Eminem Sues Apple for Sampling his Samples 690
EvanKai writes "To celebrate Grey Tuesday, Eminem sues Apple to show his support for hiphop and sampling. CBS MarketWatch is reporting
that 'Rapper Eminem's music publisher is suing Apple Computer Inc., claiming the company used one of the hip-hop superstar's songs in a television advertisement without permission. Eight Mile Style filed the copyright infringement suit late last week against Apple, Viacom Inc., its MTV subsidiary and the TBWA/Chiat/Day advertising agency.' While the ad in question no longer appears, several similar ads can be found here. I can't believe Chiat Day failed to clear the use of these songs with Pink, Mariah Carey, and The Who... or whatever major label actually owns the rights."
Would it be cheaper? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, from the sound of Eminem's going rate ($10million plus) it might be cheaper to just use the songs and then pay a smaller settlement fee. Just maybe...
Eminem (Score:0, Interesting)
The artists? (Score:5, Interesting)
Commercial vs Creative Use (Score:5, Interesting)
The Fine Print (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe Apple has some fine print in their iTunes Artist Agreement that states that if an artist places his song(s) on iTunes that apple will be able to use them in any manner that they wish. That would be smart if they did that.
You want sampling irony? Try this..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Negativland writes: "The track 'Michael Jackson' from this Fatboy Slim CD ['Better Living Through Chemistry' (Astralwerks) 1998] samples from the Negativland track 'Michael Jackson' from our 1987 release 'Escape From Noise' on SST Records.
"Stupidly, Fatboy Slim went to SST Records to get permission to use this sample. SST charged him $1000, which they are keeping all for themselves, of course. Besides the fact that Fatboy could have kept his $1000 and taken the sample from us without permission and we wouldn't have cared, the Negativland sample he used was itself appropriated by us without permission from a religious flexi-disc originally issued in 1966. [In fact, a Negativland member LITERALLY stole this record from the basement of a church in Concord CA.]
The article I sampled this from is here [superswell.com]
doesn't this count as fair use? (Score:2, Interesting)
But, aren't they allowed to use small snippets of music in order to *gasp* sell music? Example: the lousey 30 second clips found on most online CD stores... they don't clear each one of those do they?! Granted, I imagine before a commercial airs they usually sort this out, but I gotta think there was some legalese somewhere in whatever contract itunes has with 8mile publishing to allow for this type of use (otherwise sack the legal department)
*shrug*
e.
Re:My understanding... (Score:4, Interesting)
The song is 5:20 long. A ten year old kid sang 10 seconds of the song or 3.125% of the song. They used no actual music or clips of the song just a kid saying 3.125% of the words to the beat.
So it's a bit either way IMHO. has no music, tunes, singing or the original recording by eminem. I don't know about the legality of it, but I presume with such a minor amount of 'copying', apple's ad agency thought there was no need to get permission, but eminem obviously disagrees.
Re:Would it be cheaper? (Score:2, Interesting)
Before this Apple Co. fray it was "Apple Music who? " Apple Music gained much more than they lost IMO. I think 8 Mile it just trying to capitalize on something that has already helped more than hurt them.
Re:Sampling (Score:2, Interesting)
GREY TUESDAY (Score:0, Interesting)
To give Eminem some credit, he doesnt endorse any commercial product.
First of all, these aren't "samples" (Score:5, Interesting)
They don't need to be cleared with the record label or artist, as this type of non-complete "reproduction" is legally allowable. It does not constitute an endorsement by the artist, and Eminem is a retard for even thinking that it does.
But in the US you can sue anyone for anything, so I guess we'll see how it turns out.
Uhm, I don't think this is about sampling.... (Score:2, Interesting)
How did the publisher own the song... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sampling (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Dude, Chill (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:First of all, these aren't "samples" (Score:3, Interesting)
Compulsory Licenses (Score:5, Interesting)
This provision is what lets Marilyn Manson cover "Tainted Love" and "Sweet Dreams," Type O Negative cover Cinnamon Girl, Tori Amos cover Smells Like Teen Spirit (and, well, every song on StrangeLittleGirl, plus Bad Company on her Under The Pink tour, plus...)
As an aside, it's kind of ironic that Eminem is suing for use of his work, when Dido had no idea he had sampled her work ("Stan") until she heard the CD. Luckily she was "blown away" and agreed to it - and later toured with him...
Re:You want sampling irony? Try this..... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Would it be cheaper? (Score:5, Interesting)
Having kids, students, and others pick a song on their iPod and sing along to it entails a different set of rights than using the song outright or sampling sections of it. If MTV was doing that ultra-silly Karoke show and replayed some idiot doing "Lose Yourself" over and over again, I'm fairly certain they couldn't/shouldn't be sued for copyright violation. That said, I agree with the poster who indicates disbelief that Chiat Day would have failed to clear the use regardless. An agency like that is always better off safe than sorry, and clears licensing all the time.
Of course this just adds to my below zero disrespect for Eminem. The guy does great music but has become one of the biggest a**holes in music.
Re:Grey Tuesday (Score:2, Interesting)
Copyright was meant to forbid people from making copies of something for profit. With the understanding that a copy would reduce profits for the original inventor/creator. Apple is not selling a song here. They are selling an mp3 player and a music distribution service. This is not infringing on EMI's IP at all.
Let's get back to the original meaning of copyright.
Re:Still Waiting on Lawsuits... (Score:2, Interesting)
Theirs goes "doo doo doo do-do-do doot... doo doo doo do-do-do doot."
Ice's went "doo doo doo do-do-do doot
He stuck an extra quick bass note between the two repeating stanzas.
Seriously, that was the argument.
Re:Sweet Jesus (Score:1, Interesting)
And I hope people will stop buying his music so he will go away.
Something totally different... (Score:4, Interesting)
We got a couple huge (and I mean *huge*) bags of M&Ms from him because he liked the drivers so much, and my sister has a signed N'Sync poster (or is it Backdoor Boys? One of the two.) that Eminem personally got for her.
Eminem is also the guy who tried to keep my father's business from going bankrupt after the company that held the contract with Eminem's producers/rhodeo/whatever and my father's company (who leased the trucks/drivers to the other company) decided to screw us over majorly (6 figure losses). Granted, my father's company still went bankrupt, but it lasted a bit longer thanks to Eminem.
Despite that, I still can't stand his music. ~,^
And that wraps up today's episode of Stuff Nobody Cares About.
Re:Law likely on Eminem's side (Score:3, Interesting)
In this case, what I'm hearing is that the ad (an audio-visual work) featured someone performing someone else's work. You might be able to argue two causes of action - use of the work without a sync license, and public performance without use rights.
Yes, you're right, since the original Eminem recording was not aired, this is strictly a matter for whoever owns the song rights (probably Eminem and his publisher.)
BTW, I am Not A Lawer, so please don't construe any of the above as legal advice...
Let's clear this up a bit (Score:1, Interesting)
Anyone who claims Eminem deserves nothing for this is just wrong. This isn't someone listening to music in their room, passing out free remixes for fun and/or art; this is a case of someone using someone else's work in order to gain money. Pure and simple. Eminem should reap some of the profit.
-drew
Bullshit. (Score:5, Interesting)
He wrote it, did he not? That makes it his work, doesn't it?
You ever wonder why no one sings "Happy Birthday To You" on TV? That's right. It's a copyrighted work they would have to pay money to perform.
Re:Grey Tuesday (Score:3, Interesting)
You may believe (as I do) that current copyright law is unethical, that is that it harms society as a whole. The correct way to fix immoral legal situations IS civil disobedience. However, the correct way to fix unethical legal situations is to change the law. One cannot enact sweeping ethical legal changes without changing the law. Therefore I believe that the correct action here is not to violate the law, but to ask the lawmakers to change it. FWIW, I have corresponded with all of my state senators and representatives on this matter and made my opinion known. Most of them were in agreement to some degree or another.
There's no way I'm going to accept that the definitions of immoral [reference.com] and unethical [reference.com] are anywhere near precise enough for the distinction you're making. The only examples I can think of that immoral would apply to that unethical would not would be religious sins--i.e., you could say "idolatry is immoral", but you certainly couldn't say "idolatry is unethical."
Now perhaps if you believe Utilitarianism is the only ethical system, your distinction would make sense. On the other hand, I happen to think current copyright law is immoral, because by default human communication should be unrestricted--any undue restriction thereof is tyranny, and any means necessary to overthrow or bypass (de facto law being my only concern) such restriction is justified. Few things are more offensive to me than telling a particular artistic work that it has no right to exist. The White Album, being rather aged and with half its performers dead, is ripe for civil disobedience.
There is also the issue of being unfair to creators while being fair to copyright holders--you can say "transferable" all you want, but if by making the right transferrable you have reduced the benefits to artists (highly probable), then transferability is wrong.
My point being, if I believe that pickpocketing should not be a crime, that doesn't give me the right to pick your pocket.
True, because rights come from neither beliefs nor laws. If you believed you had a right to pickpocket, surely you would also believe that everyone had a right to pickpocket, regardless of their beliefs on pickpocketing.
Slam away. (Score:0, Interesting)
Or are you just slamming him because it is something different - and you know nothing about it? Kind of like the Windows users who slam Macs, or the Mac users who slam Linux...
Sure, there is *lots* of Crappy(TM) rap out there. But Eminem is gifted, and talented. Just because you may not agree with his subject matter or the way he presents it, does not mean he is not an artist, or he is a punk, or whatever people are saying.
It's not politics people, you are allowed to experiment with your musical tastes and no one will think less of you. Take some time and listen to an Eminem album all the way through, paying attention to what is going on... Especially his more recent work - it is very good.
However, I don't think he will win this lawsuit... And in reality - I believe He AND Apple should just send me some money, 'cause they both profited off of ME.
Re:Musicians and Royalty-Free Sampling (Score:5, Interesting)
When the Mom-and-Pop band goes into the studio to record an album, they emerge with two related yet discrete products. A collection of songs (the notes, lyrics, chords, tempo, modulations, etc... essentially metric data that can be easily reverse-engineered) and a collection of recordings (the tape or disk, containing the actual bits or electromagnetic flux representing the specific performances of the metric data by musicians).
Look closely on any retail CD you own. The *songs* will be copyright-ed (copywritten?) by the author (as in, "Big Stanky Lovin'" copyright 1999 Herb Stank). Somewhere in the vicinity, there will also be a note that "the copyright in this original sound recording is owned by Universal Music Group". What this means is that Herb Stank may have written the song, but that Universal owns the master tapes of this recording. Usually somewhere in there is the standard disclaimer about "all rights reserved".
The rights that the record companies are reserving are the right to sell CD's; the right to control who performs the recording live; the right to make and sell sheet music of the recording; the right to sell these rights to an interested party. These are all forms of publishing, which is the only thing the record company cares about, because publishing is the only part of the music industry that actually makes money. That little blurb on the CD about "lyrics reprinted by permission"? It's not the songwriter's permission. It's Universal's. And if that blurb weren't on there, technically Universal could sue their own band (and believe me, that's an all too common occurance). And yes, they could decide to get their undies in a bundle and keep you from even printing your lyrics on your own CD. And yes, technically once you sign that dotted line, Universal could sue you for ever performing your own song live.
This might seem like a lot of rights for the record companies to have, considering they didn't write the song. This is why many musicians, independant and otherwise, form their own publishing companies. As long as Mom-and-Pop's-Publishing is the first to obtain the publishing rights to a song (and there's no reason they shouldn't be if the band isn't signed), the Mom and Pop band is in a much better position to negotiate with the record company to retain some of these rights, or to have them revert to Mom-and-Pop's-Publishing after a set period of time, then they would be if they just signed right up to Universal.
So, when rapper X sticks the CD from the Mom-and-Pop Band in his computer, fires up audiograbber and rips off a chunk of "Big Stanky Lovin", written by Herb Stank, performed by the Mom-and-Pop band, published by Mom-and-Pop's Publishing Inc., and (most importantly) OWNED by Universal, there can be four pipers to pay. But usually it's just the big one, since the big one has bought the publishing rights from the littler three. In fact, the most common scenario is that if Universal likes the Mom-and-Pop Band so much, they typically will buy Mom-and-Pop's Publishing as part of the deal. Which still leaves the artists pretty screwed, but at least they got more money.
On the other hand, if rapper X is smart and has his guitar playing friends reverse engineer the metric data contained within the digital (or analog) data of the sound recording, then you eliminate the record company being able to come after you for stealing their recording. OF course, they'll still come after you for stealing their song, but that's almost impossible to prove if you are clever enough...
Some legal protection does still exist for the fair use (although they don't call it that) of this metric data. There are certain legal requirements one must meet when attmpting to copyright a song (you can't copyright a two-note phrase). Etc...
b.echthros
Re:Sampling (Score:5, Interesting)
Comments like this rub artists like myself the wrong way. Let me paint you all a little picture of my world, maybe this will help in understanding why sampling is part of the industry.
I'm a 3D artist [nanogator.com]. When you work in 3D, there are a lot of subcategories that one can go into. You can do texturing, character animation and rigging, visual effects, matte painting, and a few others that aren't readily popping into mind. I specialize in modelling with a secondary skill in design. What I mean by that is my talent in other areas isn't so strong. Am I talented a talented? There are lots of people who would say yes. Can I do character animation? Nope, I haven't climbed those steps yet. Does that mean I'm not a 3D artist? No.
So what do I do if I'm commisioned to do a project that requires other areas? Simple, I either license other stuff, or I get another person involved. Right now, I'm working on an Ore facility designed to operate on the surface of an asteroid, it's for a game. I've designed the station, gotten that approved, and now I'm building it. The thing is, my client needs it rendered with a backdrop. He has a very specific goal in mind and I have to complete it. I have so much time to get it done in. One of the things I need to do is make a realistic terrain for it. Well, that's not really my area. For one thing, I need textures for it. (note: What I'm about to describe is like sampling.) Now, I can't go to an asteroid and take some photos that I own the copyright to. So what do I do? Well, Nasa is pretty darn cool. They've got a lot of photos of the surface of the moon and on Mars that I can put together in Photoshop to create a new environment. This involves taking small pieces of their images and putting them together into something new. Nasa's agreement is pretty open about that. It says I can use their images provided I say "Courtesy of Nasa" in the credits. In addition to those images, I have a royatly free photo CD I purchased that more or less says "use it as you like, you've paid for it." So here I am, 'sampling' other artists work to meet this goal. I'm doing this LEGITIMATELY and ethically. (In other words, they'd be happy for this use.)
Now, there are exceptional artists out there who'd do it all. They'd probably design it, build it, hand-paint the textures, and do a lot of other things that somebody with years (decades even) of experience under their belts. (Craig Mullins [goodbrush.com], for example.) However, I'm not there yet. Most artists aren't. That's not because they suck, it's because it takes a long time to get there.
So let's get to Eminem here. So he can't play an instrument. So? That's not his talent. His talent is the lyrics he puts together. I can't say I'm a fan of his, but I have listened to his music, and he's definitely a guy with a style about him, and is most definitely an artist. Has he sampled music? Yep. There's a song called Stan that uses some chunks of some of Dido's work in it. If he were a 'talented artist', the way the parent poster is describing them, would this be a bad move? No for a couple of reasons: 1.) It fits the song. You have to hear it to understand, but it was an appropriate choice. 2.) He licensed use of that song. The result? A better piece. Could he have pursued his own? Eh maybe. Would that be automatically better? Automatically? No. It really depends on what your goal is.
Sampling is not an evil. It can be done wrong. You can grab a riff from a song and not get the permission to do it, that'd be awful. Artists are very protective of their work. I could grab a texture from somewhere and not acquire for it, that'd be equally wrong. Somebody could download somebody else's work and put their name on it
Re:Sampling (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure what kind of rap you listen to, but on mixtapes there is sampling going on right and left. Ever heard of a freestyle? Almost always someone else's instrumental with no such permission obtained.
Do you think that 50 Cent got Ja Rule's permission to mock Rule over the Clap Back beat? Well he didn't (because there's no way he would get permission for that).
You may not hear a lot of such songs because they never are released as albums under major labels. They're instead placed on mixtapes that are used for promotional use by the artists, not unlike Apple using samples in their ad(s). Of course, the original artist's lyrics are never used in this way.
I didn't see Apple's commercial, but if it was nothing more than the instrumental in the song, then I'd say Eminem has something of a double standard. There are a tons freestyles on the mixtapes from Shadyville that use instrumentals without permission.
Re:Sampling (Score:2, Interesting)
But yes, Eminem does suck.
Re:Sampling (Score:3, Interesting)
Whoa, stop right there. Music is on an entirely different level from any other artistic work. Music is protected to the point of absurdity.
Think of that stupid Intel jingle you hear on TV. It's four damn notes, and yet there is a copyright attached to the order of the notes, there is a copyright attached to the performance of the notes, and there is a copyright attached to the recording of those notes. You don't need to know anything at all about music to come up with four notes that sound interesting together, and it's laughable to imagine that in the last million years those notes have never been performed in that order.
Can you imagine any four bits of data that would have so much protection in any other endeavour? The written word doesn't offer that much protection, computer programming doesn't offer that much protection, why does humming a few notes offer it?
I have quite a bit of respect for modelers and artists. The attention they recieve doesn't come close to the impact their work makes on a finished product. But the equivalent of these sampling cases to the modeller's world would be suing over 4 or 5 pixels in a texture. Can you imagine how fast that would be laughed out of court? The minimum bar for what constitutes a musical work is set far too low to shed a tear for the poor artists in these sorts of lawsuits.
Eminem also guilty (Score:2, Interesting)
First example that comes to mind is the very beginning of the song "Don't Understand" by Masta Ace.
Re:Sampling (Score:2, Interesting)
you got it... THREE CHORDS.
Using anything but those three is color and style. Which I am personally very fond of. But I can appreciate mastery of the form in using only I, IV and V or mostly that. Beethoven often used those primary chords, although never exclusively. The 5th Symphony is a good example of that. God, if Beethoven had only had a Rickenbacher and a Marshall Stack.... His style is clearly an early ancestor of Hard Rock.
I'm not a big fan of sampling tunes. Sounds, yes. Tunes, no. Learn from your colleagues, by all means, but don't rip em off. Make your art completely your own. And if you really must include someone's work, license it!
Re:Sampling (Score:2, Interesting)
To respond to the factual meat of your statement, Eminem can actually sing. He's not Luciano Pavarotti, but he can hold a tune. Controlling the frequency and amplitude of vocal chords is, fundamentally, no different then controlling the amplitude and frequency of an instrument (all those nasty jokes I made about vocalists while I was at music camp notwithstanding).
And what's more important than holding a tune, is that he can *write* a tune. Last I heard, he makes a good portion of his own beats these days, as well as a good portion of the beats on the 50-cent album. Programming music into a computer might not require the physical dexterity of playing an instrument, but it damn sure does require the mental dexterity or being able to actually compose a song (albeit a pop song). Something, I might add, that many people who can "actually play instruments" lack the ability to do. Say, for instance, Nickelback. The fact that they can play "real instruments" doesn't change the fact that they suck major donkey asshole.
Mozart and Beethoven (even though they could) didn't play instruments at performances of their works. They had hired hands play the parts they wrote. Eminem has machines and hired hands play the parts he wrote. The main difference being that you can tell a machine *exactly* what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. Whereas with humans performing your composition you always run the risk that they'll screw it up, or even worse, put their own spin or interpretation on it.