1. The next Beat This! Competition will be from November 22-23rd!

Sampling: The Stairway to a Lawsuit

  1. Fade

    Fade

    VIP Member
    Beat Scientist
    Administrator
    *** ill o.g. ***
    Battle Points:
    1
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2001
    Posts:
    14,435
    1000.jpg

    Once again, the grey area of music sampling has come to the forefront in a lawsuit concerning Led Zeppelin's most famous song, "Stairway To Heaven".

    Recently, there was a lawsuit filed by a representative of the late guitarist from the band Spirit, and they claim that "Stairway To Heaven" is a blatant ripoff of Spirit's song "Tauras", released only a few years prior to Stairway.

    Here's the tricky part: it's the most famous part of Zeppelin's song that is in question here; a chord progression that is all too common in the music world. Normally, if you sample something, you must pay. However, in this case it's actually pretty interesting to see the outcome because of the chords that Spirit is questioning.

    The problem I have with this lawsuit, and just the legality of sampling overall, is that it's such a grey area, and I'll tell you why.


    The Law States That You Can't Sample Without Paying

    The golden age of Hip Hop was so special and sounded so amazing because of the simple fact that sampling was everywhere. To produce a track back in the day, you did not need to know much about production itself, because a lot of the songs were more or less cut and paste loops of famous records. Now, that's not to say that the producers back then had zero skill - not at all. But they weren't faced with the current state of Hip Hop production where you have programs that feature chord arrangement and note scales.

    Once Rap music started to become popular, and beatmaking equipment simpler, that's when the legality of sampling came into play. Now we're at the point where technically even if you're just making beats in your bedroom studio, you're expected to pay for samples that you use.

    But what constitutes sampling? What does it actually mean?

    The Grey Area of Sampling

    Pay attention, because this section is the most important!

    By law, if I were to take the snare from BDP's "The Bridge Is Over" (a very recognizable snare), then I should have to pay to use it. But sampling like that is never brought up or taken to court. Why not? I sampled it!



    What happens most of the time in the case of a simple drum snare, is it can easily be layered with some other snare, and then *poof* - the sampling law gets thrown out the window. This is because that snare was altered and used to create a brand new snare.

    Now let's apply the same scenario to a piece of piano music.

    If I were to sample a 4-bar piano loop and then use it as is, I could be setting myself up for a lawsuit. However, what if I rearranged each piano part and created my own melody? Technically it's still sampling, but the fact that I'm altering (like with the snare) the sample, I could still have a lawsuit on my hands.

    What I'm referring to is a piano loop that is just piano. No other instruments with it. If there were strings behind the piano, it would be hard to argue in court that those piano parts are mine. But when there's piano that is left wide open by itself, and I sample it and rearrange it, is that technically sampling?

    In this scenario, if I were to rearrange each bar so that instead of it being Bar 1 - Bar 2 - Bar 3 - Bar 4, I instead made it Bar 4 - Bar 1 - Bar 1 - Bar 2 - I could argue that I played that piano with my own keyboard.

    It could be hard to use an argument like that in court, but I could see it working (especially since the piano is solo with no other instruments behind it). Even if I were in court and the person suing me said they used a Yamaha keyboard on their recording, I could argue that I have a Yamaha as well, and that's why they sound so similar.

    Now let's apply the Zeppelin lawsuit to our scenario. Watch as it's explained in this video:



    In their lawsuit, it's all about the same chords being used in both songs. When you break it down, it's a basic chord being played on a guitar. So in my case, if someone sued me for sampling their piano (even if I rearranged the bars), I could easily argue that it's basic piano notes being played.

    For example, if someone plays three piano notes together and records it, then I go and sample it, can they argue that it's theirs and not mine? On one hand, it's their RECORDING that I sampled, but this is the whole grey area issue. How can someone claim that those three piano notes played together is theirs?

    I understand the "recording" legality, but that still doesn't make sense at all.

    Money, Money, Money

    After many years of seeing lawsuits in the music sampling realm, I would constantly wonder why artists and labels bother. I'm not saying that sampling should be free and wide open, because I wouldn't want someone to sample my music and profit off of it, but there must be some proper laws set in place.

    The biggest issue when it comes to sampling is money. Straight up, it's money. This is all it comes down to. In the late 80's and early 90's, record label lawyers were starting to sue artists everywhere because they knew that money could be made. The sad part about all of this is that the artist that is sampled actually only sees very little of any money collected from a lawsuit. In a 2004 interview, Chuck D stated, "All the rap artists were on the big six record companies, so you might have some lawyers from Sony looking at some lawyers from BMG and some lawyers from BMG saying, "Your artist is doing this," so it was a tit for tat that usually made money for the lawyers, garnering money for the company. Very little went to the original artist or the publishing company."

    When Diddy went and used the entire instrumental of "Every Breath You Take", I think that's when the music industry's sampling laws when into overdrive. Here you had someone take the whole song and just use it. He didn't flip it around or try to hide anything, he just used it.



    Situations like that, I completely agree that the artist should pay for using it. However, someone that takes a common chord or note and uses it should not face any sort of legality whatsoever.

    Unfortunately, I cannot see this ever happening because the almighty dollar is too powerful of an incentive for everyone under the sun the file a sampling lawsuit.

    But if certain clearly stated laws were in place, and if these lawsuits weren't decided on the opinion of whichever judge is presiding, then maybe, just maybe, Hip Hop could have a new golden age.

    What is your opinion on sampling laws?

    Further Reading Related to Sampling
     
  2. Beat This Competition
  3. GET2THAPAPER

    GET2THAPAPER

    Producer{CEO@Get2ThaPaper}
    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2015
    Posts:
    39
    Sampling is Hip Hop. It's def a vital part of making a beat. Everything is a sample. Regardless if you use a keyboard and create from its soundbanks. Even the sounds in a workstation (Korg, Fantom, Motif) They all were created by sound designers and we necessarily don't know where their source sounds derived from. They need to update the rules. BMI, ASCAP or the music Powers and Publishers should post a yearly fee allowing you to use any content once the fee is paid. The government has the technology to stop piracy of content or block the way it's used by embedding codes w/in the content. I often feel Rap, Hip Hop is the target obviously.
     
    Kron Zilla and Fade like this.
  4. Beautiful Noise

    Beautiful Noise

    No Song is Safe.
    Battle Points:
    8
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Posts:
    267
    Sampling laws is such a gray area, and now learning about this whole issue that the lawyers made out like bandits infuriates me. Aside from my emotion, I once read that when an artist purchases a sampled beat from me, it is now that artist's responsibility to clear those samples, not mine as a beatmaker. IF this is true, then why should I worry? Sure, I want to sell beats like everybody else, and get proper credit for making the beat...but I don't want the headache of having to clear the samples.
     
  5. Fade

    Fade

    VIP Member
    Beat Scientist
    Administrator
    *** ill o.g. ***
    Battle Points:
    1
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2001
    Posts:
    14,435
  6. Kron Zilla

    Kron Zilla

    The rapper that became a producer.
    Battle Points:
    4
    Joined:
    May 5, 2016
    Posts:
    20
    If I sell a beat with samples, I tell the client before I take the money. I don't clear samples. I try to chop it to a point where it is hard to recognize. As an unrecognized producer, I try to stay away from sample loops for 2 reasons….
    1. I play good keys. I know a lot of up and coming producers get on and get over because they use recognizable loop samples. I think that is kinda lame.
    2. You can't run to the radio with that… and a bunch of rapper/singers be trying to make that hit and run to the local radio station with it…. most of the time, before their buzz is up too… and how bad is it gonna get when they do that and get a cease and desist letter? Yeah…. At that point, I'm the asshole. I don't wanna be that guy.

    I got a nice little beat that I made off of the Dazed and Confused song by the Zep too. Funny how they came up in the thread.

    Oh and another thing…. You can't copyright a drum.
    #KNOWTHELAW
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 23, 2016
    GET2THAPAPER likes this.
  7. dacalion

    dacalion

    Hands Of FIRE!
    *** ill o.g. ***
    Battle Points:
    220
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Posts:
    5,449
    These cats are full of BS! Looking at the current condition of Hip Hop music, some of these cats should be glad that we're sampling their ish! I think they should pay us for bringing attention to their dead music, cats that sue young up and coming producers aren't suing because they stole their music, they're suing because they're money hungry @$$holes and if that weren't true, they would make it stupid easy to get "permission" to sample their music instead of making it like an Act of Congress to get clearance. KRS said my library is an open book, sample anything you want. He understood! A remake of the exact song, I can understand but a chord progression, a snare, or a kick is just stupid!
     
    Fade likes this.
  8. Fade

    Fade

    VIP Member
    Beat Scientist
    Administrator
    *** ill o.g. ***
    Battle Points:
    1
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2001
    Posts:
    14,435
    @dacalion Right on. As I mentioned, it's because of people like Diddy that went and jacked an entire track, so we end up with these insane laws. I know that the shit really started way back with the Biz Markie lawsuit, but now it's just extreme. If I take a drum break like Funky Drummer and use it or even just chop it and use it, I don't see how that's hurting the original artist. Legally it's "stealing" but stealing music through sampling should have some common sense as well.
     
    dacalion likes this.
  9. dacalion

    dacalion

    Hands Of FIRE!
    *** ill o.g. ***
    Battle Points:
    220
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Posts:
    5,449
    @Fade Here's another one for you...Instagram would allow you to post a video with anybodies music, as soon as Facebook buys out Instagram, they implemented their dumbass copyright rules...like you're using someone else's music to make money. Its just stupid to me...especially since at the time, you could upload videos that were only 15 secs. long! duh!
     
  10. Fade

    Fade

    VIP Member
    Beat Scientist
    Administrator
    *** ill o.g. ***
    Battle Points:
    1
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2001
    Posts:
    14,435
    That's insane. I understand they have legal stuff but sometimes common sense needs to kick in...
     
    dacalion likes this.