copyright

Are Samples Copyright Free?

by

Copyright law is a complex and nuanced field. In its simplest form, it protects original works of authorship, including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works. When considering the realm of music, this extends to the melodies, lyrics, and recordings of a song. It’s important to note that copyright protection applies to complete songs and can also extend to smaller portions of a song, including samples.

The Concept Of Sampling

Sampling is a common practice in the music industry. It concerns pulling a portion, or “sample,” from a sound recording, which is then incorporated into a new composition. This practice is particularly prevalent in genres such as hip-hop and electronic music. The question, however, arises: are these samples copyright free?

The simple answer is no, samples are not inherently copyright free. Just like full songs, samples are protected under copyright law. Using a sample without the necessary permissions or licenses can lead to legal repercussions, including copyright infringement claims. This holds true even if the sample is only a few seconds long or has been significantly altered in the new work.

Clearing Samples & Fair Use Doctrine

To legally use a sample, you would normally need to clear it, i.e., obtain permission from the copyright holder, which can often involve paying a fee. However, there is an exception to this rule known as the fair use doctrine. This legal doctrine allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder under certain circumstances, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, and academic research.

However, applying the fair use doctrine to sampling can be tricky. Factors like the purpose of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect of the use on the market for the original work are considered when determining whether a use constitutes fair use.

The Rise Of Royalty-Free Samples

A market for royalty-free samples has emerged in response to the complex and often costly process of clearing samples. These are samples that, once bought, can be used without the need to pay ongoing royalties. They are typically provided by sample libraries or outlets dedicated to producing and distributing these kinds of samples. However, it’s important to remember that “royalty-free” does not necessarily mean “free of cost.” Often, there is an initial cost to buy the sample, but no ongoing royalty payments are required.

Conclusion: Navigating The Complex World Of Sampling

In summary, samples are not inherently copyright free. To use a sample legally, one must either clear the sample by obtaining permission from the copyright holder or qualify for fair use. Alternatively, one can opt for royalty-free samples to avoid traditional potential costs. As with all legal matters, it’s always advisable to consult a legal professional to ensure compliance with copyright law when using samples in music production. This will ensure that creativity can continue growing without potential legal traps.

The post Are Samples Copyright Free? appeared first on HotNewHipHop.

UMG Addresses Viral Drake & The Weeknd A.I. Song

by

Universal Music Group has responded to the viral A.I.-generated song by Drake and The Weeknd that has been blowing up on social media. The company labeled the use of their artists’ vocals for A.I. music “fraud” and called on streaming platforms to ban the technology. The A.I. song is titled “heart on my sleeve” and has reached over 230,000 plays on YouTube and more than 630,000 streams on Spotify.

In its statement released this week, UMG explained that it has made a living by embracing new technology, but this is a step too far. “UMG’s success has been, in part, due to embracing new technology and putting it to work for our artists–as we have been doing with our own innovation around AI for some time already,” the statement begins.

Drake & The Weeknd

NOTTINGHAM, UNITED KINGDOM – MARCH 16: Drake and The Weeknd perform onstage during a date of Drakes “Nothing Was the Same” 2014 World Tour at Nottingham Capital FM Arena on March 16, 2014 in Nottingham, England. (Photo by Ollie Millington/WireImage)

The company continues: “With that said, however, the training of generative AI using our artists’ music (which represents both a breach of our agreements and a violation of copyright law) as well as the availability of infringing content created with generative AI on DSPs, begs the question as to which side of history all stakeholders in the music ecosystem want to be on: the side of artists, fans and human creative expression, or on the side of deep fakes, fraud and denying artists their due compensation. These instances demonstrate why platforms have a fundamental legal and ethical responsibility to prevent the use of their services in ways that harm artists. We’re encouraged by the engagement of our platform partners on these issues–as they recognize they need to be part of the solution.”

In response to the backlash, several platforms, including Apple Music, Deezer, and TIDAL, have already pulled “heart on my sleeve.” Drake has also commented on the use of his likeness for A.I., writing on Instagram, “This is the final straw AI.” No regulations currently exist to dictate what AI can legally train. The US Copyright Office has, however, released a statement of guidance on the matter. As noted by CNN, they wrote: “In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of ‘mechanical reproduction’ or instead of an author’s ‘own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.’”

[Via]

Cam’ron Facing Copyright Lawsuit Over Picture In Pink Fit

by

Cam’ron is facing a copyright lawsuit from a photographer that, back in 2003, took an iconic picture of his iconic pink fit. Moreover, the photographer claims that Killa Cam used the picture in various pieces of Dipset merchandise without giving her permission. Furthermore, Djamilla Cochran filed a complaint in New Jersey federal court on Tuesday (April 11), per Billboard‘s report. If you don’t recognize the picture off the description of a pink fur coat, hat, and phone, you’ll likely know it when you see it. Cochran claimed that he also posted her photography on social media to promote his merchandise.

According to the lawsuit, Cam’ron used the photo without authorization on various pieces of his merch line Dipset Couture. These include T-shirts, jewelry, a pair of shower curtains, pillows, and swimsuits. “Getty Images notified defendants of their infringing activities by mail and email on multiple occasions,” the photographer’s lawyers’ complaint stated. “Despite those notifications, defendants continued to sell merchandise and continued to display the photograph on website and accounts.” Apparently, the 47-year-old had plenty of time to respond to the claim before the complaint officially came forward.

Cam’ron Sued For Using His Iconic Pink Fit Pic Without Permission

Despite this legal roadblock, Cam’ron has a couple of other business ventures that are netting him more headlines than his merchandise. For example, there’s his successful sports talk show It Is What It Is, which had made him a pretty vocal and disseminated figure in topics such as NBA discourse. In fact, he recently addressed people trying to buy him out of his successful enterprise, although he did express gratitude for their interest and support.

“A lot of n***as hollering at me trying to buy my show and make my show a part of what they’re doing,” he stated via Instagram. “And listen, I appreciate the love. I appreciate the interest and everything else. This is fully funded by me. I ain’t gonna get no help, I ain’t got no partners. I ain’t got no bank that came and did all this s**t.” Despite his extracurricular endeavors, it will be interesting to see if he takes that conciliatory attitude to the court. Regardless, check back in with HNHH for the latest news and updates on Cam’ron.

[via]

Can You Copyright an AI-Generated Image? The U.S. Copyright Office Says No

by
copyright infringement

By revoking copyright registration it had previously granted for a comic book whose artwork was created by an AI-powered image generator, the U.S. Copyright Office has effectively ruled that AI-generated images are not eligible for copyright protection in the U.S. 

Kris Kashtanova is a New York-based artist who created the graphic novel Zarya of the Dawn.  Kashtonova wrote the story, created the layout and organized the presentation of the images.  The images were generated by Midjourney, a commercial image synthesis service that uses the latent diffusion process.

Latent diffusion models are used to generate detailed images from text descriptions, by mapping an image generator to text descriptions.  Effectively, the user can input a text description of the image they want created, and the latent diffusion model will generate detailed image based on those parameters.

Kashtanova registered the copyright in Zarya of the Dawn with the Copyright Office in 2022, claiming that the artwork was not created entirely by the AI, but had been created by her with AI assistance.  The Copyright Office has previously rejected copyrights registered to AI as the author – however, it has not ruled against copyrights in AI artwork where the author is a person.    Here, Kashtanova was granted copyright registration for Zarya of the Dawn in September 2022.

However, this past Tuesday, the Copyright Office revoked the registration, on the basis that Kashtanova had not disclosed in her application that the images in the comic were created by an AI model.  Apparently, following issuance of the registration, the Copyright Office learned on social media that her comic included AI-generated images.   The Copyright Officer then issued a notice to her in October 2022, requiring her to provide additional information showing why the registration should not be canceled.

Through her attorney, Kashtanova responded that Midjourney was merely an assistive tool, and she had authored every aspect of the work.  The Copyright Office rejected this argument, finding that although she claimed to have “guided” the content of each image, it was Midjourney that had “authored’ the images for purposes of copyright registration.  Accordingly, the portion of her registration covering the images was canceled.

Kashtanova still holds a copyright registration for the other elements of the comic- namely, the text and the selection and coordination of the visual elements.  However, for now, this ruling means that AI-generated images cannot be copyrighted in the United States, and this ruling will likely stand unless it is challenged in court or revised by law.

The post Can You Copyright an AI-Generated Image? The U.S. Copyright Office Says No appeared first on The Source.

Yung Gravy Sued By Rick Astley Over “Never Gonna Give You Up”

by

Rick Astley is suing Yung Gravy for sampling his voice on “Never Gonna Give You Up” on “Betty (Get Money).” While the song brought Astley’s hit to a new generation, it seems they didn’t work out the rights issues. Of course, it’s not like Astley’s original hit was unheard of, as people still troll each other online with it.

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA – JANUARY 18: Yung Gravy performs onstage as Pizza Hut and Airrack break the GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS™ title for World’s Largest Pizza to launch the Big New Yorker on January 18, 2023 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Charley Gallay/Getty Images for Pizza Hut)

According to a TMZ report, the English artist filed suit on Thursday (January 26). Moreover, he claimed that Gravy wrongfully featured and an impersonation of his performance on 1987’s “Never Gonna Give You Up.” Also, the lawsuit involves Yung Gravy, his producers (including Dillon Francis), and the impersonator Nick Seely, also known as Popnick.

Furthermore, Astley stated that these collaborators “conspired to include a deliberate and nearly indistinguishable imitation of Mr. Astley’s voice throughout the song.” In addition, he said that he never gave any of them permission to impersonate his voice. However, this lawsuit carried more curious repercussions. Astley also said that Gravy ruined any chance of him collaborating with other artists in the future. Sad to say it, but looks like Rick Astley isn’t hopping on a remix anytime soon.

However, the “C’est La Vie” artist did license the instrumental to “Never Gonna Give You Up,” just not the vocal performance. While this saved him from larger problems, it seems he knew of what he was getting into. Moreover, the lawsuit references several occasions where Gravy acknowledged the complicated legal situation he was getting into with the song. For example, in an interview with Billboard, he said he “basically remade” Rick’s voice, “because it makes it easier legally.”

If you live under a rock (or off the Internet), “Never Gonna Give You Up” is Rick Astley’s biggest hit. It also reached No. 1 on the charts, and is most well-known today as an Internet joke that you can read more about here. Meanwhile, “Betty (Get Money)” marked Yung Gravy’s most successful song so far. Overall, it’s a clash of the titans, and Astley is suing for millions of dollars.

Still, what do you think of Rick Astley suing Yung Gravy for copyright infringement regarding their two biggest songs? Whatever the case, let us know in the comments down below. Also, as always, come back to HNHH for the latest in music law, copyright, and cheeky samples.

[via]