Music rights

[tudormink]

I've been listening to a ton of beat artists on Spotify in the new year, and it dawned on me...is every single artist clearing all the rights to their samples?

I was looking at rough costs and apparently around $200 per sample is a rough benchmark no matter the length. Added to this, apparently it can take months to get them cleared with the label.

Based on some of the albums from the likes of Mujo etc with upwards of 24 tracks you can see my thought path...these albums must cost $$$ just for the samples.

Am I missing something or are record labels all legit paying out for these guys so they can put their stuff on Spotify and similar places

[THEGREAT]

Lord knows . what i willl say is .. it only becames a problem when you start hitting public eye (getting acclaim) .. at which point you cant really avoid having to clear the samps .

as for a fairly unknown artist .. its a matter of ; do what you can get away with

[tudormink]

yeah I was thinking the same. A lot of them must just chance it.

Seems risky to me but can imagine the labels only go after the big guns who they know can cough up $$$ if they get sued.

[thesisdrs]

I didn't know third party distribution companies (CD Baby, Routenote) allowed that.

[thesisdrs]

with those prices, I better start practicing my instruments more so the royalties can fund clearing the samples... gonna take a lot of play's from spotify though. Tidal pays better... so does Apple Music... Basically all the services that people pay for give you more coin.

[tudormink]

Yeah man that's why I was so confused.

I mean no disrespect to those guys I love all the beat artists I listen to, but why would so many small labels be backing them if they are having to face a massive payout before they even release an album or EP...and the hassle of having to contact all the labels for rights. Nightmare.

Its all a bit of a mystery to me.

[Crane]

After looking up what "spotify" is.
-Their Artist terms of use agreement, has you indemnify spotify and leaves all accountability on the uploader/artist. (so they are in the clear for playing the songs)
-A label is going to have a contract as well more than likely holding them harmless if they were not disclosed samples or what samples were used. And are these tracks being sold or just played?

-As THEGREAT stated above, until these songs are brought to the public eye and show serious money making potential, what would be the point of a never known artist from the 70' spending $500 an hour on a lawyer to sue a bedroom label for the $100 in royalties they made off of spotify and iTunes.
At which point they still have to prove that the 4 second drum break that has been chopped/resampled/effects applied/tempo changed is their music.

-Also (probably not a lot out there), but work made before 1978 had copyright expirations of 50 years after the artist death (it looks like it has been changed to 70 Thanks Sonny Bono!). So I believe legally that would make any old artist music that died before 1948 up for grabs without any dispute.
Good Link for Copyright after death:

http://www.arsny.com/copyright-basics/

(I'm not a lawyer, so anything written above is my understanding of the legal side, and not to be taken as legal fact or advise) <--- See just covered my a**.

[seezesea]

-Also (probably not a lot out there), but work made before 1978 had copyright expirations of 50 years after the artist death (it looks like it has been changed to 70 Thanks Sonny Bono!). So I believe legally that would make any old artist music that died before 1948 up for grabs without any dispute.
Good Link for Copyright after death:

http://www.arsny.com/copyright-basics/

(I'm not a lawyer, so anything written above is my understanding of the legal side, and not to be taken as legal fact or advise) <--- See just covered my a**.

I'm pretty sure that only applies to written music and stuff like photos/art. As far as I know no recorded music (in the US) is in the public domain. So you could for example play a Mozart piano piece yourself and legally sell that recording, but if you sampled a record of Leonard Bernstein playing the same thing (even if it was over 70 years after his death) you could still technically get in trouble. Again that's in America and is only my limited understanding from a half assed Google search. Law is confusing haha

[Crane]

Yeah, it's all pretty convoluted.

According to this US GOV copyright basics pamphlet it lumps in "Sound recordings, which are works that result from the
fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds" as part of “original works of authorship”.
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

Title 17 chapter 3 (Duration of a Copyright) states "works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression". It seems any "tangible medium" is covered under the same laws. I can't seem to find anything that states different laws of use for different "tangible mediums" (sheet music, audio, visual, written media). The only items not protected by Title 17 are intangible items (covered in the pamphlet)
Here is the full Title 17 Copyright law link (opens on chapter 3) if anyone is interested in this sh*t.
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap3.html

I looked up "Mujo" used as an example above and it seems he is from Japan. So now you get in to Japanese copyright violation?, nobodies going to mess with that over a few grand for some beat tapes.

I think the lesson learned here (at least for me) is to sample whatever the hell you want, if you get so popular that you actually get called out for it, pay the fee and thank your fans for gettin' you paid!!

[tudormink]

I think the lesson learned here (at least for me) is to sample whatever the hell you want, if you get so popular that you actually get called out for it, pay the fee and thank your fans for gettin' you paid!!

after reading above that's what I'm thinking too. Some useful info here, thanks all!

[THEGREAT]

^ .. ^ .. agreed

[thesisdrs]

I still sample regardless. I still try to look for obscure samples instead of something real popular... you can't upload directly to these streaming platforms, you have to go through a third party distribution company and if you don't have the paperwork and catch you violating their copyright infringement protocol (that they have in writing before you even upload a song) first you will get a warning and a second time can have your account closed permanently. I suggest if you are going to sample, at least clear one song you plan on pushing on spotify or apple music and have the rest of your music available on bandcamp.

[tudormink]

I still sample regardless. I still try to look for obscure samples instead of something real popular... you can't upload directly to these streaming platforms, you have to go through a third party distribution company and if you don't have the paperwork and catch you violating their copyright infringement protocol (that they have in writing before you even upload a song) first you will get a warning and a second time can have your account closed permanently. I suggest if you are going to sample, at least clear one song you plan on pushing on spotify or apple music and have the rest of your music available on bandcamp.

Agree totally with what you are saying, but soundcloud and bandcamp will also have this in place but it doesn't seem to stop anyone there. (I just checked Soundcloud and, obviously, they do). Don't have a bandcamp so can't check but I can't see them not having it.

I guess what's the difference in uploading to Soundcloud and Spotify? They are both just music streaming platforms which have copyright guidelines. I'm not suggesting everyone should go ahead and do it, it is illegal so its up to the individual, however my conclusion is that most beat makers must just be chancing it and hoping they don't get caught. Like Someone mentioned above, the artists and labels wouldn't exactly be cashing in if they did catch them, it probably wouldn't be worth their time.

[thesisdrs]

Agree totally with what you are saying, but soundcloud and bandcamp will also have this in place but it doesn't seem to stop anyone there. (I just checked Soundcloud and, obviously, they do). Don't have a bandcamp so can't check but I can't see them not having it.

I guess what's the difference in uploading to Soundcloud and Spotify? They are both just music streaming platforms which have copyright guidelines. I'm not suggesting everyone should go ahead and do it, it is illegal so its up to the individual, however my conclusion is that most beat makers must just be chancing it and hoping they don't get caught. Like Someone mentioned above, the artists and labels wouldn't exactly be cashing in if they did catch them, it probably wouldn't be worth their time.

I use band camp primarily and they do not have any formal agreement for you to accept in order to stop copyright infringement. I could imagine thats why Knxwledge, Ohbliv, Awhlee, Wodoo Wolcan and others use this platform. Soundcloud is becoming like spotify and apple music in a sense where artists get paid off royalties or by play. With band camp, someone actually has to pay you in order for you to get paid. you can charge a subscription fee for your products or per project. You don't necessarily have to be well known to get caught for copyright infringement... but yes the more popular you are the more likely you are to be caught for it. Personally, i wouldn't risk having my entire catalogue of music removed from spotify because i didn't clear any of my samples. I would take that risk with Bandcamp.

[thesisdrs]

The difference between Soundcloud and spotify is that when you create a soundcloud account (a free account, not a premium account) you aren't collecting royalties. People are basically listening to your music for free. the moment you decide to collect royalties, legalities play more of a factor. This is why I prefer using band camp to showcase my catalogue.