Dubstepforum.com

I made a cover in FL Studio for Bar9's Tune, but today Z-Audio took it down and I have a strike, I didn't use any part of the original on my cover, it was a complete remake, the scale it was in was a half step above the original, I don't see why they did it. Can anyone help?

Hosting sites will always be quick to respond to DMCA take-down notices, even if the person sending the notice does not really have legal grounds for demanding the tune be removed. They would rather take down a few extra things which are legal, than risk litigation from not taking down things which do infringe copyright. Technically you can sue a company for making bogus DMCA take-down notices, but good luck with that.

Also, I'm not too sure whether remaking the tune absolves you from any copyright problems. You may not be infringing on their mechanical rights, but creating a derivative work is still copyright infringement unless it's something that is covered under fair use (such as parody).

If you've paid your digital mechanicals they have no legal reason to take down your cover.

If you didn't pay any mechanicals, then they do.

EIther way it's a compulsory license and you can just pay Harry Fox if it's registered with them.

What ever you do don't submit a counter notification unless you believe it's a troll :/ Try and ask them to restore it. Your best option would be to clearly state that it is a remake by putting it in the title and description. Also give credit by linking Bar9's sites (Facebook, Twitter etc.).

the process is usually automated and heavy handed. For example, if your name is madonna and you upload anything to rapidshare, it will be flagged and marked as illegal. I would be very careful in naming a cover you made despite the legality to avoid the algorithms that will mark perfectly legit material as CI. I'm not familiar with the site you mention but perhaps upload it again but be a little clever with the spelling ?

Z-audio/Dubstep For Deep Heads seems to be the one everyone has beef with

the youtube automated system doesn't really work that well so there's a chance that z-audio personally asked for it to be taken down

(assumed you're on about youtube because of the strike)

lately i've been getting into sampling and I'm always wondering whether something is allowed or not. I actually had a remix I worked really hard on taken off of soundcloud because it had copywritten material. MY question is even if 90 percent of the song is hours of hardwork and your own production but the sample is more than 2 seconds or whatever it will be taken down. For example, I sampled a genesis song. IT sample is defintely more then a few second but not at a time. ITs chopped segments. And pitched and tempo shifted and filtered. So in anyones opinion is that enough to be allowed to use the sample or does it have to be unrecognizable or something. Anyone with any experience please take a listen? Thanks

Soundcloud

That's not enough for the track to be taken down.

It has to be unrecognizable.

In cases of newer songs, with clever watermarking techniques, being unrecognizable to your ears might not be enough, either.

In the end sampling is always considered wrong by the courts unless you get permission from the original artist or it falls under the fair use doctrine:

Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.

That being said, you can honestly get away with a lot when it comes to sampling, you just need to make the sample your own in some way either through processing or changing the context of the sample with your own work. The factor upon which this all hinges is whether or not the sample is recognizable. If you take a 4 bar loop from a song and change it's pitch and speed and mix it in under 30 other elements then the sample itself is usually no longer recognizable and you're probably going to be alright. If you take that same 4 bar loop and do very little to it and make it the centerpiece of your song then you're putting yourself at legal risk.

The other factor here is attribution, you mentioned that you were doing a remix and it was taken down. Did you properly attribute credit to the original artist? I have a remix (more like a cover) of a song that I've had on my page for almost a year now. The track itself is LITERALLY an exact copy of another artist's work but created using different instruments to put a new spin on it. I haven't encountered any problems with it whatsoever, and I think its due to the fact that I don't pretend it's my track... I put it up on soundcloud using the original artists name and song title and simply added (Triphosphate's Cover) to the end. Still, I'm pretty sure that if the artist requested that it be taken down that it would be removed in a heartbeat, but paying credit where it's due can make or break you in this situation.

Another factor here is if you're trying to make a profit from this work? And Is the availability of your version of the track going to detract from the sales of the original artist? If so, then you will likely find yourself on the receiving end of a cease and desist letter. There's a lot more to it besides how long the sample is, the issue of sampling is definitely not clear cut.

heres the thing. I will not accept any money directly related to the track. I'm willing to give proper attribution. Like I said I have pitch shifted, warped, automation, chopped and eq'd the small samples i've used although there are noticeable parts of the lyrics in them because thats the concept i'm going for. Of course the sample I posted was just the beginning and i plan to add a lot more of my own sounds and manipulate the sample much further.

IT seems though that I have no real way of knowing that in 2 weeks the track I worked on so hard will be taken down and unable to be heard.

neonmansion wrote:there are noticeable parts of the lyrics in them

Yeah, unfortunately, you don't really know how Soundcloud's Copyright detection system will respond until you try. But I can say with certainty that you're making things a lot more difficult for yourself by using vocals/lyrics of a well known artist. Lyrics have a way of being easily recognized despite anything short of the most extreme processing. Your best bet might be just straight up naming it "Genesis - name of song (Ayesbee remix)" and hoping nobody takes issue with it. You'll probably be fine.

well i already did that with the remix and it was taken down

can you stop putting IT instead of what you actually mean cos its really confusing and probably not even much better off than typing it all out

Triphosphate wrote:In the end sampling is always considered wrong by the courts unless you get permission from the original artist or it falls under the fair use doctrine:

Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.

That being said, you can honestly get away with a lot when it comes to sampling, you just need to make the sample your own in some way either through processing or changing the context of the sample with your own work. The factor upon which this all hinges is whether or not the sample is recognizable. If you take a 4 bar loop from a song and change it's pitch and speed and mix it in under 30 other elements then the sample itself is usually no longer recognizable and you're probably going to be alright. If you take that same 4 bar loop and do very little to it and make it the centerpiece of your song then you're putting yourself at legal risk.

The other factor here is attribution, you mentioned that you were doing a remix and it was taken down. Did you properly attribute credit to the original artist? I have a remix (more like a cover) of a song that I've had on my page for almost a year now. The track itself is LITERALLY an exact copy of another artist's work but created using different instruments to put a new spin on it. I haven't encountered any problems with it whatsoever, and I think its due to the fact that I don't pretend it's my track... I put it up on soundcloud using the original artists name and song title and simply added (Triphosphate's Cover) to the end. Still, I'm pretty sure that if the artist requested that it be taken down that it would be removed in a heartbeat, but paying credit where it's due can make or break you in this situation.

Another factor here is if you're trying to make a profit from this work? And Is the availability of your version of the track going to detract from the sales of the original artist? If so, then you will likely find yourself on the receiving end of a cease and desist letter. There's a lot more to it besides how long the sample is, the issue of sampling is definitely not clear cut.

This belongs in a sticky somewhere. 100% accurate and concise.

Triphosphate wrote:

neonmansion wrote:there are noticeable parts of the lyrics in them

Yeah, unfortunately, you don't really know how Soundcloud's Copyright detection system will respond until you try. But I can say with certainty that you're making things a lot more difficult for yourself by using vocals/lyrics of a well known artist. Lyrics have a way of being easily recognized despite anything short of the most extreme processing. Your best bet might be just straight up naming it "Genesis - name of song (Ayesbee remix)" and hoping nobody takes issue with it. You'll probably be fine.

don't really know about the legal and technical issues, but i've come away with sampling adele's lyrics for example without giving credit to the original artist. pitchshifted, timestretched, filtered ad reverbed...that's all i did and had no issues whatsoever.

same goes with an adele remix, where i credited the original artist like u suggested "adele - name of song (konvict remix)"

seems really arbitrary to me.

It is rather arbitrary! The entire US judicial system is based off precedent arbitrary decisions that frequently have to be rethought in order to coincide with society's ever changing moral system. When you think about it, Andy Worhal is the champion of our era with regards to sampling, and the creative contextual use other's work and image. Had he not made a painting of a can of Campbell's soup or the multi-colored print of Marilyn Munroe and gotten sued for it we wouldn't be free to reintepret the work of others. There are many other champions. Danger Mouse with his grey album and the heated legal battle that ensued and led him to release his own work on well known p2p piracy websites. 2-live crew and their legal battle for "me so horny" vs. the producers of "full metal jacket". It's all arbitrary. The deciding factor is almost always money. If your work might cost someone money, and they matter enough, your chances of getting busted for it grow exponentially.

This is a really important thread.

I'd say : Sample whatever you want.

You may not be able to upload it on SoundCloud sometimes, ok, but you'll NEVER be sued for anything.
If you are in trouble for sampling, it means you made it in the music industry... and for most of us it's unlikely to happen, sadly.

Nobody's going to give a shit if you bootleg some track and get 50 plays on soundcloud.