3 ms·

No it isn't. The fact that the original authors sold off the rights for (perhaps) a pittance is regrettable, and depending on the circumstances possibly illegal

No it isn't. The fact that the original authors sold off the rights for (perhaps) a pittance is regrettable, and depending on the circumstances possibly illegal. But that's a separate issue. Samples are still valuable and whoever their rightful owners are, they deserve to be in control of their use.

nav1 13y ago
But why should that be? How does this encourage creativity? If anything it turns sample-based music into a legal minefield.
- shock-value 13y ago
  It encourages artists to come up with great new samples, either for use in their own songs, to license for use in others' songs, or both! How does it not encourage creativity? As an example, just listen to Kanye West's "Stronger" and compare that to the original source of the sample, Daft Punk's "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger", which itself prominently samples Edwin Birdsong's "Cola Bottle Baby". Now imagine neither Daft Punk nor Edwin Birdsong was ever compensated or asked permission for Kanye's work, and neither was Edwin Birdsong compensated or asked permission for Daft Punk's usage. Is that in any way fair? Both the newer songs essentially owe their popularity to that single iconic sample! If you don't want to go the legal route by getting permission to reuse others' music, then make an entirely original song. Plenty of people still do that, you know. Sampling others' work is a privilege, not a right.
  - dalke 13y ago
    "How does it not encourage creativity?" Creativity comes in many forms. It can include a reinterpretation of existing material. Walt Disney films like Snow White were based on materials from the public domain. Were they uncreative for having not come up with a completely new story? The book series "Wicked" is a very popular revisionist telling of the original Wizard of Oz books. The copyright for the books (but not the movie!) lapsed just months after L Frank Baum's literary estate had come out of copyright. (Gregory Maguire, the author of Wicked, had thought it was decades out of copyright when he started writing the book.) It's impossible to tell a revisionist story without having some story to revise. Do you really believe that Maguire was less creative with Wicked than if he had written some other series entirely? If copyright were 10 years longer and so he needed to get a license from the estate, would you say he was less creative? Similarly, a commercial parody like "Pretty Woman" requires something to parody, like "Oh, Pretty Woman", and it makes little sense to parody something that no one knows anything about.
  - enneff 13y ago
    Those are really egregious examples of sampling, where the sample is almost the entire song. I agree that in those cases the original artist should be compensated, just as the original composer must be compensated when you do a cover. But most sample-based music is not like this. Other examples raised in this discussion thread, such as the Beastie Boys' album "Paul's Boutique", use samples as a form of sonic collage. Works like these should be regarded by the law as original works, just as a visual collage would be. Should The Winston's be compensated for the near-ubiquitous "Amen Break'? Or James Brown for "Funky Drummer"? Or the countless others that provided the elements (samples) upon whole genres of modern music are founded? I argue that it is in society's interest to answer "no", simply because the works would not exist were there legal barriers hindering its creation.

nav1 13y ago

But why should that be? How does this encourage creativity? If anything it turns sample-based music into a legal minefield.

shock-value 13y ago
It encourages artists to come up with great new samples, either for use in their own songs, to license for use in others' songs, or both! How does it not encourage creativity? As an example, just listen to Kanye West's "Stronger" and compare that to the original source of the sample, Daft Punk's "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger", which itself prominently samples Edwin Birdsong's "Cola Bottle Baby". Now imagine neither Daft Punk nor Edwin Birdsong was ever compensated or asked permission for Kanye's work, and neither was Edwin Birdsong compensated or asked permission for Daft Punk's usage. Is that in any way fair? Both the newer songs essentially owe their popularity to that single iconic sample! If you don't want to go the legal route by getting permission to reuse others' music, then make an entirely original song. Plenty of people still do that, you know. Sampling others' work is a privilege, not a right.
- dalke 13y ago
  "How does it not encourage creativity?" Creativity comes in many forms. It can include a reinterpretation of existing material. Walt Disney films like Snow White were based on materials from the public domain. Were they uncreative for having not come up with a completely new story? The book series "Wicked" is a very popular revisionist telling of the original Wizard of Oz books. The copyright for the books (but not the movie!) lapsed just months after L Frank Baum's literary estate had come out of copyright. (Gregory Maguire, the author of Wicked, had thought it was decades out of copyright when he started writing the book.) It's impossible to tell a revisionist story without having some story to revise. Do you really believe that Maguire was less creative with Wicked than if he had written some other series entirely? If copyright were 10 years longer and so he needed to get a license from the estate, would you say he was less creative? Similarly, a commercial parody like "Pretty Woman" requires something to parody, like "Oh, Pretty Woman", and it makes little sense to parody something that no one knows anything about.
- enneff 13y ago
  Those are really egregious examples of sampling, where the sample is almost the entire song. I agree that in those cases the original artist should be compensated, just as the original composer must be compensated when you do a cover. But most sample-based music is not like this. Other examples raised in this discussion thread, such as the Beastie Boys' album "Paul's Boutique", use samples as a form of sonic collage. Works like these should be regarded by the law as original works, just as a visual collage would be. Should The Winston's be compensated for the near-ubiquitous "Amen Break'? Or James Brown for "Funky Drummer"? Or the countless others that provided the elements (samples) upon whole genres of modern music are founded? I argue that it is in society's interest to answer "no", simply because the works would not exist were there legal barriers hindering its creation.