Organization: Disorganization
Apparently-To: rec-music-gaffa@munnari.oz.au
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa

mailrus!gatech!tlon.mit.edu!rob@uunet.uu.net (Rob Sanner) writes:
>suppose an engineer decides to make an extended dance remix of 
>cloudbusting.  s/he extends the sproingy parts, maybe adding filler
>material from the original sessions which didn't make the album track,
>but otherwise leaves the piece intact.  let's call this mix #1.  whose
>"creation" is this, kate's or the engineer's?

>now the engineer makes another mix, #2, this time actually cutting out the
>slower parts, and looping the extended sproingy parts.  whose is it now, 
>kate's or the engineer's?

>finally, the engineer decides that to really work as a dance mix, 
>the loops need to be spiced up with some digital effects, and more
>filler material and a heavier beat are needed.  s/he pulls out a synthesizer 
>(or hires someone to do it), adding the filler and laying down a nice 
>throbbing electronic beat. who can rightly claim to be the author of this 
>last mix?

>even if we acknowledege a substantial contribution of the engineer's talents
>in mix #3, much of the raw material, both the performance and the composition,
>are still kate's. surely she is still entitled to remuneration for any sales of 
>this piece, and, i would argue, should still retain the artistic right to 
>forbid its release if for any reason she dislikes it.

>i do not find so great a distinction between the utah saints song 
>"something good" and what i have described as cloudbusting dance mix #3.  
>this was what i meant by failing to see how this could qualify as a 
>"new" work under copyright law.

>soo...am i out in left field here, or is this a valid issue??

To use the "Something Good" example: Kate wrote and performed _one_line_ of
vocals.  The Utah Saints wrote and performed the bassline, percussion
pattern, piano, and other instrumental parts, and arranged the whole thing.
(They also copied a guitar bit from Motorhead, but anyway.)  I fail to see
why this should not be counted as a new work just because it contains one
sample.

Legally, they have to seek Kate's permission to use the sample or she could
sue them for copyright infringement.  She did give her permission for
"Something Good" ("We must have caught her on a good day" -- Utah Saints), so
_she_ obviously doesn't mind (either that or they gave her a lot of money).

Many people object to sampling, but if the owner of the copyright of the
sampled work agrees to the sample being used, there's nothing to object to.
You may not like the result, you may think it's unoriginal and derivative,
but that's not the fault of the sampler.  Unoriginal music was invented
long before sampling.


-- 
== Bennett ================================== mcelwee@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au ==
|                                                                           |
|                   If I had $1000000. . . I'd be rich.                     |
=============================================================================
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from love-hounds to rec.music.gaffa; Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:52:12 EDT
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:47:27 -0400
From: FLWALKR@INDSVAX1.INDSTATE.EDU
Errors-To: Love-Hounds-request@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Peter Gabriel, Annie Lennox, and the Ferengi... :)
Message-ID: <01GOLKP31FN8001I6E@INDSVAX1.INDSTATE.EDU>