anyone ever worry about uncredited/uncleared sampling?

Home :: Producer tips and DAW information :: anyone ever worry about uncredited/uncleared sampling?Reply
anyone ever worry about uncredited/uncleared sampling?
Posted on: 28.02.2013 by Pam Stolley
Hector El Father, the reggaeton artist who's track was sampled for Harlem Shake, says he's considering legal action.

am i right in assuming it's pretty much the culture of electronic music to use samples without crediting them? i see way more instances of this than the reverse. even at the "bigger" labels.

TONS of producers have gotten away with this.

the reason is usually "i didn't expect this track to ever blow up". i totally understand that. dance music labels usually don't make enough money to clear samples. but once the song blows up, shouldn't you clear the sample? i'm surprised mad decent hasn't done it yet. harlem shake is way too big right now.

everyone seems ok with sampling sounds though. laidback luke recommends this when he critiques tracks on his community . he says it's better because those sounds have been mastered perfectly for the club. then i was reading oliver money's interview with little white earbuds about doin' ya thang he said everybody "steals" his sounds. as if to say if he had the money to get those songs taken off the market, he would.
Charise Tjelmeland
08.03.2013
Originally Posted by TCMuc
So you're using an example of a sample that didn't make it onto the final releases (probably because of clearing issues..) but can be found on the demo version, that got leaked to the web by the artist, who obviously is anti intellectual property, to prove your point that "many big name artists get away with using uncleared samples on their releases"?
That one was an example of big name artists using samples like that in the first place. As for someone else's comments on when copyright ends, in this case a clockwork orange was released in 1971 and renewed in 1999. If after 10 years purchasing the rights is so much cheaper, and pretty hate machine which came out in 1989, 18 years after clockwork orange was released, Why didn't they buy the licensing for it if it would have been so cheap? The answer is various copyright extension acts which also revise copyright law.

There is a maximum term to which a copyright can be renewed for, and things like the sonny bono copyright term extension act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Not only extended how long before things enter public domain (Free and public use) but also extended how long copyrights can be renewed for, What the definitions of said intellectual properties may be, such as specific rhythms, and finally made the legal system regarding copyright a gigantic mess of international treaties, that average joe can't navigate.

(no that wasn't just aimed at one person)
Originally Posted by TCMuc
Again, how is the story of a track that had to be re-recorded without the sample supposed to back up your argument of artists getting away with releasing track that contain uncleared samples?
the KMFDM song was an example of a big artist who released an album with uncleared samples to a rather large label, and got away with it for a time before being caught. They had to recall the album, then had to re-record and re-release the album with a different track after the fact.

Originally Posted by TCMuc
First of all, intellectual property isn't about morals but about laws and regulations.. But I know what you mean.

Got one of those sample packs myself, that contains loops that seem to be from old disco records...


One last provocative question: could it be you're fighting so hard for your point because if using uncleared samples really wasn't that big of a deal (like you're implying), that problem of yours would just vanish into thin air?
No, that's actually not the case. My problem of deleting my drums isn't that big of a deal or concern, and I'm still going to be making new drums even if copyright law changed. The reason I'm so against the way copyright and intellectual properties currently work under law... I don't even know how to explain it, other than the current setup destroying the ability of people to be creative. I'll just link to something that explains it better.

http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/
Nikole Resende
08.03.2013
Originally Posted by Milest3hr4t
it's impossible to know 100% for sure if a sample has or hasn't been cleared on a major label unless you are
That was basically part of my point. Still you act like you knew...

Here's another example of uncleared sampling.
Every occurrence of the amen break, or funky drummer.
I have to give you credit for the amen break samples. I even saw a documentary once that mentioned how the whole sampling thing got out of hand with that break.

Still, it's not "another" example, but the first valid one you gave us.

Just because there are no liner notes on daft punk or prodigy or someone else's releases doesn't mean the samples haven't been properly cleared.







-Nine Inch Nails
Album : Purest Feeling - (the demo tape that became Pretty hate machine) The whole album samples all kinds of movies, but one notable one that I recognized right off...
Track : Twist (AKA Ringfinter) towards the start of the song... all the screaming/screeching is that sample pitchbent and distorted, but it plays much more clearly at different points.
Sample - Malcom Mcdowell, screaming in "A Clockwork Orange" (the scene with the eyedrops and the films)
I know it isn't cleared because as far as I can tell it wasn't in the actual album release (unless it's in the sounds at the end of the album version)
-However The demo tape is available online for free, and trent himself posted it, which means, Unlicensed samples... everywhere.
Whenever trent samples now, he not only has the money, but would pay for the sample rights, but he also encourages his fans to pirate and steal his music, so I'm pretty sure the RIAA hates him.
So you're using an example of a sample that didn't make it onto the final releases (probably because of clearing issues..) but can be found on the demo version, that got leaked to the web by the artist, who obviously is anti intellectual property, to prove your point that "many big name artists get away with using uncleared samples on their releases"?


-KMFDM
Liebeslied / Leibesleid (One translates as 'lovesong' the other as "physical suffering")
Sampled carl Orff's O Fortuna. from Carmina Burana
Legal action was threatened (despite it being a sample from the 1930's). the album was re-recorded without the sample, and the track was renamed from 'lovesong' to 'physical suffering' by just reversing a few letters.
Again, how is the story of a track that had to be re-recorded without the sample supposed to back up your argument of artists getting away with releasing track that contain uncleared samples?


The thing that worries me about 'uncleared samples' are when people release free sample packs, and I don't know if they actually made the samples, or if they actually sampled them from something and distributed it, like 'nah, it's fine'. I'm getting to the point where I might have to delete 80% of my drum-loops because of this. as it stands from this point on I believe i'm going to be making all my drums from scratch now, Just in case... It's also kind of why I joined this community . So far my only communication with other musicians has been going on /mu/ on 4chan, and their morals and ethics are... questionable at best.

First of all, intellectual property isn't about morals but about laws and regulations.. But I know what you mean.

Got one of those sample packs myself, that contains loops that seem to be from old disco records...


One last provocative question: could it be you're fighting so hard for your point because if using uncleared samples really wasn't that big of a deal (like you're implying), that problem of yours would just vanish into thin air?
Libbie Orion
07.03.2013
Originally Posted by Milest3hr4t
Here's another example of uncleared sampling.
Every occurrence of the amen break, or funky drummer.
actually samples like those are well past their year mark for licensing so at this point its easy to use them
and just as easy to get licensing to use them
For example
a few years ago you would have hear a TON of new songs come up with, or just remixes of Personal Jesus from Depeche Mode.
They only had a 10 year mark on the usage license for the song and a longer one for the album it came out on.

Once the license terms.... a song can go for pennies.

If you wanted to use it DURING the initial 10 years of its release date, it would have been a $10,000 licensing fee + additional costs.

the samples you are talking about no longer fall under that stipulation.

--------------------Milest3hr4t the following is for the thread. It is NOT directed at you--------------------
I believe the bottom line here is there are MANY people reading this thread and some responding to it who are under the guise of "things they heard, or interpret to believe" And thats fine. No one is going to knock you if you are giving the information you were given, or the limit to what you were exposed to.
All well and good but, please be accepting of the facts you end up recieving from others here, who HAVE had to deal with
actually taking time to look deeper into the legalities behind things like this.
Charise Tjelmeland
06.03.2013
Originally Posted by TCMuc
Do you have any prove of that? Can you name any specific artits/tracks/labels? Do you have any insight into "bigger" labels licensing practice we don't have? Because I highly doubt what you're saying is correct...
Oh man... This is just off the top of my head and it's daft punk and the prodigy. I don't believe it's possible for anyone who does ANYTHING with ANY electronic music to not know who either of these are, so I don't believe you can get much bigger than that.





---Edit
As for more recent stuff, I'm not to sure off hand, But I can go through and find more on youtube all day long.
Ervin Calvery
06.03.2013
Originally Posted by Milest3hr4t
That is up to the interpretation of a jury, and who is more persuasive, *if* it ever came up.
Fighting the RIAA or similar is expensive, even if you win.

Originally Posted by Milest3hr4t
I'm not talking about straight sampling, I'm talking about cutting up and re-arranging.
This doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by Milest3hr4t
As for not being legal to release it for free, Wouldn't that be covered under fair use?
LOL No!
Nikole Resende
06.03.2013
Originally Posted by antifmradio
Even as an internet radio station, i need to carry a Mechanical Use license / and / a performance license just to broadcast these major dj mixes as well as the mixes from djs i know personally because some of them are recorded or streaming LIVE as they happen.
And they contain 99% commercially licensed, typewritten music.

Just wanted to add that because you mentioned DJ MIXES for promotional use

100% correct!

I guess the monitoring should even be much closer for internet radio stations than for e.g. people who upload their mixes to their private soundcloud account.

Probably because radio stations are more likely to be of 'commercial nature'...
Libbie Orion
06.03.2013
Originally Posted by TCMuc
If you just want to use it for promotional purposes go ahead, but be aware that it's not legal and be cautious.
Even as an internet radio station, i need to carry a Mechanical Use license / and / a performance license just to broadcast these major dj mixes as well as the mixes from djs i know personally because some of them are recorded or streaming LIVE as they happen.
And they contain 99% commercially licensed, typewritten music.

Just wanted to add that because you mentioned DJ MIXES for promotional use
Nikole Resende
06.03.2013
Originally Posted by bluegrassdj
am i right in assuming it's pretty much the culture of electronic music to use samples without crediting them? i see way more instances of this than the reverse. even at the "bigger" labels.

TONS of producers have gotten away with this.
Do you have any prove of that? Can you name any specific artits/tracks/labels? Dou you have any insight into "bigger" labels licensing practice we don't have? Because I highly doubt what you're saying is correct...

the reason is usually "i didn't expect this track to ever blow up". i totally understand that. dance music labels usually don't make enough money to clear samples. but once the song blows up, shouldn't you clear the sample?
If you're planning to commercially release a track you should clear the samples right at the beginning. If you wait until it blows up it's too late. This would give the rights owner pretty strong leverage against you, as he could not only sue you for money, but also demand you take the track off the market. Even if he agrees not to sue you or take any other legal action but give you a license, the price will probably be much higher than before the track went big.
Besides: if you don't believe a track will generate sufficient sales to pay for the license, maybe it isn't really worth being released at all...?
(I don't want to imply that you should use uncleared samples in non-commercial releases, btw...

everyone seems ok with sampling sounds though. laidback luke recommends this when he critiques tracks on his community . he says it's better because those sounds have been mastered perfectly for the club. then i was reading oliver money's interview with little white earbuds about doin' ya thang he said everybody "steals" his sounds. as if to say if he had the money to get those songs taken off the market, he would.
I'm almost shocked he says stuff like that... What is he going to do if any of the members of his community follows his advice and gets sued - pay the fines?

Originally Posted by Milest3hr4t
I used to worry about un-credited/uncleared samples. There's an easy way in my opinion to get around this.

If you sampled something, just release it for free. In anything else, make your own sounds.
-->

Originally Posted by botstein
This doesn't make it legal.
^^THIS!!

The legal status of a track containing uncleared samples is similar to that of a DJ mix, in which you use other people's tracks without holding the rights to them.

This can easily be understood when looking at e.g. soundcloud's terms & conditions, which clearly state that, if you don't hold the rights to every single bit of your track/mix, you're not allowed to upload (i.e. publish) it.

The term 'publish' includes all of the following forms: commercial release, free download, stream (!). Yes, you read right, legally you're not even allowed to have tracks that contain uncleared samples on your soundcloud page, even if the download option is disabled...

(Of course the probability that someone will come after you is higher for downloads and highest for commercial releases)



Generally I would say, that using uncleared samples is kind of a grey area, like DJ mixes. It's not legal, but chances are you won't get in too much trouble, even if someone finds out.

Chances of getting in trouble are higher if you 'escalate' the level of distribution by making it downloadable.



So my advice would be: if you want to release a track commercially, clear the samples!

If you just want to use it for promotional purposes go ahead, but be aware that it's not legal and be cautious.
Marcella House
17.04.2013		TL; DR. If you have sampled copyrighted work without a license, that is LIKELY illegal under U.S. law. Sampling MIGHT be legal if you (1) sampled a very small portion of a song that would not be recognized by an average person; and (2) you're not before the Sixth Circuit.

DISCLAIMER: This post only applies to U.S. law. I do not know how other jurisdictions work.

Generally speaking, it is illegal to "publish" unlicensed samples. The act of "publishing" includes uploading your song to a Soundcloud page. This is true regardless of whether the song is downloadable for free or whether it is downloadable at all.

HOWEVER, there are various defenses to claims of copyright infringement. The most common defense is the "fair use provision."

FAIR USE AS IT APPLIES TO SAMPLING

Like many legal provisions, the "fair use provision" in the U.S. copyright statute is ambiguous. While I believe the fair use provision will eventually be extended to protect more than it does now, below is the CURRENT state of U.S. law:

In 2005, the Sixth Circuit ruled that sampling ANY portion of a work is illegal, regardless of the length of the sample or any alterations made to that sample. This case has not been overruled.

HOWEVER, other jurisdictions have rejected the Sixth Circuit's approach. These courts hold that if there is no "substantial similarity" between the two songs, no copyright infringement has occurred. The test for "substantial similarity" is whether "an average lay observer" would recognize the sample as being taken from the sampled song. So, if you sample the vocals from a Justin Bieber song--that's not protected by the fair use provision. The average person would recognize the Bieb's vocals. But if you sampled a one-second chord from a 1970s funk song, you're probably okay. The average person isn't going to recognize that a specific C9 guitar chord from a certain recording.

Hope this helps!
Brunilda Kora
17.04.2013		Listen, if you're ever BIG/FAMOUS enough to be chased for un-cleared smaples you will be OVERJOYED that you used those un-cleared samples!!!!
Starla Lansdon
17.04.2013		THIS probably belongs here
Libbie Orion
28.03.2013		thanks TCMuc.
This is something i keep pointing out to many djs and small prducers i meet who ask me the same question over and over again

its started in 2008 when i had a group meeting with some djs and one asked me about production.
They said "But if i did a REMIX or a MASHUP" i am doing the work and re-creating the song so why cant i use the samples i find.
And i replied
It doesnt matter the length, quality, or alteration to the sample, the only thing that matters is the original sound, and thats the START of the samples life. Someone else created it and you are STILL using it. Even though its not finalized in its original form, its been altered and thats what you are NOT allowed to do unless you have i t cleared / permitted.

Then he / they always say "Well im not trying to make any money on it, i dont even want to sell it"
my reply is:
It doesnt matter WHAT you want to do with it in the end. You need to pay attention to exactly what i am saying "You need to clear it before you can USE it"
Nikole Resende
28.03.2013		Short update about possible consequences of using uncleared samples...

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/perm.../20130311shake
Estella Waber
09.03.2013		Do i worry about uncredited/uncleared sampling?

Nope.
I make sure my samples are either cleared, or manipulated in such a way as to be incomparable to the original.
Charise Tjelmeland
08.03.2013
Originally Posted by TCMuc
So you're using an example of a sample that didn't make it onto the final releases (probably because of clearing issues..) but can be found on the demo version, that got leaked to the web by the artist, who obviously is anti intellectual property, to prove your point that "many big name artists get away with using uncleared samples on their releases"?
That one was an example of big name artists using samples like that in the first place. As for someone else's comments on when copyright ends, in this case a clockwork orange was released in 1971 and renewed in 1999. If after 10 years purchasing the rights is so much cheaper, and pretty hate machine which came out in 1989, 18 years after clockwork orange was released, Why didn't they buy the licensing for it if it would have been so cheap? The answer is various copyright extension acts which also revise copyright law.

There is a maximum term to which a copyright can be renewed for, and things like the sonny bono copyright term extension act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Not only extended how long before things enter public domain (Free and public use) but also extended how long copyrights can be renewed for, What the definitions of said intellectual properties may be, such as specific rhythms, and finally made the legal system regarding copyright a gigantic mess of international treaties, that average joe can't navigate.

(no that wasn't just aimed at one person)
Originally Posted by TCMuc
Again, how is the story of a track that had to be re-recorded without the sample supposed to back up your argument of artists getting away with releasing track that contain uncleared samples?
the KMFDM song was an example of a big artist who released an album with uncleared samples to a rather large label, and got away with it for a time before being caught. They had to recall the album, then had to re-record and re-release the album with a different track after the fact.

Originally Posted by TCMuc
First of all, intellectual property isn't about morals but about laws and regulations.. But I know what you mean.

Got one of those sample packs myself, that contains loops that seem to be from old disco records...


One last provocative question: could it be you're fighting so hard for your point because if using uncleared samples really wasn't that big of a deal (like you're implying), that problem of yours would just vanish into thin air?
No, that's actually not the case. My problem of deleting my drums isn't that big of a deal or concern, and I'm still going to be making new drums even if copyright law changed. The reason I'm so against the way copyright and intellectual properties currently work under law... I don't even know how to explain it, other than the current setup destroying the ability of people to be creative. I'll just link to something that explains it better.

http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/
Nikole Resende
08.03.2013
Originally Posted by Milest3hr4t
it's impossible to know 100% for sure if a sample has or hasn't been cleared on a major label unless you are
That was basically part of my point. Still you act like you knew...

Here's another example of uncleared sampling.
Every occurrence of the amen break, or funky drummer.
I have to give you credit for the amen break samples. I even saw a documentary once that mentioned how the whole sampling thing got out of hand with that break.

Still, it's not "another" example, but the first valid one you gave us.

Just because there are no liner notes on daft punk or prodigy or someone else's releases doesn't mean the samples haven't been properly cleared.







-Nine Inch Nails
Album : Purest Feeling - (the demo tape that became Pretty hate machine) The whole album samples all kinds of movies, but one notable one that I recognized right off...
Track : Twist (AKA Ringfinter) towards the start of the song... all the screaming/screeching is that sample pitchbent and distorted, but it plays much more clearly at different points.
Sample - Malcom Mcdowell, screaming in "A Clockwork Orange" (the scene with the eyedrops and the films)
I know it isn't cleared because as far as I can tell it wasn't in the actual album release (unless it's in the sounds at the end of the album version)
-However The demo tape is available online for free, and trent himself posted it, which means, Unlicensed samples... everywhere.
Whenever trent samples now, he not only has the money, but would pay for the sample rights, but he also encourages his fans to pirate and steal his music, so I'm pretty sure the RIAA hates him.
So you're using an example of a sample that didn't make it onto the final releases (probably because of clearing issues..) but can be found on the demo version, that got leaked to the web by the artist, who obviously is anti intellectual property, to prove your point that "many big name artists get away with using uncleared samples on their releases"?


-KMFDM
Liebeslied / Leibesleid (One translates as 'lovesong' the other as "physical suffering")
Sampled carl Orff's O Fortuna. from Carmina Burana
Legal action was threatened (despite it being a sample from the 1930's). the album was re-recorded without the sample, and the track was renamed from 'lovesong' to 'physical suffering' by just reversing a few letters.
Again, how is the story of a track that had to be re-recorded without the sample supposed to back up your argument of artists getting away with releasing track that contain uncleared samples?


The thing that worries me about 'uncleared samples' are when people release free sample packs, and I don't know if they actually made the samples, or if they actually sampled them from something and distributed it, like 'nah, it's fine'. I'm getting to the point where I might have to delete 80% of my drum-loops because of this. as it stands from this point on I believe i'm going to be making all my drums from scratch now, Just in case... It's also kind of why I joined this community . So far my only communication with other musicians has been going on /mu/ on 4chan, and their morals and ethics are... questionable at best.

First of all, intellectual property isn't about morals but about laws and regulations.. But I know what you mean.

Got one of those sample packs myself, that contains loops that seem to be from old disco records...


One last provocative question: could it be you're fighting so hard for your point because if using uncleared samples really wasn't that big of a deal (like you're implying), that problem of yours would just vanish into thin air?
Libbie Orion
07.03.2013		Milest3hr4t you mentioned possibly worrying about your drum loops that you use and release on songs you create
Those dont fall under the same clause because anyone could have created the same loops.
The fine line however is that the creator you got it from only asks that you credit them in the release.
Also noted by the creator is that you are not allowed to SELL the loops in any way either. For example
you cant give them away for money
nor
can you allow some type of ACCESS VIA PAY ONLY MEMBERS either.
Libbie Orion
07.03.2013
Originally Posted by Milest3hr4t
Here's another example of uncleared sampling.
Every occurrence of the amen break, or funky drummer.
actually samples like those are well past their year mark for licensing so at this point its easy to use them
and just as easy to get licensing to use them
For example
a few years ago you would have hear a TON of new songs come up with, or just remixes of Personal Jesus from Depeche Mode.
They only had a 10 year mark on the usage license for the song and a longer one for the album it came out on.

Once the license terms.... a song can go for pennies.

If you wanted to use it DURING the initial 10 years of its release date, it would have been a $10,000 licensing fee + additional costs.

the samples you are talking about no longer fall under that stipulation.

--------------------Milest3hr4t the following is for the thread. It is NOT directed at you--------------------
I believe the bottom line here is there are MANY people reading this thread and some responding to it who are under the guise of "things they heard, or interpret to believe" And thats fine. No one is going to knock you if you are giving the information you were given, or the limit to what you were exposed to.
All well and good but, please be accepting of the facts you end up recieving from others here, who HAVE had to deal with
actually taking time to look deeper into the legalities behind things like this.
Charise Tjelmeland
07.03.2013		There have only been 3 tracks i've ever made that i've been 'worried' about uncleared samples. (remixes don't count, especially not when they released masters publicly). Of the 3 tracks I've made that use samples at all outside of remixes, some are more obvious than others. and for the record, each of those where just made for fun. Nothing serious. just kinda... goofy things that I made when I was bored. from a simple lack of quality and effort I am pretty confident that they'll never get big.

The thing that worries me about 'uncleared samples' are when people release free sample packs, and I don't know if they actually made the samples, or if they actually sampled them from something and distributed it, like 'nah, it's fine'. I'm getting to the point where I might have to delete 80% of my drum-loops because of this. as it stands from this point on I believe i'm going to be making all my drums from scratch now, Just in case... It's also kind of why I joined this community . So far my only communication with other musicians has been going on /mu/ on 4chan, and their morals and ethics are... questionable at best.

Another thing is, When I started posting, I didn't expect this to become a debate over what is or isn't legal, and I'm sorry for that, however, here's a few more big examples of larger groups that you know used uncleared samples.

-Nine Inch Nails
Album : Purest Feeling - (the demo tape that became Pretty hate machine) The whole album samples all kinds of movies, but one notable one that I recognized right off...
Track : Twist (AKA Ringfinter) towards the start of the song... all the screaming/screeching is that sample pitchbent and distorted, but it plays much more clearly at different points.
Sample - Malcom Mcdowell, screaming in "A Clockwork Orange" (the scene with the eyedrops and the films)
I know it isn't cleared because as far as I can tell it wasn't in the actual album release (unless it's in the sounds at the end of the album version)
-However The demo tape is available online for free, and trent himself posted it, which means, Unlicensed samples... everywhere.
Whenever trent samples now, he not only has the money, but would pay for the sample rights, but he also encourages his fans to pirate and steal his music, so I'm pretty sure the RIAA hates him.

-KMFDM
Liebeslied / Leibesleid (One translates as 'lovesong' the other as "physical suffering")
Sampled carl Orff's O Fortuna. from Carmina Burana
Legal action was threatened (despite it being a sample from the 1930's). the album was re-recorded without the sample, and the track was renamed from 'lovesong' to 'physical suffering' by just reversing a few letters.

Are those big enough names?
Linda Chavda
07.03.2013		I love sampling, it's very fun to have something right infront of people and not have them realise.

https://soundcloud.com/computersandblues/elliot-adamson-0020122012

This record samples one of the biggest acid house records of all time, when I tell people that they still don't realise and the record is practically a remix.

Voodoo Ray<<<
Charise Tjelmeland
07.03.2013		it's impossible to know 100% for sure if a sample has or hasn't been cleared on a major label unless you are:
A) the artist the sample was from
B) the artist who used the sample
C) the label who owns the sample
D) the label who the artist using the sample is on.

so really, that's a trick question.

There are these things called liner notes, which *should* contain a list of where samples are from, if any, but these are never filled.

Here's another example of uncleared sampling.
Every occurrence of the amen break, or funky drummer.
Nikole Resende
07.03.2013		I didn't want you to show me songs that contain samples from other records, I know plenty of those myself.

What I was asking for is tracks (by big artists) containing samples you know for sure haven't been cleared!!!!


I'm 100% sure that for each and every one of the tracks you posted as well as the ones you may find on youtube, the samples have been properly cleared by either the artists or their labels!
Charise Tjelmeland
06.03.2013
Originally Posted by TCMuc
Do you have any prove of that? Can you name any specific artits/tracks/labels? Do you have any insight into "bigger" labels licensing practice we don't have? Because I highly doubt what you're saying is correct...
Oh man... This is just off the top of my head and it's daft punk and the prodigy. I don't believe it's possible for anyone who does ANYTHING with ANY electronic music to not know who either of these are, so I don't believe you can get much bigger than that.





---Edit
As for more recent stuff, I'm not to sure off hand, But I can go through and find more on youtube all day long.
Ervin Calvery
06.03.2013		TCMus speaks the truth.
Ervin Calvery
06.03.2013
Originally Posted by Milest3hr4t
That is up to the interpretation of a jury, and who is more persuasive, *if* it ever came up.
Fighting the RIAA or similar is expensive, even if you win.

Originally Posted by Milest3hr4t
I'm not talking about straight sampling, I'm talking about cutting up and re-arranging.
This doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by Milest3hr4t
As for not being legal to release it for free, Wouldn't that be covered under fair use?
LOL No!
Nikole Resende
06.03.2013
Originally Posted by antifmradio
Even as an internet radio station, i need to carry a Mechanical Use license / and / a performance license just to broadcast these major dj mixes as well as the mixes from djs i know personally because some of them are recorded or streaming LIVE as they happen.
And they contain 99% commercially licensed, typewritten music.

Just wanted to add that because you mentioned DJ MIXES for promotional use

100% correct!

I guess the monitoring should even be much closer for internet radio stations than for e.g. people who upload their mixes to their private soundcloud account.

Probably because radio stations are more likely to be of 'commercial nature'...
Libbie Orion
06.03.2013
Originally Posted by TCMuc
If you just want to use it for promotional purposes go ahead, but be aware that it's not legal and be cautious.
Even as an internet radio station, i need to carry a Mechanical Use license / and / a performance license just to broadcast these major dj mixes as well as the mixes from djs i know personally because some of them are recorded or streaming LIVE as they happen.
And they contain 99% commercially licensed, typewritten music.

Just wanted to add that because you mentioned DJ MIXES for promotional use
Nikole Resende
06.03.2013
Originally Posted by bluegrassdj
am i right in assuming it's pretty much the culture of electronic music to use samples without crediting them? i see way more instances of this than the reverse. even at the "bigger" labels.

TONS of producers have gotten away with this.
Do you have any prove of that? Can you name any specific artits/tracks/labels? Dou you have any insight into "bigger" labels licensing practice we don't have? Because I highly doubt what you're saying is correct...

the reason is usually "i didn't expect this track to ever blow up". i totally understand that. dance music labels usually don't make enough money to clear samples. but once the song blows up, shouldn't you clear the sample?
If you're planning to commercially release a track you should clear the samples right at the beginning. If you wait until it blows up it's too late. This would give the rights owner pretty strong leverage against you, as he could not only sue you for money, but also demand you take the track off the market. Even if he agrees not to sue you or take any other legal action but give you a license, the price will probably be much higher than before the track went big.
Besides: if you don't believe a track will generate sufficient sales to pay for the license, maybe it isn't really worth being released at all...?
(I don't want to imply that you should use uncleared samples in non-commercial releases, btw...

everyone seems ok with sampling sounds though. laidback luke recommends this when he critiques tracks on his community . he says it's better because those sounds have been mastered perfectly for the club. then i was reading oliver money's interview with little white earbuds about doin' ya thang he said everybody "steals" his sounds. as if to say if he had the money to get those songs taken off the market, he would.
I'm almost shocked he says stuff like that... What is he going to do if any of the members of his community follows his advice and gets sued - pay the fines?

Originally Posted by Milest3hr4t
I used to worry about un-credited/uncleared samples. There's an easy way in my opinion to get around this.

If you sampled something, just release it for free. In anything else, make your own sounds.
-->

Originally Posted by botstein
This doesn't make it legal.
^^THIS!!

The legal status of a track containing uncleared samples is similar to that of a DJ mix, in which you use other people's tracks without holding the rights to them.

This can easily be understood when looking at e.g. soundcloud's terms & conditions, which clearly state that, if you don't hold the rights to every single bit of your track/mix, you're not allowed to upload (i.e. publish) it.

The term 'publish' includes all of the following forms: commercial release, free download, stream (!). Yes, you read right, legally you're not even allowed to have tracks that contain uncleared samples on your soundcloud page, even if the download option is disabled...

(Of course the probability that someone will come after you is higher for downloads and highest for commercial releases)



Generally I would say, that using uncleared samples is kind of a grey area, like DJ mixes. It's not legal, but chances are you won't get in too much trouble, even if someone finds out.

Chances of getting in trouble are higher if you 'escalate' the level of distribution by making it downloadable.



So my advice would be: if you want to release a track commercially, clear the samples!

If you just want to use it for promotional purposes go ahead, but be aware that it's not legal and be cautious.
Libbie Orion
05.03.2013		yes it depends on which nation you reside but always ALWAYS air on the side of caution because its not like the places we live in are going to always inform us of when the rules change
Charise Tjelmeland
05.03.2013
Originally Posted by botstein
Interpolations like this might also infringe on intellectual property.
That is up to the interpretation of a jury, and who is more persuasive, *if* it ever came up. I'm not talking about straight sampling, I'm talking about cutting up and re-arranging.

As for not being legal to release it for free, Wouldn't that be covered under fair use? doesn't it also depend on what nation in which you reside?
Libbie Orion
05.03.2013
Originally Posted by Milest3hr4t
I used to worry about un-credited/uncleared samples. There's an easy way in my opinion to get around this.

If you sampled something, just release it for free. In anything else, make your own sounds.
man you couldnt be more wrong. No matter what you use it for, or even if its to be sold or free, you CAN NOT release it.
The golden rule is you "CAN NOT DISTRIBUTE" the sample in any size, length, format, or type.

It all boils down the the regulations finally set in place, and in short they state ( in laymen terms )

The wording of the law claims they dont care how many times you download the song
but once you upload it a single time, you are distributing, and thats a no go.
So basically, they want to stop the CREATION of new ways or files to be downloaded.
If no one is uploading, there is nothing NEW to steal.

Incase you (all) didnt know, there is also a rulling which states, well,
lets say you are doing a live broadcast, and you are announcing music to come up.
You are only allowed to announce (2) of the upcoming artists but not their titles,
You cant announce more than 2 artists
and if your live show is going to happen pre-programmed, you arent allowed to post a tracklisting with timestamps that people can follow, to figure out "exactly when" a specific run or artists and their songs are going to play.


Now im sure there are going to be many of you who dont believe this. Ok here is an easy way to see it in action.
DI.fm does pre-programmed live broadcasts.
When it is happening, the dj who made the mix comes into the community for his mix, and posts just that opening song.

As the mix goes on is when he continues to post more tracks but NEVER does he post the rest of them until the mix is completed.

but as for being allowed to use a sample just because you offer it for free, or don't get paid for it, totally bogus
Ervin Calvery
05.03.2013
Originally Posted by Milest3hr4t
I used to worry about un-credited/uncleared samples. There's an easy way in my opinion to get around this.

If you sampled something, just release it for free.
This doesn't make it legal.

Originally Posted by Milest3hr4t
Want to sample a guitar riff? get a guitar and learn to play, sample yourself. Ask a friend to play it. get a guitar soundfont and add necessary EQ and effects, and re-construct the loop.
Interpolations like this might also infringe on intellectual property.
Charise Tjelmeland
05.03.2013		I used to worry about un-credited/uncleared samples. There's an easy way in my opinion to get around this.

If you sampled something, just release it for free. In anything else, make your own sounds.

Here's where it gets fun. Lets say you want to sample something but can't due to not being able to clear the sample. Try re-creating the sample from scratch. Figure out how it was made. also the freesound project exists for just this reason. Want to sample a guitar riff? get a guitar and learn to play, sample yourself. Ask a friend to play it. get a guitar soundfont and add necessary EQ and effects, and re-construct the loop. want that strange metalic sound? find something that makes a simmilar sound or tone and sample it. and effects... I find that you actually learn alot doing this, and the process is quite satisfying.


To give you a different perspective on this. If you take the time to create every sound you used, and fine tuned them yourself, You have done a great deal of work creating something, and you would personally want to be credited for it, right? after you've done that a few times, whenever you do something with sampling, it's just not as personally satisfying. and with that you can more comfortably give *that* away for free, which is what you really should do. I mean clearly there are exceptions to this, i mean, i'm pretty sure daft punk wouldn't still exist if not for sampling, and they do some amazing things with it, but we can't all be thomas and guy.

So no, I don't worry about samples because once you stop using samples, you don't usually start again. at least not in my experience.
Pam Stolley
02.03.2013
Originally Posted by Patch
I am not.

But I don't get PAID. If you are using samples and gettng paid, you should get them cleared. Otherwise, you're just stealing.

It's always been the way. If you use an uncleared sample on a release,that people can buy, you should expect to get chased.
it seems the trend in electronic music is to expect NOT to get chased. as far as i know michael calfan hasn't chased guetta and nicky romero over metropolis. i believe baauer felt he was safe as long as the song didn't get big in the mainstream. before the videos happened, el father had never heard the song and probably never would have.
Norah Legowski
01.03.2013
Originally Posted by Patch
I am not.

But I don't get PAID. If you are using samples and gettng paid, you should get them cleared. Otherwise, you're just stealing.

It's always been the way. If you use an uncleared sample on a release,that people can buy, you should expect to get chased.

This x infinity!!!
Brunilda Kora
28.02.2013		I am not.

But I don't get PAID. If you are using samples and gettng paid, you should get them cleared. Otherwise, you're just stealing.

It's always been the way. If you use an uncleared sample on a release,that people can buy, you should expect to get chased.
Ervin Calvery
28.02.2013		I am vary wary of what I sample and from where.

<< Back to Producer tips and DAW informationReply

Copyright 2012-2023
DJRANKINGS.ORG n.g.o.
Chuo-ku, Osaka, Japan

Created by Ajaxel CMS

Terms & Privacy