4 ms·

Would you prefer he demanded royalties instead, as their label would if he used a few seconds of their output in one of his films? Or that they just be able to

Would you prefer he demanded royalties instead, as their label would if he used a few seconds of their output in one of his films? Or that they just be able to use the sample without credit or royalty?

midgetjones 7y ago
He did demand royalties, he gets a 40% cut as well.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Roughly 40% of the lyrics are dialogue from two of his movies or describing scenes from those movies (Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs), so a 40% cut of the songwriters' share of royalties is appropriate.
  - onion2k 7y ago
    He didn't write any of the song. He just made something that contributed to it. Saying he wrote part of it is like the person who mixed Davinci's paint claiming to have painted part of the Mona Lisa.
    - nailer 7y ago
      It's more like if Mona Lisa incorporated a background from another artist.
  - mhh__ 7y ago
    Sets a pretty stupid precedent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX1iIx-LMYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX1iIx-LMYM This song's lyrics solely samples audio from Indiana Jones - 100% of the royalties go to Disney? Morally, I don't think Disney have any right to it, but I could maybe tolerate some payment - however, proportionality?
soylentcola 7y ago
In a (more) perfect world, they would've paid a reasonable license fee to use the sample and been done with it.
sonicthehedgfnd 7y ago
Maybe a quick Google before going on the attack next time: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/gangstas-of-cheese-1250018.html https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/gangstas-of...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dspillett 7y ago
  It was a genuine question, not an attack, though I can see how my wording didn't make that obvious. Maybe a quick providing-useful-context-in-your-original-post before attacking responses next time? :-) Edit: Sorry, I've checked and the original post replied to wasn't from you. The point of this response still stands though, but directed elsewhere.

midgetjones 7y ago

He did demand royalties, he gets a 40% cut as well.

gamblor956 7y ago
Roughly 40% of the lyrics are dialogue from two of his movies or describing scenes from those movies (Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs), so a 40% cut of the songwriters' share of royalties is appropriate.
- onion2k 7y ago
  He didn't write any of the song. He just made something that contributed to it. Saying he wrote part of it is like the person who mixed Davinci's paint claiming to have painted part of the Mona Lisa.
  - nailer 7y ago
    It's more like if Mona Lisa incorporated a background from another artist.
- mhh__ 7y ago
  Sets a pretty stupid precedent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX1iIx-LMYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX1iIx-LMYM This song's lyrics solely samples audio from Indiana Jones - 100% of the royalties go to Disney? Morally, I don't think Disney have any right to it, but I could maybe tolerate some payment - however, proportionality?

soylentcola 7y ago

In a (more) perfect world, they would've paid a reasonable license fee to use the sample and been done with it.

sonicthehedgfnd 7y ago

Maybe a quick Google before going on the attack next time: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/gangstas-of-cheese-1250018.html https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/gangstas-of...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dspillett 7y ago
It was a genuine question, not an attack, though I can see how my wording didn't make that obvious. Maybe a quick providing-useful-context-in-your-original-post before attacking responses next time? :-) Edit: Sorry, I've checked and the original post replied to wasn't from you. The point of this response still stands though, but directed elsewhere.