Sampling and the law

[Garrafon]

DISCLAIMER: THIS THREAD IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A REKINDLING OF THE RECENT DISPUTE CONCERNING FILE SHARING, ETHICS, THE COPYRIGHT LAWS, OR THE EGG SUCKING CAPABILITIES OF ANY MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM. THIS IS PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.

 

A U.S. federal court of appeals has held that the owners of copyrights in sound recordings (as opposed to musical compositions) hold the exclusive right under the copyright act to sample the protected work.

 

In other words, sampling without a license CAN constitute a copyright violation.

 

The case is: Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005).

 

And, to violate my own rule, I would like to set forth the following quote from a court case, which I think accurately sums up the debate in the eyes of the law:

 

Thou shalt not steal has been an admonition followed since the dawn of civilization. Unfortunately, in the modern world of business this admonition is not always followed. Indeed, the defendants in this action for copyright infringement would have this court believe that stealing is rampant in the music business and, for that reason, their conduct here should be excused. The conduct of the defendants herein, however, violates not only the Seventh Commandment, but also the copyright laws of this country.

 

Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc., 780 F.Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).

 

Again, this is provided for informational purposes only to hopefully save someone from any legal troubles where they might inadvertently include a copyrighted sample in their own works thinking there might not be any copyright implications.