Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Copyrights and What They Mean for Creative Expression
In 2004, a federal appeals court ruled that rap artists should pay for every music sample included in their work - no matter how minor or unrecognizable. Many of the DJs that work in and around the Boston area use "samples" from other songs as filler and beats to their own original pieces. The record industry feels that any kind of sampling from songs to which they own the rights, entitles them to royalties. This is a grealy restrictive precedent that has been established by the federal appeals court because it would place significant hinderances on the crativity of artists. These "all rights reserved" copyrights make it literally illegal for a DJ to take a beat or even one lyric from a song and alter it or use it as a background. Rap artists have been famous as of late for using sampling to completely revamp their own creative works. I believe that the current copyright laws are overly restrictive and will only have a negative affect on the music industry. Here is a hypothetical question i pose to the others who want to respond, Should it be illegal for a DJ to play top 40 songs at an event he/she is paid to perform at without the given consent of each of the artists?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think some copyrights are ridiculous. If you really think about it, "to take a beat or even one lyric." What if someone was giving a speech and said a lyric that was in a song? Do they get in trouble? What if another artist uses 2 words that are the same in another song? I don't think that what DJs do with sampling is a problem at all. If I was an artist I would be flattered that a DJ thought my song was good enough to sample.
I do have a problem if it is like someone is taking my whole song or rhythm. For instance, I would be mad at MC Hammer for "Can't Touch This" if I was Rick James (sang Superfreak). Because they both have the same exact beats et cetera.
i don't think it is wrong for a DJ to use copyrighted material during an event but this is where I DO think it is wrong. I think it is wrong for any type of artist to sample music on a CD, that is being bought by others, without paying for it.
I never really thought about it until the artist I work for, Ben Kweller, had his music sampled by a major recording artist who went on to sell a LOT of records using a sound sample (the chorus) from one of Ben's songs without paying for it. Ben didn't see any money from that, not one cent and it was his words, his art, being used without any credit for it either. Flattered? Sure..but all artists have to make money and it isn't right to use someone elses art and profit from it.
I agree with Assurance that copyright laws are restrictive. People can reference songs/lyrics all the time and if the laws were to be that restrictive, people would be getting sued left and right, with artists making an exorbitant amount of money. Also, it would prevent a lot of creativity from growing. I know a lot of songs that have been sampled and remixed and sounds great. It can show people out there that there are creative minds out there and help them become more exposed. I think as long as the samples are not sold for a profit, then sampling should be available for everyone.
Post a Comment