Download this Track
Buy on Vinyl/CD
Main genre: Hip-Hop / R&B
More information on Wikipedia
Producer: James Brown
Tags: Drum Break, Sampled in More Than 210 Songs, Ultimate Breaks and Beats, Vocal Samples (Most Used) [Add]
Main genre: Soul / Funk / Disco
Contributed by Drpepperfan (5052 submissions)
@Rosco Brown I would agree with you on that...
I wasn't referring to "bad" as much as I was referring to "b!tch" LOL Yes, I am very familiar with rap lexicons, it's still a terrible way to open a verse
They're not incompetent. Bad doesn't mean that in rap. Come on man, this is elementary school knowledge.
Damn that's deep. Wow!
“I tell a bad b!tch do whatever I say”So Big Sean tells incompetent girls to do what he tells them he wants them to do… How insightful!
Okay, I see your point about distinguishing between the two. So maybe I mostly lean towards agreeing with the law that using the sound recording illegally (direct sampling) is "worse" than using the composition (replaying). I also feel that it's "worse" to sample than to play a cover version. Nevertheless, when you release a cover song the law does ask you to give credit to the composer.Anyway, yes, I'm probably talking about how the law should be rather than how it is. I still just don't see what's so great about people who can't be bothered to neither write nor record their own material but think it's perfectly fine, and even advocate, to release other people's records in their own name and with their names credited as composers of something they neither wrote nor composed. And almost the worst thing is that the audience hails these people as kings.What I also mean about the guitar player is that of course a certain percentage (minimum two notes) has to be identical in the two songs before anything could be considered plagarism. Nobody would accuse anybody of plagiarism because of one chord, 'cause it's just a chord that you played yourself (and then you have to pay Gibson royalties 'cause you played it on their guitar ;-)), but sampling James Brown saying "Hey", even though it's just one word, is plagiarism. The intent was to plagiarise James Brown, and that's what you did by using the sound recording. I wouldn't think anybody's intent was to plagiarise anybody because they played an E chord. I believe the same distinction is made on this website: "We only accept intepolations where the intent was clearly to make the new song sound like the original one - no coincidences". Direct sampling can never, ever be a coincidence.Anyway, enough yakking. I think we more or less agree (I hope). At least I see your last point about distinguishing between the sound recording and the composition.
I'm talking about the law as it exists (lex lata), and it seems to me that you're aiming mostly to express what the law should be (lex ferenda). Let's not get the two things confused.
Well, it happens to be the case that the law DOES distinguish between the sound recording and the musical composition, and I happen to agree with this distinction. You are welcome to have an opinion about the moral aspects of sampling, whether it's direct or relayed sampling, but you've made several statements about what actually constitutes copyright infringement (from a legal perspective), and these statements are simply misleading.In respect to the law, there IS a difference between sound recordings and musical compositions, which more or less coincides with the difference between direct and indirect (i.e. replayed) sampling. In my opinion, it is very important not to confuse the copyright protection of these two works. The infringement of a sound recording is a physical taking rather than an intellecual one, and only in this case does your "tear a chapter out of a book"-analogy really make sense. A musical composition can be plagiarized both directly (through the use of the sound recording) and indirectly, and both forms of plagiarism are equally illegal, it's just easier (usually) to point out in the first case than in the latter case.Saying that you don't distinguish between the sound recording and the musicial composition, is like saying that you don't distinguish between direct and replayed sampling, but your example below (the guitar player vs. the rap producer) clearly illustrates that you don't in fact treat all cases of sampling the same way. Whether the artist (i.e. the composer) should get credit for every fraction of a second that is sampled from a work he has written, is an entirely different question, but for the record, I'm not sure I agree that this should be the case.
@Board True.. I was thinking the same thing
I think you and I have more or less the same opinion, Peetz - I just don't distinguish between the sound recording and the musical composition as you do.I stil feel that anybody who samples should, at least in principle, give credit to the artists they have sampled, whether this means paying or not paying them. To me it doesn't matter whether they use one snare drum, chop up a long section, or they loop 10 seconds. At least they should write on the record that they have used recordings by other artists, and then in principle I also feel that the original artists should be included in the songwriting credtis. Anything else seems dishonest.
@Mrblonde My mistake then. Still, he can and does sue them over it.
"Number 1 of course wouldn't be copyright infringement, but the way I see it, number 2 would be copyright infringement for the simple reason that the rap producer uses A PART of the ACTUAL recording - he doesn't record it himself. "Number 2 (the direct sample) would most probably be judged as an infringement of the sound recording, but not of the musical composition. If an artist records a sound with his own instrument (number 1 in your example), neither the sound recording or the musical composition copyright is infringed. If he plays an exact copy of a riff (say, the guitar riff from Van Halen's "Ain't Talking 'Bout Love"), it's still not an infringement of the sound recording (because the riff is an interpolation and not a direct sample), but most people would agree that this is an unlawful use of Eddie Van Halen's intellectual creation, and thus an infringement of the musical composition.Again, sound recordings and their underlying musical compositions are separate works with their own distinct copyrights. See 17 U.S.C. § 102 (a) (2) and (7): http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.pdf. Copyright protection to the latter extends only to those components of the work that are original and non-trivial (like Van Halen's guitar riff). See Newton v. Diamond, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1244 - Dist. Court, CD California 2002. In this aforementioned case concerning Beastie Boys' use of a six-second flute stab from James Newton's "Choir" in their 1992-single "Pass the Mic", judge Manella is kind enough to explain the difference between the musical composition and the sound recording, and the importance of this distinction for digital sampling (p.p. 1249-1252).
Personally, I also think i's a bit silly to sue someone over one second, although I suppose there are cases that would make me say otherwise. In any case, as I pointed out, both parties in those lawsuits know that Kanye West and Cypress Hill used the actual recording, so they at least should admit to that.
Anyone can sue anyone. I can sue you right now if I wanted to waste people's time. Whether you win is different story. Syl Johnson's has yet to actually win a case. His lawsuits against Kanye and Cypress Hill were dismissed. Kanye still paid Johnson a settlement of good faith but a settlement is not legally an admission of wrongdoing.
Seeing as Syl Johnson has sued others for using the 1-second clips of his voice from Different Strokes and won, Peetz's point is totally wrong.
"The ARTIST (i.e. the composer) can NOT claim the copyrights to one single word or note."I don't know exactly what the law says (except for what you quoted), but the way I see it, there are two sides to this argument:1. A guitar player hears Eric Clapton play an E chord on one of his records. This guitar player thinks "Hey! Great!" and also plays an E chord on his own record.2. A rap producer hears James Brown say "Hey!" on one of his records and thinks "Hey! Great!" and takes this PART of the ACTUAL record and releases it on his own record.Number 1 of course wouldn't be copyright infringement, but the way I see it, number 2 would be copyright infringement for the simple reason that the rap producer uses A PART of the ACTUAL recording - he doesn't record it himself.Maybe the law says differently, and I'm not saying that James Brown should sue Kanye West for this, but to me it's exactly the same case whether you sample one word or ten seconds. You sample it, and hence it's not your own recording that you're releasing in your own name.I write litterature in my spare time, and of course I'm influenced by other writers, but I wouldn't tear out one chapter from one writer's book, 5 lines from another writer's, and seven chapter's from another's, compile them and then release them in my own name.There's a big difference between being inspired and copying. There's no discussing what happened in the Kanye West song - everybody can hear that they used a part of the actual original James Brown recording, although the law might say that you can't claim copyright infringement for just one word. As I said earlier, to me this is generally a moral issue rather than a monetary one.
*sigh*The confusion continues:"...many artists wouldn't bother suing anyone for sampling one word or one note".The ARTIST (i.e. the composer) can NOT claim the copyrights to one single word or note. One single word or note does NOT constitute a copyrightable musical composition. In these cases, it doesn't matter if the average listener is able to recognize the word or the note as coming from a particular song. Only when it is clear that the sampled material is a copyrightable composition is it necessary to consider if the sampling track really constitutes an infringement of the original track. Allowing a music artist to claim the copyright to a single note in his work would be like allowing a poet to claim the copyright to every single word in everyone of his poems. The RECORD PRODUCER (the one whose job is to oversee and manage the recording of an artist's musical composition) however, does (at least in principle) own the rights to every single sound that comes from a recording he has produced, and he may (if he takes the trouble of pursuing his rights) sue whoever sampled this sound recording without asking (and paying) for it. Record companies know this very well, and quite a few of them have more than enough resources to pursue their rights. ”[The] value of the sound recording lies in the manner in and method by which the sounds are fixed by a combination of efforts of the musicians' performance and capture thereof by the producer and engineer, not in the notes or chords, the protection of which is reserved for the composition copyright.” (Tracy L. Reilly, ”Debunking the Top Three Myths of Digital Sampling: An Endorsement of the Bridgeport Music Court's Attempt to Afford "Sound" Copyright Protection to Sound Recordings”, Columbia Journal of Law and The Arts nr. 31, 2008 p. 355-407).
@Board Thanks for clearing this up cause i was thinking how do they get away with without clearing the sample :)
As someone said, many artists wouldn't bother suing anyone for sampling one word or one note. I believe the law, as well as the moral aspect (which of course is most important to a self-righteous prick like me), is that if you can hear it, then you should clear it/admit it/pay for it (chose one or more options). Everybody here could recognise the "hey!" from the James Brown song if they heard it directly sampled. So, admit it. Pay for it? If you like, or if you can't avoid it.Of course, all the people who sample but don't clear their samples, only does so because they think they can get away with it. And often they can. Why else do we have this forum section called "identify this sample"? Because they sampled music that only very few people know, and hence the chance of getting caught is very slim. In the words of Al Bundy: "It's only cheating if you get caught" - at least that's what people who sample seem to think as they can't be bothered to write, play and record their own music.As mentioned, for me this is also a moral issue: If you release music in your name, and with you credited as the songwriter, then you're misleading people if you actually haven't written or recorded the music.
It seems to me that people are getting the copyright protection of the sound recording confused with the copyrights to the underlying composition. When it comes to sampling (and especially direct sampling), it is quite important to be aware of the fact that sound recordings and their underlying musical compositions are separate works with their own distinct copyrights.In the Bridgeport case (410 F.3d 792, 6th Cir. 2005), the court made it very clear that:"The analysis that is appropriate for determining infringement of a musical composition copyright, is not the analysis that is to be applied to determine infringement of a sound recording. We address this issue only as it pertains to sound recording copyrights."In other words, the categorical opinion that was set forth in the Bridgeport decision ("Get a license or do not sample"), relates only to the sound recording copyrights. The court readily admits that the question whether an unauthorized use of a digital sample infringes a musical composition "may require a full substantial similarity analysis". No one can claim the copyrights to a single word (e.g. in this case the word "hey") as a musical composition, but a record producer does in principle have the copyright to even this small part of the sound recording.For an interesting case about the possible copyright infringement of the musical composition, see Newton v. Diamond, 204 F. Supp. 2d 1244 - Dist. Court, CD California 2002, concerning Beastie Boys' use of a six-second flute stab from James Newton's "Choir" in their 1992-single "Pass the Mic".
It can be allowed under a fair use defense which was not used in that case. That is how Luther Campbell won his case regarding his sample of Roy Orbison's Pretty Woman. The court ruled that just because Campbell sampled it without permission and made money that doesn't mean the use was not fair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.The NWA case was in 2005 and there has yet to be a successful lawsuit in the US since regarding the sample of one note or one word.
The conclusion of the lawsuit is, clear it, regardless of length. One note also has to be cleared because it violates the copyright of the recording. I'm not talking about replaying one note or one word, i'm talking about direct samples. Of course it gets hard to prove a that a snare hit was taken from another recording, but something like a James Brown vocal is provable. Just because most original creators don't file lawsuits on such small samples and many sampling artists get way with it doesn't mean that it is allowed.
@CellarDoor, listen to the Funkadelic sample. That is not one note or one word. You are misrepresenting what I said. @MasterJ24, anyone can sue anyone. Whether they will win is a different story.
@MrBlondNYC James Brown was the one who wrote that song so James Brown didn't get any writing credits so his estate can sue G.O.O.D Music
If you want info on copyright law read the Wikipedia here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeport_Music,_Inc._v._Dimension_Films"Debunking the Top Three Myths of Digital Sampling: An Endorsement of the Bridgeport Music Court’s Attempt to Afford “Sound” Copyright Protection to Sound Recordings" by Tracy Reilly is a scientic paper on the case.The essence is: Regardless of length, if it's a direct sample you have to clear it.Mr Blond is spreading dangerous misinformation by declaring those samples as free to take. It's simply not true.
Oh and I meant "Why do we want to see hip hop artists get SUED anyway?
Everybody has. "Hey!", "Nasty!" and the drum loop in the beginning are among the most sampled bits ever. That's why they get sampled so much. You don't have to pay for them.
Why do we want to see hip hop artists get sampled anyway? A comment like that is the reason why people don't want to see Whosampled progressing and the reason why artists are asking for protected profiles.
Ye been sampling that vocal for a while so I don't think it's a problem for him.
It doesn't matter. Sampling the word "Hey" from anyone isn't enough to have to give songwriting credit. If the sample was James Brown singing "Hey! I feel good!", then that's a different story. A sample has to be a significant portion so that the original songwriter can claim credit. Sampling one word is like chopping notes. No one can claim one note or one word.
@MrBlondNYC, But it's not an interpolation - this is a direct sample :)
James Brown didn't invent "Hey".
What i don't get is that James Brown didn't get writing credits for this sample cause i think his estate can sue Kanye. How did G.O.O.D music get away with this sample?
Was B.I.G. sampled in Clique?http://youtu.be/hFAq5mBWDq4
Yeah, I'm pretty sure SCF. At least, I was.....
Same as New God Flow
You sure DPF? I can't hear it....
Frankenstein's Dreamin sample of Earth, Wind & Fire's Clover
DMX's Born Loser sample of Pleasure's Bouncy Lady
John Tucker's The Talent Show 2 sample of Dexter Wansel's New Beginning
Donald D's Intro sample of The J.B.'s's The Grunt
Janet Jackson's Free Xone sample of Archie Bell & the Drells's Tighten Up
Copyright © 2013 WhoSampled.com Limited. All rights reserved.