3 ms·
Can someone explain why the artist cannot sue everyone who sampled the track? Seems like plenty of lawyers who would happily take it on given the recent success
by steve19 11y ago
Can someone explain why the artist cannot sue everyone who sampled the track? Seems like plenty of lawyers who would happily take it on given the recent successful lawsuits? [0]
Does their limited sampling not constitute copyright infringement or is the ownership/creation disputed?
[0] http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/robin-thicke-and-pharrell-lose-blurred-lines-lawsuit-20150310 http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/robin-thicke-and-phar...
- gluelogic 11y agoI imagine the difficulty lies in the fact that it has simply been sampled so frequently and over such a long period of time that the case would not be easy to win and incredibly expensive to prosecute.
- sehugg 11y ago(I'm not a lawyer... this is not legal advice... etc) But I think he probably could try it if he wanted to. There are a number of "sample trolls" using technology that finds samples in old songs: http://www.project-disco.org/intellectual-property/040914-why-are-we-seeing-new-sampling-suits-over-old-songs/ http://www.project-disco.org/intellectual-property/040914-wh... The statute of limitations for copyright infringement usually starts when the infringement is discovered: http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_law/copyright_statute_limitations.htm http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_la...
- rvense 11y agoIt constitutes copyright infringement, but of the copyright to the recording, not the "composition". AFAIK the band doesn't own the recording.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- aikah 11y agoI think he could, definitely. Some artists have been sued for way less. I'm pretty sure this stuff was sampled and used by more than 10 000 different artists, in the drum'n'bass scene it's obvious.