is what a lot of rappers and hip-hoppers do. It may sound somewhat harsh, but you will never establish your own identity by "stealing" someone else's music, | ||
Eli (phillysoulman) 6-Zenith Username: phillysoulman Post Number: 1556 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 64.12.116.138 |
Well put M.T!!! I have no respect for felons and knuckleheads. If rappers would use their "message" to spread a positive message to their community, then and only then would I have respect for the genre. Most rappers/ hip hoppers have a short "fifteen minutes" because of various extenuating circumstances including the consumers' attention span that of an ant. Most spend their money just as soon as they get it, and at the end of the day have nothing to show for it. | ||
soulseeker (soulseeker) 4-Laureate Username: soulseeker Post Number: 106 Registered: 7-2004 Posted From: 192.94.3.10 |
Okay, Funny story here. Will Smith and his song Men in Black used Patrice Rushen's Forget Me Nots. Patrice said in an interview that she got a letter in the mail stating that Will Smith was going to use a "small snippet of her song". With the letter was Smith's song and a check for $500.00 with a release. She said she listened to the song and exclaimed, "Thats not part of my song thats the whole song!" She said she immediately contacted Smith's people and negotiated a lot more for the use of her song than the $500.00 they initially offered her. Her point was, that some of these production companies (or whoever) will try anything on a songwriter in hopes they can get by without paying too much. I don't know how they thought they could get over on Patrice Rushen like that. | ||
Fred (fred) 3-Pundit Username: fred Post Number: 56 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 152.163.252.200 |
Bobby, Keep in mind that getting a license from the song publisher is only half the work necessary for a sample. You must also get a license from the copyright holder for the recording you are sampling. Depending on how prominent the sound sample is, the cost of this license can range from the nominal for a fairly "anonymous" beat to the substantial for a sample using a major rhythmic or melodic component of the original recording (think MC Hammer's use of "Super Freak" here.) Because sampling is covered by license, the split of licensing fees between the copyright owner label and the sampled artist is usually covered by the original artist's recording contract. 50/50 is the current standard. For older material, recorded when contracts didn't cover sampling, it is pretty much catch-as-catch-can for the original artist. On the basis of the number of times he's been sampled, Clyde Stubblefield should be a rich man. The fact that he isn't should give you some idea how the system works. | ||
Eli (phillysoulman) 6-Zenith Username: phillysoulman Post Number: 1559 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.236.1.211 |
I hear ya, Fred. Thats absolutely right! | ||
Chi Drummer (chidrummer) 4-Laureate Username: chidrummer Post Number: 147 Registered: 5-2004 Posted From: 67.173.136.166 |
Fred, Your last statement brings up an interesting question. Since it is the drum break of Funky Drummer that's been used so much and not a significant part of the tune, who should legally receive compensation for its use. Should it be Clyde, James Brown or the copywright holder (assuming JB isn't). I think morally, JB & Clyde should probably split the income 50/50, but I have a feeling you're going to tell me it doesn't work that way. | ||
Eli (phillysoulman) 6-Zenith Username: phillysoulman Post Number: 1567 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.163.50.48 |
Its always the publisher and copyright owner. If Clyde and James are the owners, than they get the money. I have a feeling that its only James who owns the copyright. It doesnt matter if its a drum break, bass break, vocal break of anti lock brakes, thats just the breaks and thats my take for goodness sakes!! | ||
Chi Drummer (chidrummer) 4-Laureate Username: chidrummer Post Number: 148 Registered: 5-2004 Posted From: 67.173.136.166 |
Thanks for the breakdown, phillysoulman No one can tell it like you can Now that I've got the info & got it right I'm goin' home to learn how to spell copyright!! | ||
Eli (phillysoulman) 6-Zenith Username: phillysoulman Post Number: 1569 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 68.163.50.48 |
Hi Chi.. Its Copy RIGHT, as it pertains to the RIGHTS of the works. I despise it when people say "I have got to get my song copyWRITTEN!! The correct term is copyRIGHTED! (Message edited by phillysoulman on September 08, 2004) | ||
Fred (fred) 3-Pundit Username: fred Post Number: 57 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 149.174.164.24 |
James Brown is shown as the sole songwriter on Funky Drummer. Stubblefield doesn't get any songwriter's share of the mechanical license on the composition. Publishing is held by Golo Publishing, which was a Brown company, but is now held by Warner/Chappell, so he's out of the money on that side, too. Funky Drummer was originally recorded for King. Brown's King catalog was sold to Polydor, which eventually became part of Universal. Universal now holds the copyright to the recording. Thanks to Syd Nathan's unusual business practices, few King/Federal recording contracts have ever been seen since they day they were supposedly signed, including the one under which Funky Drummer was recorded. An earlier Brown-King contract was produced in court at the time of King's suit against Smash Records (when Brown attempted to jump labels). On that contract, Brown was the only royalty artist named. It can be pretty well assumed that this arrangement existed with later contracts. Under these circumstances, Stubblefield worked strictly as a sideman and his only compensation for his contribution to Funky Drummer would have been his session fee. If there was a separate session contract for that studio date (it is highly doubtful there ever were session agreements signed), it would have made it expressly clear that Stubblefield was "working-for-hire," which means he retained no ownership rights of any kind in his performance. Legally, only Universal and Brown have a right to share in the fees generated by the licensing of the 20 second drum break in Funky Drummer. There was some talk a couple years ago of Stubblefield and Jab'o Starks doing a CD of their signature JBs breaks to compete with the original recordings for sampling uses, but I don't know if anything ever came from it. | ||
Chi Drummer (chidrummer) 4-Laureate Username: chidrummer Post Number: 150 Registered: 5-2004 Posted From: 68.78.46.1 |
Thank again Fred, I knew you would have the definitive answer. My apologies Eli, I had a brain fart and my fingers got ahead my thoughts. Of course, sometimes I just can't spell.  | ||
Fred (fred) 3-Pundit Username: fred Post Number: 58 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 64.12.116.138 |
There is a new ruling today from the Federal 6th Circuit that, in essence, says that sampling even one note or chord requires a license. The case involved a three chord sample of a George Clinton record. The ruling expressly says "Get a license or do not sample." Here's the NY Time article, which requires registration (free): http://www.nytimes.com/aponlin e/arts/AP-Music-Sampling-Lawsu it.html | ||
soulseeker (soulseeker) 4-Laureate Username: soulseeker Post Number: 109 Registered: 7-2004 Posted From: 192.94.3.10 |
A little more on the ruling: "To begin with, there is ease of enforcement. Get a license or do not sample. We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way. It must be remembered that if an artist wants to incorporate a "riff" from another work in his or her recording, he is free to duplicate the sound of that "riff" in the studio. Second, the market will control the license price and keep it within bounds. The sound recording copyright holder cannot exact a license fee greater than what it would cost the person seeking the license to just duplicate the sample in the course of making the new recording. Third, sampling is never accidental. It is not like the case of a composer who has a melody in his head, perhaps not even realizing that the reason he hears this melody is that it is the work of another which he had heard before. When you sample a sound recording you know you are taking another's work product." Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 2004 FED App. 0297P (6th Cir.) This was a very well thought out opinion. Now my question is whether other or not other courts will follow this reasoning. | ||
Fred (fred) 3-Pundit Username: fred Post Number: 59 Registered: 4-2004 Posted From: 64.12.116.138 |
There is one troubling flaw in the new Bridgeport decision; it doesn't provide for fair use as a defense, and doesn't even acknowledge that the defense exists. Admittedly this isn't going to be a problem with the great majority of sampling cases, but it is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which a justification can be made that the sample is used for purposes of "comment and criticism" of the original use, especially in an intentional parody or satire of the original. If the decision becomes the generally applied standard, use in comment or criticism becomes moot; all samples are infringements unless licensed. Under the new ruling (which, from what I have heard locally, is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court), the 1st Amendment gets trumped by copyright. I don't consider this a good thing. | ||
soulseeker (soulseeker) 4-Laureate Username: soulseeker Post Number: 111 Registered: 7-2004 Posted From: 192.94.3.10 |
Fred, the issue wasn't raised as a defense at the trial level nor was it raised on appeal. So I'm thinking thats why it wasn't addressed. Also, they make reference to licensing as the normal route one would take to use copyrighted sound recordings so I'm assuming that fair use wasn't even applicable. Its odd since they are creating a new rule and are trying to establish a "bright line for sampling of sound recordings" one would assume they would leave no stone unturned in keeping their ruling intact. Also, they make it a point to say that the trial court used the wrong standard in determining what constitutes infringement of a sound recording. The trial court used the standard applied in musical composition infringement cases. The parties used deminimus copying as a defense which I believe can be one of the factors used to determine if use of copyrighted material is a fair use or not. I don't know. I'll sure stay tuned because this is an interesting ruling. Geez there are 800 pending cases with this same issue I think. The Supreme Court will definitely need to review this decision imo. | ||
Vickie (vickie) 4-Laureate Username: vickie Post Number: 96 Registered: 3-2004 Posted From: 64.236.243.31 |
I recently heard some club mixes of some of the Motown classics.. I actually like it a lot...they didn't mess with the vocals... |
