Don't kid yourself, all music creation is stealing in some shape, some more subtle than others. Sampling can be used in extremely creative ways to the point where you can barely recognize that it was ever sampled at all, or lazily so you start to ask yourself which version it is.
But no, sampling as a method isn't necessarily stealing
>>55470063 tediously reductionist way to look at it
for that analogy to make sense they would have to "take a picture" then segment it, taking only a part of it, and through a process of repetition collage and combination with other elements, turn it into something completely different
Depends on: 1. whether you give credit to the original artist and pay the rights or not 2. whether the sample is recognizable as a sample or not 3. whether it's used in a creative way, sounding different in context than in the original, or not 4. how much of your track is based on the sample. (Am I forgetting something?)
Les Sculpteurs de Vinyl or Endtroducing are perfectly okay. Disco edits can be as close to stealing as you can get — though I don't think that many listeners are fooled. Daft Punk do credit their sources in the liner notes and pay rights, but they're really trying to pass up other people's work as their own: some of their tracks owe almost everything to the original sources, but Daft Punk remove the vocals and substitute their own, so I suspect that most listeners just don't know about it.
>>55470136 This analogy works perfectly for works like Endtroducing or Since I Left You, but sometimes it's really closer to a cook buying a ready-made meal from chain distributors, heating it up, adding a sprig of parsley on the side and presenting it as something they've cooked themselves.
>>55470417 This, motherfuckers are broke in 2015, do you know how many people you'd have to pay if you sampled the Beastie Boys, for example? You'd have to pay The Beastie Boys, one, the 5 or 6 people they sampled in the song you sampled, and whatever coked up middlemen happened to be inbetween.
>>55470472 >>55470417 I think there should be a tolerance depending on how much you're using and how.
If you're just using a two-second sample once or twice in your track, then yeah, you should get away with it.
But if Kanye West didn't pay for the rights to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6mGHwHMB5s when he made Bound 2, then it's just wrong because it's the original band's work that makes up almost the entire track.
If there's no regulation at all, then there would be nothing preventing a well-known artist from just digging out an old hidden gem, not modifying it at all and "rebranding" it as their own, essentially taking the money from someone else's work.
>>55470635 I agree with you, blatant stealing should be punished. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OebqNsNRBtU This is what started off the whole "you must pay for samples thing" because it's not really different from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ELnhjGw4Zs
>>55470635 so just make crediting the samples mandatory, then nothing is getting "rebranded". also >essentially taking the money from someone else's work bullshit, i dont listen to elton john but i like this song >>55470296 . that song existing on a free mixtape isn't stopping me from giving money to elton john because i wouldn't be doing that either way. it's such a bullshit notion that the profits from the track with the sample are cutting into the sampled song's profits
>>55470744 Don't think too highly of yourself, you're not gonna get sued for sampling and putting it on soundcloud, even on a much larger platform like youtube where people literally upload the entire songs/albums without permissions and in some cases make ad dollars from it, there's no one getting sued, worst case you get contacted and they ask you to remove it. And no one is going to care about your soundcloud songs unless you're releasing albums and touring the world and getting press
>>55470921 Mac Miller has over 5.2 million likes on facebook, that's an whole other league, you're talking about being an unknown soundcloud producer, but sure, if you're planning on getting to that level, be careful
Good sampling is like a puzzle you have to solve by buying 100s of puzzles just to find the right pieces, and even then you have to modify the pieces to fit perfectly with each other
This video is pretty interesting if you're a fan of the avalanches, shows some of the samples in since I left you, I think it's absolutely genius that they would hear all those small segments from completely different songs, re pitch, re tempo and fit them together into something new
>>55470110 >for that analogy to make sense they would have to "take a picture" then segment it, taking only a part of it, and through a process of repetition collage and combination with other elements, turn it into something completely different Not all sampling uses repetitions, collages, combinations etc. Take The Caretaker for instance: it's just old, worn vinyl records being played, with very little modification at all.
By the way, here's an example of a legal dispute between Patrick Cariou (who took the original picture, left) and Robert Prince (a much more well-known artist who just used his pics and modified them without Cariou's authorization, right). I do think that Prince's work is original, but Cariou should get some credit.
>>55470063 >taking a picture of a statue or a work of art isn't stealing
This is horseshit. I'm a photographer and even on fashion shoots etc you have to get owner signed paperwork if there's a building, house, car or anything owned by someone in the photo behind the model, otherwise you could get sued for selling it.
>>55471484 I don't really know to be honest, because there are varying factors and statutes set by law on how much you can sample. And depending on who goes after you (lawyers, publishers, label people, the artist themselves), or if you even show up on their radar.
Me personally, I sample without a care how the artist feels, because I use in a way that's different from how the original is. It's key to be original.
>>55471685 Yuh, I realize Mac Miller is kinda wack, but it's the money that's the issue here. Have you even heard of Aquarian Dream, the group that he sampled? They are trying to get money from him for a song he made and released for free.
I also feel like pic related is also important in this context (I know, normie Pharell bullshit.) because, me personally, I don't hear the similarities between Blurred Lines and Got to Give it Up.
i think the robin thicke case is shitty. they're clearly influenced by gaye, but not ripping him off. pretty soon, anyone to use noisy guitars will have to pay all their shekels to the velvet underground rights holders.
i think they just ruled against thicke because he's so unlikable. i bet if it was a different artist, it might not have gone the way it did.
>>55471845 There have been songs that are MUCH more similar, practical rips, without lawsuits coming to them. Think of that typical rock and roll chord sequence and how many artists aped that. Personally I think the family is just wanting money, I doubt as a musician Marvin would want this lawsuit happening, because it barely if at all sounds like that sound besides the instruments used. As for Mac, that's just fucking stupid, and those musicians are greedy bastards.
LOOK AT THESE FUCKING PLAGIARISTS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAI4-9yc6kA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAuqxEMRapg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvKTPDg0IW0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyw3knBuLRk
>>55472335 I think the Gaye family's lawyers argued that Pharell and Thicke were stealing a "vibe" or some shit like that, so the line is apparently extremely thin - especially if the artist you're inspired by is litigious
Not stealing If you take a sample an edit, make something different out of it, then it's not really stealing. I mean people list sampling as an instrument now so Take a look at this example, a song edited differently and sounds totally different from the source material
Thread replies: 92 Thread images: 17
Thread DB ID: 56898
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.