4 ms·

For non-commercial use, can an artist sample without legal threat? For example, if an artist is just posting 80s style tracks with dozens of uncleared samples

For non-commercial use, can an artist sample without legal threat? For example, if an artist is just posting 80s style tracks with dozens of uncleared samples on their website free for their fans to download, doesn't fair use allow for it?

granfalloon 13y ago
I believe so, but not 100% sure. There are a lot of artists nowadays releasing sample-heavy music for free, and then making their money by touring and playing it live.
JonnieCache 13y ago
In practice, people do whatever they want and then just apologise later if they get in trouble. Eg: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151547332313143&set=pb.89126163142.-2207520000.1371741235.&type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151547332313143&se... which is apologising for: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnigNbYVQJE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnigNbYVQJE (This was a massive tune last summer, getting loads of radio airplay and all over the clubs. Hence the apology. Really, by these standards he should apologise to Mr Fingers as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmz3SVuHPhs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmz3SVuHPhs) See also: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug11/articles/classic-tracks-0811.htm http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug11/articles/classic-track...
schrijver 13y ago
This depends on the jurisdiction also. The concept of ‘Fair use’ does not exist in European copyright law, which makes any sampling without permission a potential copyright infringement.
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  The test for infringement in Europe requires that a "substantial" part be copied however. Such samples [as in the OP video] IMO aren't substantial but I think the contrary point can be argued well as "if it's not substantial why copy it / it must be substantial to warrant reuse (with or without modification)"?
pbhjpbhj 13y ago
Fair use isn't mutually exclusive with commercial use in the US though in practice there doesn't seem to be much scope for overlap. Also free-gratis isn't co-terminous with non-commercial as - for example - giving away a competing product is a commercial activity. Also moral rights can arguably be harmed by sampling ... and then you've got parody exceptions ... it's nuance all the way down.

granfalloon 13y ago

I believe so, but not 100% sure. There are a lot of artists nowadays releasing sample-heavy music for free, and then making their money by touring and playing it live.

JonnieCache 13y ago

In practice, people do whatever they want and then just apologise later if they get in trouble. Eg: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151547332313143&set=pb.89126163142.-2207520000.1371741235.&type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151547332313143&se... which is apologising for: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnigNbYVQJE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnigNbYVQJE (This was a massive tune last summer, getting loads of radio airplay and all over the clubs. Hence the apology. Really, by these standards he should apologise to Mr Fingers as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmz3SVuHPhs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmz3SVuHPhs) See also: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug11/articles/classic-tracks-0811.htm http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug11/articles/classic-track...

schrijver 13y ago

This depends on the jurisdiction also. The concept of ‘Fair use’ does not exist in European copyright law, which makes any sampling without permission a potential copyright infringement.

pbhjpbhj 13y ago
The test for infringement in Europe requires that a "substantial" part be copied however. Such samples [as in the OP video] IMO aren't substantial but I think the contrary point can be argued well as "if it's not substantial why copy it / it must be substantial to warrant reuse (with or without modification)"?

pbhjpbhj 13y ago

Fair use isn't mutually exclusive with commercial use in the US though in practice there doesn't seem to be much scope for overlap. Also free-gratis isn't co-terminous with non-commercial as - for example - giving away a competing product is a commercial activity. Also moral rights can arguably be harmed by sampling ... and then you've got parody exceptions ... it's nuance all the way down.