List of Samples

Here is just a small list of songs that have been sampled and the hip hop songs that sampled them.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Herb Alpert - Rise --- Notorious B.I.G. - Hypnotise
James Brown - the Boss --- Nas - Get Down
Luis Bonfa, Maria Toledo & Stan Getz - Saudade Vem Correndo --- Pharcyde - Can't Keep Runnin' Away
Stevie w. Past time Paradise --- Gangsta's Paradise - Coolio
Din Daa Daa (Georgehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif Kranz)---Shake (ft. Pitbull)http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=7723970912338514032&postID=1146240950830579211#
Clear (Cybotron)---Lose Control (Missy and Ciara)
The Payback (James Brown)---Can't You See (Total ft. Notorious B.I.G.)
Tender Love (Force M.D.'s)---Days of Our Lives (Bone Thugs N' Harmony)
Human Nature (Michael Jackson)---Right Here (SWV)

Patrice Rushen "Forget Me Nots"--- Will Smith "Men In Black"
Shirley Bassey "Diamonds Are Forevever"--- Kanye West "Diamonds from Sierra Leone"
Super Freak (Rick James)---U Can't Touch This (MC Hammer)
Bobby Caldwell - Open your Eyes --- Common - The Light
Dr. Buzzard's Original Savannah Band - Cherchez la femme --- Ghostface Killer's Cherchez LaGhost

Afro Rock Band - Darkest Light ---- Wrecks In Effect - Rump Shaker, Public Enemy - Show 'Em Whatcha Got , Jay-Z "Show me What u Got"
The Emotions - Blind Alley --- AMG - Jiggable Pie, Trilogy - Good times, Big Daddy Kane - Ain't no Half Steppin, and as Mascarawand just reminded me....Mariah Carey - Dreamlover

As it can clearly be seen sampling is a huge part of the hip hop/r&b movement and is not simply some way of stealing ideas but is an art form that is connecting many different genres of music.

Links to Examples of Sampling

Here is a tutorial by Just Blaze on how to use Logic to mix samples. This video shows just a few of the technical elements needed to mix samples.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzDEvZ7aaKA

Here is an example of Kanye West creating a sampled track(Viewer Discretion advised).
The sample is a small clip of another song sped up. How the clips are arranged, the drums, and all other elements of the final track are the ideas of Kanye West.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irb335ThCdo

Here is a great video that plays the original song and then it plays how Kanye West used each sample in his own mix.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJcGyW_bVyU&NR=1

The Creativity/Cost of Sampling

Earlier in this blog it was said that a reason that one might sample another’s work is because “it eliminates the need to produce background and accompaniment music for vocals.” It was also said that sampling, “lowers entry costs and overall production costs, and means that music can be created more quickly.” This in my opinion somehow insinuates that sampling simplifies music production and lowers cost.

However, if this is true then why do record labels and hip hop/rap artist pay producers such as Kanye West, Just Blaze, and Rza hundreds of thousands of dollars for beats (instruments that are used as background tracks) that sample music? Kanye West who is arguably one of the most prominent hip hop artist and producer used a sample track for every single song on his first three albums, and heavily used samples in the production of one of Jay-Z’s multi-platinum album, The Blueprint. If one were to search for Just Blaze in Wikipedia it can be seen that under the list of instruments that he is proficient in is the sampler.

What is Bridgeport’s true aim in pursuing so many copyright infringement lawsuits, and what are the possible repercussions that their actions can have the hip hop industry? As Heather said in a previous blog entry, it would seem that Bridgeport’s aim would be to simply hold the copyright to numerous works. It appears that they simply attempt to collect on technical copyright infringements with no real desire to benefit the artist that originally created the music. The effect that these types of actions would have on the hip hop industry if broadly applied and heavily enforced would be to hinder a very creative and shifting artistic movement.

The concept that music producers and to a lesser degree the hip hop artists are simply taking an old song and trying to use someone's creativity for free is a very narrow and ignorant way of thinking about music production. This is not to say however that there is not some sort of limit to the amount of sampling that a producer or artist can do without giving/paying credit to the original creator, because there definitely is. What should be clear is that there is a gradient and companies such as Bridgeport are at times extreme in their pursuit of lawsuits and may in the future greatly hinder the creative evolution of the hip hop movement.

robin hood or troll?

Bridgeport's plethora of sampling lawsuits has earned the company the unpleasant title of the "sample troll" in the music world. Armed with its aging portfolio of copyrights, this sample troll is scouring the music kingdom searching for unnoticeable segments in the backgrounds of popular songs and filing lawsuits claiming excessive financial damages.

But perhaps Bridgeport's actions are simply misunderstood. Perhaps its diligent lawyers are simply taking a stand against all those indulgently wealthy rappers taking advantage of the lesser known artists from whom they are stealing beats?

Is Bridgeport "more Robin Hood than troll, stealing from lazy, rich rappers like Jay-Z to channel money back to deserving artists like George Clinton"?

Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu argues no - he writes that it "would make some sense if making rap music were easy, or if Clinton or other artists were in some way the beneficiary of the lawsuits. But neither is true. Bridgeport and other trolls do take from the rich. But they keep the money."

So maybe Bridgeport isn't much of a benevolent Robin Hood...but let's say that they were. That the millions of dollars in damages from the rulings against Dimension Films and Jay-Z did go to Clinton. Then would such rulings be less controversial? Would that make their actions more right? More justifiable?

What matters more - the future of copyright/fair use law interpretations or paying financial rewards to the rightful music creators?

a slippery slope

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that sampling was in violation of copyright law - "Get a license or do not sample."

If sampling is illegal, what about other comparable uses of copyrighted materials? Does the five words above -in violation of copyright law- without citations constitute copyright infringement? Is the documentary film "Super Size Me" totally illegal since the director did not have McDonald's written permission to feature them in the film?

"Get a license or do not sample" is a dangerous tipping point on a slippery slop. Such a court decision invites a flood of new cases that challenge accepted standards in the fair use clause.

We live in a world infused with copyrighted works. What kind of a society would it be if we were not allowed to take pictures with any copyrighted logos in the background without first getting a license? Should street performers in NYC be required to get licenses before singing in the subways? This could be the death of parodies, too! Where would it end? What are the boundaries?

I leave you with some word from the Chief Judge in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Alex Kozinski:



“Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Culture is impossible without a rich public domain. Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it’s supposed to nurture.”


* Dissenting in the White v. Samsung Elec. Am., Inc., 989 F.2d 1512 (9th Cir. 1993) ruling.

Bridgeport Music, Inc. - Who are you?

Tim Wu, a copyright and communications professor at Columbia Law School refers to Bridgeport as the "shady one-man corporation that's destroying hip hop" in his article for Slate, Jay-Z versus the Sample Troll. Wu accuses Bridgeport (or Armen Boladian, its "one man") of using lawsuits "to extort money from successful music artists for routine sampling, no matter how minimal or unnoticeable." Additionally, Bridgeport supposedly owns no other assets except a catalogue of copyrights "accumulated in dubious fashion."

All of these claims aspire to shed some light on Bridgeport's potentially ethically questionable operations. From monetary extortion to copyright fraud, is Bridgeport abusing copyright laws for fat checks from hard working artists?

First, let's look into what Bridgeport Music, Inc. really does - what products and services do they offer? Is Boladian really its sole employee? Who are they really?

Incorporated in 1969 as a profit corporation with the purpose "To engage in the business of publishing music," Bridgeport began with 3 board of directors (the minimum number required to file an Articles of Incorporation document), Armen Boladian, Louise Boladian and Elizabeth Amboian. So it started with more than one person, though at least one of the other two was most likely a family member.

A quick Google search for Bridgeport Music, Inc. pulled up lots of court cases and articles about the company's lawsuits, but 3rd on the list was their corporate site: http://bridgeportmusicinc.com/
Clicking around revealed that every single tab and link from About Us to FAQ leads to the same current page with a list of songs "available for licensing." No news, no additional services, and no more contact info aside from the phone number and email listed at the top of the page. Now this is of concern...what reputable company would have such a webpage in this day and age? And why are there no news or services?

It seems that Bridgeport is indeed nothing more than a catalogue company holding copyrights.

Should such a company have the right to pursue legal actions against other artists actually contributing creative media to the music scene? Copyright laws were enacted to benefit the creator of a original work. Bridgeport did not create and is not creating any original works. Even if sampling is undisputedly copyright infringement, should Bridgeport be the one filing the claims and cashing the checks? Is the intent of the copyright laws being upheld in this court case?

Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films- the final take

Dimension Films et al did not fare so well in appellate court- the decision reached in the district court was reversed and appellate Judge Ralph B. Guy held that Bridgeport's copyright was infringed. The court's basic argument was that with a sound recording, the owner of the copyright of that recording possesses sole right to duplicate the work and no third parties could do so without acquiring permission. Guy, in his opinion, bluntly stated: 

"Get a license or do not sample"

The court struck down the district judge's decision by proving that all three elements of a prima facie copyright infringement had been met. First, the valid ownership of the copyright was established, as Bridgeport Music clearly owned the copyright for Funkadelic's music. Second, the actual copying of Funkadelic's tune was assumed because the sampling was not disputed- rather Dimension never denied that sampling occurred, as they had citied a de minimis defense.  The final element of a prima facie copyright infringement, proof of improper appropriation, which is usually measured by considering the similarity with the original work or by a de minimis requirement (was enough sampled that the original could be recognized by the sample), was not required due to the statutory effect of 17 U.S.C section 114(b).

"17 U.S.C. section 114(b) The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (1) of section 106 is limited to the right to duplicate the sound recording in the form of phonorecords or copies that directly or indirectly recapture the actual sounds fixed in the recording. The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (2) of section 106 is limited to the right to prepare a derivative work in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1) and (2) of section 106 do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1), (2), and (3) of section 106 do not apply to sound recordings included in educational television and radio programs (as defined in section 397 of title 47) distributed or transmitted by or through public broadcasting entities (as defined by section 118(g)): Provided,That copies or phonorecords of said programs are not commercially distributed by or through public broadcasting entities to the general public." 

In other words, under 17 U.S.C. section 114(b), if the copyright holder can prove that any portion of the protected sound recording was sampled, the fact that the new song is very different from the original or that the amount of the original song that was sampled, no matter how insignificant, become irrelevant. 

This decision is very significant for two reasons. First, the de minimis doctrine, when applied to the sampling of copyrighted music, is rendered irrelevant and can no longer be used as an adequate defense. Second, the court established a 'bright-line test' for any future cases involving the sampling of copyrighted music, saying that any unliscenced sampling, not matter how minute, would be considered a copyright infringement. In law, a bright-line test is a clearly defined rule that is made up of objective factors, and leaves little room for interpretation. 

The overall legal signficance of the appellate court's reversal in the Bridgeport Music, Inc. V. Dimension Films case is that it essentially redefined copyright law for recorded music, at least in regards to sampling, in the United States.

Sources:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#114

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000114----000-.html

http://cip.law.ucla.edu/cases/case_bridgeportmusicstillnthewaterpublishing.html

http://law.marquette.edu/cgi-bin/site.pl?2130&pageID=1984

http://www.law.indiana.edu/ilj/volumes/v81/no1/22_Mueller.pdf