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."
Hey! Look! It's a cash cow! (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:Would it be cheaper? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Would it be cheaper? (Score:4, Informative)
Unless you want to pull a Ray Parker. The studios who made Ghostbusters (name eludes me at the moment) asked Huey Lewis for rights to use his songs in Ghostbusters. When he denied them permission, they took the music to "I want a new Drug" and sped it up. Put lyrics in by Ray Parker and made the Ghostbusters theme.
Of coursse, it went to court and they had to pay out the azz, but they still got what they want.
Re:Would it be cheaper? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes it's easier to pay for forgiveness than to ask permission.
KFG
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:Would it be cheaper? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Would it be cheaper? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Would it be cheaper? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Would it be cheaper? (Score:4, Funny)
Nah, It's gotta be more than just CmdrTaco and four other slashdotters...
:P
Re:Would it be cheaper? (Score:4, Funny)
Sweet Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)
First Weird Al and now Apple... I hope no one ever buys that loser's albums ever again and he can go back to being poor white trash again.
Re:Sweet Jesus (Score:5, Funny)
If I was Weird Al, I'd make an entire album of Eminem satires just as a big "F you".
Re:Sweet Jesus (Score:5, Informative)
Mathers gave permission for the song, but then wouldn't allow it to be released as either a single, or for a video for it to be produced.
Al mocked this decision during the Poodle Hat tour with one of his 'interviews', by turning it around on Mathers as a free speach issue.
It was extremely funny.
(4th row, opening concert, Poodle Hat tour; aka, the sound check.)
Re:Sweet Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)
He never enjoyed an upgraded status. I consider anyone who badmouths his mother, and calls them all type of vile terms trash, white or otherwise. He just happens to live in a golden garbage can.
Re:Sweet Jesus (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sweet Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sweet Jesus (Score:4, Insightful)
The Register (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Register (Score:5, Funny)
Very appropriate for these times.
Re:The Register (Score:5, Funny)
Very appropriate for these times."
Wow, you're a poet and weren't even aware of the fact!
Re:The Register (Score:5, Funny)
michael: RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
John.
New performance, not sample (Score:5, Informative)
I agree. If a 10-year-old is singing the song, then it is a new performance (unless Eminem has a time machine.) To use Eminem's song for a new performance requires "mechanical rights", which are automatically granted for a set fee. Mechanical rights are applied for selling something that includes the copyright (but not perfomances) of an artist. I believe that should apply to advertising that does not include the artist's performance, but IANAL.
Most songs are handled by the The Harry Fox Agency (HFA) [harryfox.com]. Eminem has 50 songs listed at Songfile.com [songfile.com], which is HFA's online license application for low volume use. The list does not include "Lose Yourself". If the song is not handled by HFA, then you must [musicbizacademy.com] contact the publisher directly.
There is a lawsuit, so somebody believes they had the right to tell Apple they could not use lyrics in a commercial. But it is not about a "sample", because Apple did not use a "sample" of Eminem's performance.
Gotta love irony.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The artists? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The artists? (Score:5, Informative)
Eminem responded by ending discussions with Apple, according to the suit.
Cheers.
Turns out... (Score:5, Funny)
How ironic! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How ironic! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How ironic! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How ironic! (Score:3, Insightful)
One possible defense would be to say that the origin of the song is in question, as 8 Mile Style didn't have the song registered. Considering the circumstances, it looks like that would be a very poor plan.
~D
Re:How ironic! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How ironic! (Score:5, Informative)
Well, M and M are his initials...
-sam
Commercial vs Creative Use (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Commercial vs Creative Use (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Commercial vs Creative Use (Score:5, Funny)
Miata (Score:5, Funny)
Not a silly lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
now we're asking why a super-rich like Eminem bothers to stop free advertising. however we must think of a bigger picture where lesser-known artists are not getting a fair share and have no where to go.
Dude, Chill (Score:4, Funny)
However, laws are laws, as stupid as some of them may be. Apple should have known better.
Thanks to that 10 year old girl, he won't be able to buy his own gold-plated shark tank this year.
Re:Dude, Chill (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't a short segment of under a specified time allowed for "fair use", or would that not apply to advertising?
Re:Dude, Chill (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Dude, Chill (Score:4, Funny)
and it was Lars Ulrich [spscriptorium.com] our favorite fan of MP3s...
Great South Park ep.
"Man must learn to think of these horrible outcomes before he acts selfishly or else... I fear... recording artists will be forever doomed to a life of only semi-luxury."
Re:Dude, Chill (Score:5, Informative)
You just have to notify the copyright holder and pay less than 10 cents per download (not sure what it is for commercial useage.)
Now, INAL but I have been looking into music copyright recently.
-Tim
Re:Dude, Chill (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.
Re:The Fine Print (Score:3, Insightful)
Really. Honestly. You think it would be Smart? I know this is
How many times we have argued on
Having anything in the agreement that would allow unfair use of Intellectual Property would be anything but SMART. It would
"Every million I make, another relative sues" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Every million I make, another relative sues" (Score:3, Funny)
It's Fair Use (Score:3, Insightful)
This Eminem (TM) guy's case is probably on shakey ground.
Well, duh, that's probably why they didn't hire him to endorse it, and instead paid someone else to sing a portion of the song indicating the kind of things that someone might expect to find on iTunes Music Store. Apple probably doesn't give a damn if Eminem endorses the service or not; they just want to inform prospective customers about what kind of music is available on it, not of Eminem's paid opinion of the service.Re:It's Fair Use (Score:5, Informative)
New Litigious bastard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:New Litigious bastard (Score:4, Insightful)
They used his work without his permission, a public performance of his work, used to promote a product/service.
I can see the practicality of not wanting to endorse for Apple. The whole losing "street cred" thing. Now instead of a white trash hero who came from a broken home to dominate the hip hop scene, his image shifts to an uppity homosexual who buys Apple products.
It breaks down really easy. Big corporation with monopolistic ambitions broke the law. Individual sues based on his rights.
Just mentally swap out the parties. Instead of Apple, Microsoft (or IBM, or Intel, or whoever's the evil corporate demon of the hour), and instead of Eminem, your favorite unknown independant label artist.
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.
my lawsuit... (Score:5, Funny)
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]
This is how the business works, isn't it? (Score:5, Informative)
If he copies a baseline verbatim (or actually samples their record), he pays them a royalty.
This isn't his decision, this is the decision made by the politicians that made the laws so restrictive. Paul's Boutique could never be made today, because the sampling is too extensive and it would be impossible for the record company to clear the record legally.
Advertisers must license every song that they use in their advertisements. Unlike "sampling," advertising has always worked this way, afaik. I see very little wrong with The Rolling Stones charging Billy G so many millions to use "Start Me Up."
So, go white boy go white boy go white boy go. Take those fat cats down. They knew they were supposed to get a license.
Law likely on Eminem's side (Score:5, Informative)
However, in the case of endorsement, a specific license is indeed required (my wife - IANAL, but she is, ahem -- handles these from time to time). If the kid "singing" the song can be construed as an endorsement (probably), then Eminem deserves compensation.
Also, his likely fee ($10M) is definitely in the ballpark. You'd be amazed how much established artists make for these licenses. In fact, using an original song is usually so prohibitively expensive, that the licensor usually opts for a license to use a "cover" version only (much cheaper, but still a lot of money). That's why when you hear famous songs in commercials, they're often covers. FYI, in these cases, the language in these contracts usually requires a cover not to sound exactly like the original recording.
Re:Law likely on Eminem's side (Score:4, Insightful)
Because that's the way the law is.
Isn't that how the cover versions show up in ads in the first place, because the original artists don't want to license their performances?
No. When you hear a cover song in an ad, it is only because the artist has licensed the song for use "as a cover only." The company then goes and pays someone else to record a cover version.
What you're saying is: Mechanical license is paid for eight-year-old girl to cover "Lose Yourself:" legal. Eight-year-old girl licenses performance to ad agency: illegal. How is that possible?
That's right. If you want to go and record yourself singing "Lose Yourself" you can do so -- and you can sell your cover on a CD (and pay a compulsary license per copy sold to Eminem every 3 months).
But you can't use the song in a commercial. That's the law.
Riiight... (Score:3, Funny)
Can't we get Mars candy to sue him for using Eminem? Everytime I hear him mentioned I suddenly want snackfood.
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.
Re:First of all, these aren't "samples" (Score:3, Interesting)
Sampling... (Score:4, Funny)
May I have your attention please?
Will the really stupid intern who did not license the music from the original artist please stand up?
I repeat, will the really stupid intern who did not license the music from the original artist please stand up?
We're going to have a problem here..
Y'all act like you never seen a slashdotter before
Jaws all on the floor like Intel, like AMD just burst in the door
and started whoopin their ass worse than before
they first were
Please im not funny so make sure to mod me down to -3 offtopic, thanks again!
Eminem Lyrics (Score:3, Funny)
Might have a new target besides his own mother.
Grey Tuesday (Score:3, Informative)
It's basically a freedom of speech civil disobedience thing based on posting DJ Danger Mouse's Grey album for 24 hours on your website (on Feb 24, "Fat Tuesday"), because EMI is (supposedly) wrongly trying to censor this work, as it is a remix of Jay-Z's Black Album and the Beatles' White Album. They claim rights to the White Album. The organizers claim that it is a respectful and positive derivative work and should not be stifled.
Hardly readable google cache here: http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:OqlsV9RPt3YJ
As a digital DJ myself, I'm siding with EMI. I don't care if your work is respectful or not. I don't care if its positive or not. If I put hard work into making music, you have no right to profit off that work by remixing that music without seeking permission first.
How did the publisher own the song... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not Eminem's version (Score:5, Informative)
Eminem, however, is listed as part composer for this commercial and every time it is played, he will/should be reimbursed for his efforts. But I can tell you that those rates are nothing to write home about.
The only time you need clearance, or a license, to use a recording for a commercial is if you use, well, the actual recording. This could be the case, as the soundtrack for this performance may contain samples from the original, but there is no way to tell from the articles.
If those samples do not exist in the commercial, Mr. Slim is acting kinda Shady in this case...
OK- What about the Happy Birthday song? (Score:4, Informative)
also from here [piercegorman.com] this bit about the song and copyright law:
So for those arguing that a "cover" of the song can sung without obtaining any rights, I would have a say that a precedence has been set and it does not appear to be in favor of Apple and Chiat Day.
More Quotes From Eminem on This topic (Score:3, Funny)
"Yo the little ***** shouldn't have been singin my m**** f****** song. Anybody else I'd ah f***** them up good if I wasn't such a punk ass loser."
Word.
Attention: This is totally legal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple did not sample Eminem's song in their commercial.
Apple did show a 10-year-old girl COVERING the song, in Acapella.
Not only could this easily be definied as a cover, which requires no payment of royalties, but I would see it as a parody, which is covered under fair use.
I suggest you all review the Stanford Copyright & Fair Use Guide at http://fairuse.stanford.edu/web_resources/index.h
There is no case here, mark my words... Apple will win this suit, as Eminem has no case.
Re:Attention: This is totally legal. (Score:4, Informative)
"10 Big Myths about copyright explained"
"The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author."
Apple was not doing any of the above things. They were using the song in an advertisement for their product. Fair use doesn't apply in a commercial context.
Um OK (Score:3, Funny)
There was no sampling. Sampling is when I record what you say and play it back. Covering is when I just reperform it.
I agree with what some other people said -- Eminem suing Apple? I should download his audio on MP3 and show the whole world how he's got...oh crap, now I'm being sued.
--Dan
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...
Compulsory licenses and Apple's use. (Score:5, Informative)
As others have pointed out, Apple's ad agency used an entirely new, original recording of a person singing the song in question.
Such use is covered by the compulsory license provisions of 17 USC 115, part of the copyright title of the United States Code:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/115.html
As long as Apple provided notice to the copyright holder (usually the publishing company that owns the publishing rights to the music and lyrics) and paid the compulsory license fee, they're in the clear. They do NOT need permission for this.
Furthermore, since Eminem's likeness and the sound of his voice were not used at all in the ad, it's highly unlikely that there's any merit at all to the assertion that he is somehow entitled to fees for an endorsement of their product.
Since the licenses described in 17 USC 115 are compulsory and the fees are explicitly spelled out, that chunk of statute probably precludes any further claims Eminem could make unless what they did in the commercial went beyond the scope of the compulsory license. Based on what I saw in those ads it almost certainly did not.
This one's probably dead on summary judgment. I'd be surprised if Apple even tried to settle this one for more than their projected legal costs to get to a ruling on that.
-- Mark
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.
How much "originality" is there? (Score:5, Funny)
Musicians (and actors) as gazillionaires is a relatively new thing in our society, I think a lot of them are really losing it though. In the old days musicians were paid much like the rest of us, for doing a job, ie, playing music for an event or for a group.
Do I think Eminem deservers $10mil to compensate for some 10 year old girl blurting out his "creation"? Heck no, give the guy a couple of hundred bucks at most, but move on.
These folks would be more than happy to collect royalties off us all when we hum their tunes in the shower.
It's time we brought some of these "stars" back down to earth a little. It's a never ending cycle and it's the consumer who is burnt because of it, is any actor worth $20million for 3 or 4 months work on a movie? I don't think so myself, but because some suits in Hollywood think so we're now paying $10 a ticket at the movies, meanwhile these "stars" pump out garbage like Gigli.
And WTF is with Britney Spears? I saw some video of hers yesterday and she's selling nothing but sex appeal, her singing stinks and she has little talent, but I guess wriggling yer bum is worth millions in the US. How about getting her to put on a concert where she actually stands still and sings her songs rather than runs around lipsyncing everything.
It's only OK for Eminem to steal music (Score:4, Informative)
The issue boiled down... (Score:5, Funny)
A little girl in a commercial sang a small part of a song written by some overrated guy who does that rap stuff.
The singer is suing for some stupid amount.
He should lose because he's a dickhead.
He won't lose, however, because we have a legal system constructed by, for and of the dickheads.
I hope this helps. :-)
Re:Eminem (Score:5, Informative)
Slim Shady...well that's just pure egotism.
Re:Eminem (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sampling (Score:5, Informative)
The Verve lost a huge lawsuit for "Bittersweet Symphony", the sample they used was from a Rolling Stones concert, for instance.
Re:Sampling (Score:5, Informative)
Not only did they The Verve lose a lawsuit against The Stones, but also has successful legal challenges from Andrew Loog Oldham [andrewloogoldham.com] who owns the rights to all Pre 1968 Stones songs...
Worse than that, because the courts has ruled the due to the Sample, The Verve did not own the song, the Stones management then licensed the song to be used in adverts for Nike and Vauxhall...
Re:Sampling (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sampling (Score:5, Insightful)
Barely audible? It was practically the only thing in the song.
Re:Sampling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sampling (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sampling (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Musicians and Royalty-Free Sampling (Score:5, Informative)
String got writing credits on Puff Daddy's cover of Every Breath You take. (The cover is called "I'll be missing you.") I can't believe how many people think Puff Daddy got away with something there. Shit, Stevie Wonder got writing credits on "Wild Wild West", another unoriginal hiphop cover that most people think was blatantly ripped off.
Not that re-recording a bassline can get you out of copyright litigation, since copyright infringement has nothing to do with the bits, and everything to do with the order and arrangement of notes, regardless of what instrument plays it, or what key you transpose it to.
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
WRONG! (Score:5, Insightful)
The right to sell sheet music of a particular song is held by the publisher, NOT THE RECORD LABEL! The record label has to pay the publisher in order to record the song (this is called a mechanical royalty).
In order to perform a song live the venue (or promoter) must have authorization from a performing rights orginization (SESAC, BMI, or ASCAP). This is usally a blanket license. The record label has NOTHING to do with this!
Also anything that is copyrightable (such as a song or work of art) is copyrighted the instant it is put onto a transferrable medium. It doesn't have to be registered with the US Copyright Office for it to be copyrighted. Registering it with the USCO does help incase there is ever a dispute they can say "it was registered on this date such and such etc"
My degree is in the recording industry. I know what I am talking about:
http://www.MTSU.edu/~record/
Re:Sampling (Score:3, Insightful)
Eg: Talented musicians are good enough to make up their own notes and tonalities, so they don't have to play from the western 12 note scale or use the same V-I cadence that is in 90% of all songs ever written.
Whether or not you play an instrument (I play 5) has little to do with your value as a composer of original music. The same people who decry sampling or rapping as unoriginal probably don't know that all the Greats (from Beethoven to the Grateful Dead) either had people go
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: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:My understanding... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:My understanding... (Score:5, Funny)
1) You are a lawyer
2) You are not a lawyer
3) You intend to be a lawyer
4) You are married to a lawyer
5) You know a lawyer
6) You know how to spell lawyer
Without a disclaimer, I'm left to conclude that you MUST BE a lawyer (or, more likely, a high ranking judge) and as such I will be citing your Slashdot post in a case I currently have before the Federal appeals court.
If I lose, expect to be sued.
Re:My understanding... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm on their side on this one, without being gay. It's all part of our great slow march towards true fair and equal treatment by the law.
Daniel
Re:free.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:free.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Still Waiting on Lawsuits... (Score:5, Informative)
van halen did sue tone loc.
the WCW/WWE did have to pay the estate of jimi hendrix for use of hendrix's music.
it took about 5 minutes on Google to confirm those 3. not sure about the rest though. i can't spend all day on google now, can i?
Re:Still Waiting on Lawsuits... (Score:3, Funny)
"No no, their song goes: doo doo doo do-do-do-doot and mine goes: doo doo doo do-do-do-doot CHICKA CHICKA"
The "technically mine was different" story.