Yes hello sir, I represent the estate of groucho marx.
We need to have a little silent conversation over the backdrop of public domain ragtime piano and an old timey title cards.
3 Likes
Apologies, but I quite donât understand what you mean sir.
1 Like
Oh but Iâm afraid that I believe you do sir, for weâve already had a word with your âstaffâ on no more than a fortnight past.
They were very eager to confide in our inquisitors at the promise of new shoe soles and free refill coffee.
1 Like
Many years ago I worked with a management company with several signed hip-hop artists. Often times the music producers were asked to recreate sample content the artists wanted to use as the fees were less expensive or not applicable at all.
1 Like
Yep, I used to get hired to do a lot of sample replays for this very reason.
2 Likes
Whatâs the legality of sampling off Youtube/Insta? By that I mean, when a small/indie creative plays their random singing on YouTube; this is then captured by an intepid sampler trawling through acapellas and solo performances online.
Interested, because this seems to be a technique many artists use and it feels like this might be because 1. an unknown/unsigned musician might appreciate being sampled and 2. there (theoretically) is no legal stuff to jump through, if that person is playing an original song and isnât signed to a label.
As @ReverseGroove says, in interviews Iâve read with signed artists that their management advised their either recreate samples; or just go through the clearance process. But I imagine that for smaller artists, often a few emails/messages will be exchanged and then thereâs likely no bridge to cross, unless of course the song goes stratospheric.
With all the recent news of sampling becoming arguably more tricky even through traditional routes including sample packs; it feels like an agreement between 2 musicians is a simple answer, as in effect itâs a collaboration. Or am I missing some other legal bear-trap with this one as well?
The original artist still holds the copyright. But unlike signed artists, unknown artists probably wonât have the means to fight someone in court over a sample.
This is not âdonât do it,â just that itâs not the escape hatch you might be hoping for
2 Likes
Yeah, I guess Iâve kinda decided Iâm a âdonât do itâ person already. Iâm only playing with commercially bought stuff as I know it has a royalty free thing in place before I do anything. I am down with folks who just grab stuff from anywhere and more power to them, but itâs too much overhead for me to think about (and I know I will over-think about it). As a hobbyist I can have my mates make a video for it and we can upload it without too much mess, or upload a cert from a library. I mainly wondered if YT was some sort of unique spot where those rules maybe didnât apply quite as stringently. And I guess from what youâre saying things might be more lenient because nobody is watching, but at the end of the day those guidelines exist at whatever level.
This goes back to the âpoor manâs copyrightâ of mailing yourself a letter with the information you wanted to prove you had thought of/or an idea or design you had been parent to, before you had money or a chance to put an actual legal basis (registering it) behind it.
Essentially, while itâs clearly not as sound of a legal basis for a lawsuit, proof that someone has intellectual property rights can find itself in things like who uploaded it first. Itâs not a watertight ship, but it gives a basis to pay an attorney to write a cease and desist letter. However, if either party is more âlawyered upâ then the other may not have the financial resources to take it any further than this, but itâs certainly not anything like registering a song with bmi or ascap.
Someone might feel flattered, someone might not, you never know. Also, if youâve warped a sample enough, even copyrighted material is usually unrecognizable so thereâs also a degree of how much was used / is the used portion still even able to be identified as the original material.
2 Likes
If youâre 100% sure youâre not comfortable with it, consider also looking for public domain and creative commons-licensed works.
The US Library of Congress has its Citizen DJ collections of public domain works, totally free to use/remix/etc. And you donât have to be a US citizen/resident to use it
Any sites can host creative commons music (some examples at this makeuseof article). If you go this route, check the specific license being used as each will have their specific mix of licensing requirements.
5 Likes
I definitley like the idea of that. Iâll have to do some digging in these links (thanks for them btw!), but I have heard a good few producers talking about this exact technique. Could be nice to freshen up the stock sample library!
Chop fine enough, process it, run it through a number of different daws, no oneâs guna know. Personally Iâm looking forward to being sued if it ever happens, Iâd like to set a legal president for where sampling becomes granular synthesis. 
Is there any good peer for sound effects?
Ideally that I didnât need a monthly subscription to in order to preview options.
Honestly, I doubt that novelty one-offs will get super wrecked by license checks but if Iâm using something like distrokid to handle distribution I may as well look into preemptive licensed options over cartoon samples.
1 Like
More precise: send a registered mail to yourself and never open it. At the appointed moment, you will give it to the judge or a notary who will open it himself/herself.
2 Likes
I did neglect to mention that specific but yes, that is correct.
That citizen dj thing looks great!
Actually, I think it may be better to use both poor manâs letter and PRO. If youâre not yet registered with a PRO for whichever administrative reason (*), the poor manâs way, if done correctly, is worth as much as registering a song with a PRO. It also proves precedence and you can include multitracks and documentation that proves how you have created the original.
Today, there is also a digital alternative to the poor manâs letter: official e-deposit with an intellectual property rights organisation. It can be more expensive though, providing the same proof.
ad (*) Usually PROs require artists to provide some proof of distribution to register the artist for the first time. Quite a sneaky detail but their primary goal is to collect and redistribute moneys and not to protect your copyright.
1 Like
Thatâs an interesting take on it. Makes perfect sense to me. Intellectual property can be a delicate subject, and governing bodies mainly concerned with earnings and distro are not always aligned with the needs of smalltime acts.