Re: [microsound] sampling issues / motivations

[chthonic streams <chthonic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> hi
>
> ( 04.09.13 15:47 -0400 ) chthonic streams:
> >  the other motivation for not asking is somewhat childish, but still
> >  true - the fear they'd say "no".  i think it's hard for artists to
> >  picture their work sampled in some abstract sense - they'd need to
> >  hear the track.  that would become problematic if the sampling artist
> >  doesn't have their own studio.  if the original artist rejects the
> >  finished track, a lot of time and money has been wasted.
>
> and we get another artistic 'victim' of the stupid copyright laws
> currently in place.
>
> irony:
> disney didn't need to ask the brothers grimm for 'snow white'. despite
> disney's position on the copyright hall of shame, 'snow white' is an
> artistic landmark.

right, which is why the whole issue has unfortunately become more of 
a monetary issue than an artistic one.  there are no copyrights 
befofe 1926 i believe, at least in the US.  yet if someone "steals" 
from one of those pre-legislated sources, no one goes after them.

obviously in the case of music, there isn't really much recorded 
before that time (if any).  so then, the copyright ends up going to 
the record company who put out a specific recording, even if the 
underlying composition has no copyright (e.g. most classical music).

this is a massive contradiction to me.  i know they're able to do 
this because a composition is considered different from a sound 
recording, but this most often ends up compensating the wrong people 
IMO.  if the laws are saying the identifiable aspect that makes it a 
particular piece is the composition rather than the timbre, then we 
end up with soundalikes, which aren't prosecutable.

example:  someone asks the band squeeze to do a commercial using one 
of their songs.  squeeze refuses.  the ad company then hires people 
to replicate the sound of squeeze perfectly, and write a song 
intentionally meant to sound like the song squeeze refused to give 
permission for.  same key, tempo, phrasing - but it's not the same 
notes or chords or words.  even though this practice is done to 
intentionally fool the public into thinking it is squeeze, or at 
least associate the squeeze sound with a particular product, that is 
perfectly legal, even though it has no artistic merit and is recorded 
strictly for commercial use to generate a profit.

meanwhile, someone who uses a tiny sample creatively, as a part of 
their whole work, whether making a profit or not, can be sued and 
blocked from using it.  this is fucked.

d.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org