A really interesting thing about Paul’s Boutique is that the majority of the samples were cleared with minimal fuss. There were some samples that they used (like those of the Beatles) that were done without clearing them but apparently they were all like “fuck it, it would be awesome to get sued by the Beatles”.
This was only possible because this was done before the landmark sampling lawsuits of the early 1990s made it financially infeasible to ever make an album like that again.
It’s sad and also kind of amazing: there’s entire albums that could have only been made at that exact time. Paul’s Boutique, Endtroducing, Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Since I Left You, etc. Maybe DJs will decamp to Germany to make albums like that again.
From what I understand about Endtroducing that was more a case of “use lots of obscure samples and hope I don’t get caught”. The well known samples were cleared but most of it was hoping that nobody would notice.
Sometimes it works. Look at the Amen break. Entire genres of music have been built on its back yet nobody has ever sought royalties.
Very true, and DJ Shadow wasn’t exactly a household name. If Diplo tried to make an album like that now, you can bet that “producer detectives” would be going through it sample-by-sample, no matter how obscure. There’s an increasing number of online services that, for a fee, will automatically extract possible copyright payments from YouTube videos or samples in songs.
To be fair the genre has done just fine without sampling
You forgot Public Enemy. Chuck D has said they couldn’t make their early albums today because of sampling lawsuits.
Whatever would we have done without German hip-hop.
Of course, in Germany, I can’t watch any of these videos because of GEMA.
my point is just saying this is an essential part of the culture/artwork doesn’t mean it’s somehow not violating copyright. Weird ass reasoning. I’m not comparing copyright infringement to murder. I’m saying x is y as 1 is 2. I’m not comparing x and 1.
[quote=“theodore604, post:29, topic:78863”]
my point is just saying this is an essential part of the culture/artwork doesn’t mean it’s somehow not violating copyright. Weird ass reasoning.[/quote]
It might seem like “weird ass reasoning” when you don’t read the whole statement, yes. They’re saying that sampling doesn’t violate copyright when it doesn’t compete with the sampled work. In other words, if a hip-hop track samples a 1977 electronica tune, the new track isn’t in any way taking sales away from Kraftwerk, so there’s no copyright violation. Noting that this is part of hiphop culture is explaining that this is a ruling that’ll help that music genre, as opposed to, say, polka.
That’s good to know. When choosing a comparison, maybe steer away from things like murder in the future.
smh. Wasn’t making a comparison to murder. How do you not get that still? just being willfully argumentative? whatever.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
