[kristopolous]

It depends. A lot of times it's just a new, say UMG song that samples another UMG song so it's just Hollywood accounting with cross charging.

When say Madonna sampled the Beegees, I'm sure it was a large ordeal.

But for low profit or no profit work (independent stuff), the answer is nobody cares.

Bob James, one of the most sampled artists in history, take it in stride. He's happy that so many people are listening to his stuff. The Winston's (the famous amen break) were also happy the track got such wide acceptance.

Killing Joke, on the other hand, felt "Come as you are" was a rip off of "Eighties" and only dropped it upon the death of Kurt Cobain.

Or take Toni Basil's Mickey, which is actually a cover song of Racey's Kitty. Toni Basil has gone to court to secure pretty exclusive rights to the song. Racey does not get any of Toni's cash.

So it varies and it's messy.

[Marazan]

> Bob James, one of the most sampled artists in history, take it in stride. He's happy that so many people are listening to his stuff.

Bob James gets paid. Like, have you ever listened to Bob James talk about people sampling his stuff. He's very clear his in favour of it it _if he gets paid_. Otherwise the lawyers get involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejFayH39y6M

"As long as it's creative, as long as it's liscened properly, I have actually become kind of a fan of it"

[Philpax]

While I'm generally in favour of sampling and remix culture,

> The Winston's (the famous amen break) were also happy the track got such wide acceptance.

I wouldn't say that was the case:

> Neither he nor Coleman received royalties for the break, and Spencer was not aware of its use until 1996, when an executive contacted him asking for the master tape.[3] He was unable to take legal action, as the statute of limitations for copyright infringement is three years in the US.[1]

> Spencer condemned the sampling as plagiarism and said he "felt ripped off and raped".[2] He said in 2011: "[Coleman's] heart and soul went into that drum break. Now these guys copy and paste it and make millions."[3] However, in 2015, he said: "It's not the worst thing that can happen to you. I'm a black man in America and the fact that someone wants to use something I created – that's flattering."[2]

> Coleman died homeless and destitute in 2006.[2] Spencer said it was unlikely he was aware of the impact he had made on music. In 2015, a GoFundMe campaign set up for Spencer by the British DJs Martyn Webster and Steve Theobald raised £24,000 (US$37,000).[2] Spencer died in 2020.[9]

It's actually one of the greater travesties of modern culture, I think. The amen break is a fundamental part of today's musical culture, but its creators received no compensation and did not benefit from it. The one financial contribution that occurred was of no use to the break's creator -- as they were dead -- and its recipient died a few years later.

In any case, this is going to get much worse in the years to come. I'm very much in favour of AI being able to train on our societal output, but it's also extremely likely to worsen existing inequities. We're going to need to dramatically shift how society functions to accommodate this new reality, and it's not something you can solve with royalties or a training fee. When everyone can create, what will happen to the existing market of creators?

[philipwhiuk]

> Bob James, one of the most sampled artists in history, take it in stride. He's happy that so many people are listening to his stuff. The Winston's (the famous amen break) were also happy the track got such wide acceptance.

That's an act of generosity, not legal status

[kristopolous]

Sure but the context of the discussion is people's opinion on the matter, not the state of current law.

[piva00]

Not true, at least not for me and some other electronic artists I know. Sampling anything is met with a lot of reservations from even very small labels, you need to clear rights to get it released anywhere.

[kristopolous]

French house is basically all unlicensed samples. See https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iErhEZcFVbE

So it depends

[twelve40]

> no profit work

this is not a very interesting use case to consider because the AI outfits making the current news are definitely for-profit.

[kristopolous]

Sure but are they the E-MU SP-12 or the samples themselves?

If they're selling just the models then it's a cleaner case, but lots of copyrighted sample discs had unlicensed samples or entire synth piano rolls, it was common.

The copyright system is a human institution that's layered on top. It can go a variety of directions.

Michael Jackson for instance, took a sample from the Synclaviar sampler disc, put it at the beginning of Beat It completely unmodified and now the copyright for all intents and purposes is owned by Jackson.