| 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? |