Legal use of audio samples/loops

sjabalamadingdong

Everlasting student
I had the idea of using a quote from a movie in one of my new tracks. it would really add to the meaning of the song. The question is:

Can I legally do that? If so, What are the terms & conditions, is there a limit in duration of seconds for an audio sample, do I need permission from the company who owns the source material?

For instance:
What if I would like to take 4 audiosamples of Jack Nickolson as the Joker in Batman and the duration of each of these loops is 4x 9 seconds in one song,
can I legally do that without permission of the owner of that source material?
 
Last edited:
So i've found this wikipedia article
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(music)
and it makes clear that you should ask for permission from the owner of the source material.

But if you've read the article, you'll notice an interesting case from the Sugar Hill Gang. I quote:
Conventional wisdom would hold that the first popular rap single to feature sampling was "Rapper's Delight" by Sugar Hill Gang on their own independent Sugar Hill Label in 1979. However, instead of 'sampling' the existing record "Good Times" by Chic, Sugar Hill employed a house band, called "Positive Force" to record a copy of "Good Times" which was then rapped over. Doug Wimbish and other session musicians were called upon to play live music on many classic Sugar Hill records. Those sounds are not samples but live musicians.

So if I imitated the words myself with a joker accent, would that be legal without permission?

I mean, a company could not sue you for using the words "wait till they get a load of me" right?
 
Last edited:
I had the idea of using a quote from a movie in one of my new tracks. it would really add to the meaning of the song. The question is:

Can I legally do that? If so, What are the terms & conditions, is there a limit in duration of seconds for an audio sample, do I need permission from the company who owns the source material?

For instance:
What if I would like to take 4 audiosamples of Jack Nickolson as the Joker in Batman and the duration of each of these loops is 4x 9 seconds in one song,
can I legally do that without permission of the owner of that source material?

you can *not* legally do that without permission.

There is *no* minimum duration of a sample which would allow you to do this legally. No matter how little you sample, you need to get permission.
 
So i've found this wikipedia article
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(music)
and it makes clear that you should ask for permission from the owner of the source material.

But if you've read the article, you'll notice an interesting case from the Sugar Hill Gang. I quote:


So if I imitated the words myself with a joker accent, would that be legal without permission?

I mean, a company could not sue you for using the words "wait till they get a load of me" right?

your wiki article does not mean that they were allowed to use that music free and clear just because they replayed it.

There are two copyrights in every sample: the "sound recording" and the "composition"

by replaying it, they are not using the "sound recording" but they *are* using the "composition".

(the "sound recording" is the actual recording you are sampling... It is their performance of the "composition"... And the "composition" is the song, or notes, they are playing)


And your movie example brings up other issues... Not only are there "sound recording" and "underlying works" (same as "composition"), but there are also TRADEMARK issues that come into play if you try to *sound like* Jack Nicholson... (these same trademark issues would come into play if you replayed someones music or resang their vocal and sounded like the original artist. You cannot legally "pass yourself off as", or fool people, into thinking they are hearing the original recording or another person.
 
Thnx for pointing me into the right direction Dyce. But that would count for commercial use only right?

Then now from another perspective:

I've just googled for a couple of sites that offer movie audio samples and they state in their footer that all the available samples can be used for 'personal/educational/non-profit' use.

So technically that means that I "could" use it if the audio sample used in the track were for non-profitable use only.

See i've already used 3 samples as an intro to my song on my MySpace playlist (see link in sig). I'm not making any money out of that song. So as I see it, this is a non-profitable use of samples. Or am I wayyyyy off on this one? :S
 
Last edited:
you still need to clear the sample. and clearing sound from films is a pain in the ass. and words from the movie are also protected. you are looking at a possible headache. can you so it with out the joker?
 
Yeah I could do without the joker Dwell.

The thing is that i've already used movie samples from a website that gives away free loops/ audio samples for a song (which I do not intend to make money out off). On their website they declared that I could use the audio samples for educational/non-profit use. So I went on and took a few samples and put them into my song.

Now I don't want any trouble with officials etc.. so that's why I opened this topic here on FP to check how you guys look at this.

Thnx for the info all!
 
Thnx for pointing me into the right direction Dyce. But that would count for commercial use only right?

Then now from another perspective:

I've just googled for a couple of sites that offer movie audio samples and they state in their footer that all the available samples can be used for 'personal/educational/non-profit' use.

So technically that means that I "could" use it if the audio sample used in the track were for non-profitable use only.

See i've already used 3 samples as an intro to my song on my MySpace playlist (see link in sig). I'm not making any money out of that song. So as I see it, this is a non-profitable use of samples. Or am I wayyyyy off on this one? :S



Yes. You are wayyyyy off on this one.

Unless the producer/copyright owner of that movie said you can use audio clips-- YOU CAN NOT!

I do not care what the site where you got them from says. They are wrong.

You can use whatever you want for "personal use" (nobody will ever know or care anyway), which would mean using the sample and listening to it by yourself... personal use does not include posting it online or burning CD's and giving them out or anything else...

"non-profit" does NOT just mean *you* are not making any profit from it... "non-profit" has an actual legal meaning... it is like a "non-profit company" does not simply mean a crappy company that someone started that can't make any money.

educational use means you are doing a presentation in school about sampling and you sample something as an example and show it to the class.


Any movie clip, or sound bite, or drum loop from a record, or anything from a recording that you do not own is NOT legal to sample without permission from the actual copyright owner...

...even if you buy a sample CD and it has a drum loop, movie quote or base part from a movie or song-- those samples are not legal to use!

if you look at the legal disclaimer of sample CD's (unless it is all original material created specifically for the sample CD) it will say something like "to the best of our knowledge, all these samples are legal to use, but contact us before you release anything using one of the samples because we may find out that we have something illegal on the CD"...

It is common sense...

use your judgement...

if it is something that somebody else created, you are not allowed to use it without permission.

Very simple.
 
So technically that means that I "could" use it if the audio sample used in the track were for non-profitable use only.


No. Technically, actually, theoretically and in every possible way, what that means is that the people who run the sites you are finding your samples at are idiots and do not understand the law.


...and "non-profitable" is NOT the same thing as "non-profit", either.
 
Sjjjjjjj*t thnx for this Dyce! I'll cut those audio snippets outta my track as we speak and take this advice to the back of my mind.

Bless,

J
 
Last edited:
Dredging up a somewhat recent thread...

I would like a bit more info regarding legal sampling.

A song that comes to mind from the late 80s? that is one big hot mess of samples is from Front 242 "Welcome to Paradise". Even if that wasn't your genre, or worse... you weren't born yet, you likely have heard the song. They used short but highly identifiable samples taken from televangelists from that time. There is no way these preachers gave their permission. Skinny Puppy also used extensive samples from the Evil Dead movies throughout one of their albums, and included many samples from horror movies from years and decades past. Both this album and that Front 242 were reasonably successful. There was never any talk of lawsuits.

My point is that samples from movies have been prolific in electronic music for decades. is the question of legality more one of ethics or of true "you will be sued and will suffer" legal concern?
 
Ya, legal issues are a big deal.
It's something that can screw alot of people over if they don't know about it.
Better to be educated and learn about the legal aspects, than to be sorry about it later and have a law suit on your hands.
Alot of people don't understand this about the music the make/produce.
Comes down to even using pirated versions of the DAW or editing program people use.
Say you illegaly download fruity loops, use their sounds and packs, make your own composition/beat.
You don't legally have the right to use them so you can ultimatly screw yourself.
Better safe than sorry.
And ignorance is not gonna be a liable excuse in a courtroom lol.

---------- Post added at 02:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:22 PM ----------

One thing I know you can use legally are items in the public archive.
Copywrite laws apply to the owners lifetime +70 years.
Sooooooo....
 
My point is that samples from movies have been prolific in electronic music for decades. is the question of legality more one of ethics or of true "you will be sued and will suffer" legal concern?

There is a difference between:

1. being legally entitled to use a sample

and

2. the copyright holder choosing not to litigate over someone using the sample



Those movie samples are not "legal" to use.

They belong to their respective copyright holders.

I know other industrial albums (which shall remain nameless) which were forced to be re-released with TV/movie clips removed due to the unauthorized use of those clips.


...and, for all you know, they may have gotten permission for the uses.
 
It should be against the law to sample the following even with permission:
  1. The Matrix
  2. Pulp Fiction
  3. Scarface
  4. Jack Nicholson as the Joker
  5. Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men
  6. Gene Wilder in Willy Wonka
:)
 
It should be against the law to sample the following even with permission:
  1. The Matrix
  2. Pulp Fiction
  3. Scarface
  4. Jack Nicholson as the Joker
  5. Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men
  6. Gene Wilder in Willy Wonka
:)

...and Jack Nicholson in The Shining...

...and Jack Nicholson in-- hell, it should be illegal to sample Jack Nicholson in anything.
 
So it is legal and ethical to make money by selling used dvds, of which not a penny goes into the pocket of Jack Nicholson. But it is illegal and some would say unethical to sample a piece of his spoken audio from said DVD because poor Jack needs financial compensation for anytime his already ridiculously distributed voice (via movies, interviews) is put into an audio mix... of which his particular waveform might compose .002% of the digital information that makes up the song? That doesn't seem to be a bit ridiculous?

It is odd that we are generally raised to question government, our parents, and some of the stranger parts of our given religions... but copyright law created by lawyers, wealthy entertainers, and the very wealthy corporations that largely benefit from them seems to be sacred.

This is similar to the Google digital book archive that is protested against by those that would rather the books rot on unseen shelves than to miss out on making a few dollars off of old work.

20-30 years should be plenty enough time for an artist to benefit from work that has been mass copied for profit already. If a drug company's patent can expire in the decade or so before generics can start production, I don't see why a guitarist can lock up their sounds for life+70 years (as was posted earlier). These legal traditions should be challenged to allow freedom of creativity.
 
So it is legal and ethical to make money by selling used dvds, of which not a penny goes into the pocket of Jack Nicholson.

Yes, that is legal.

Selling a used DVD (or CD, or VHS tape, or book, etc, etc) to one person is a very different scenario from what we are talking about here.


But it is illegal and some would say unethical to sample a piece of his spoken audio from said DVD because poor Jack needs financial compensation for anytime his already ridiculously distributed voice (via movies, interviews) is put into an audio mix...

It is illegal.

Jack Nicholson likely gets no compensation from the use, though. The owner of the copyright of the *film* would get the payment.


If you recorded a song and somebody else sampled your synth hook, you wouldn't want to be fairly compensated? (and, let's face it, those movie quotes are what people always identify the song with)



of which his particular waveform might compose .002% of the digital information that makes up the song? That doesn't seem to be a bit ridiculous?

Well, if it is important and valuable enough for you to use in the song... why would it not be important and valuable enough to be worth paying for?


...and, like i said, the fact is that the thing people always remember about those songs are the movie quotes... "take the blue pill"



It is odd that we are generally raised to question government, our parents, and some of the stranger parts of our given religions... but copyright law created by lawyers, wealthy entertainers, and the very wealthy corporations that largely benefit from them seems to be sacred.


Actually, the purpose of copyright law is to foster creativity by giving artists and writers ownership in their own work so they can reap the benefits of their own work...

...and the copyright law prevents monopolies in copyrighted works by allowing for compulsory licenses (i.e., everybody is automatically given permission to do covers of other peoples songs)...

...the updates to the copyright law over the years have been enacted to prevent struggling artists from being taken advantage of like in the old motown days.

If you decide to sell away your rights in a way that does not benefit you, then that is your own fault, because from the instant you record your song, you own 100% of it and are entitled to 100% of the benefit of it.



This is similar to the Google digital book archive that is protested against by those that would rather the books rot on unseen shelves than to miss out on making a few dollars off of old work.

I am not familiar with this google case... but if *you* wrote an album (or book) that people wanted to buy, wouldn't *you* want to get compensated for your work?

Would you do your job without getting paid?




20-30 years should be plenty enough time for an artist to benefit from work that has been mass copied for profit already. If a drug company's patent can expire in the decade or so before generics can start production, I don't see why a guitarist can lock up their sounds for life+70 years (as was posted earlier).


Ahhh, spoken like someone who is just making music as a hobby.

If you are fortunate enough to have written a song that people want to hear and is capable of generating money... *that* is your job... *that* is your retirement plan... *that* is what you can pass on to your kids.

In a world where it is hard enough to make any money from music already, *you* should feel very lucky that you can have ownership in your own work.



These legal traditions should be challenged to allow freedom of creativity.

Freedom of creativity? You can be as creative as you want to be. Nobody will stop you from that.

Go ahead and sample all the movies you want. Sample all the songs you want.

Nobody is stopping you from being "creative".

But if you want to *make money* from your work... you don't think you should, in turn, pay the people whose work *you used* to create yours?
 
The Google issue is where they take out of print books from the deepest recesses of libraries and private collections, and then pays workers to sit in a building and scan them for any and all to enjoy. If someone can show ownership of the old books and protests, then Google drops it from the public view. Basically the works are treated as abandoned property. But the people protesting are often not the owners, but are largely made of groups utterly obsessed with copyright principle to the extent that their victory could result in these books essentially disappearing. Far from a perfect analogy to this issue, but still one where copyright sacredness seems to hurt more than help.

I have been on the losing side of this debate before, as all artists are incredibly sensitive to it. And I don't stay up late at night thinking about this. I am still not convinced that they defend the system because they truly have thought about it and it is great... or if it is just what we inherited culturally and any dissent is interpreted in the extreme (often) where every artist ends up homeless in the streets.

If a previous poster is right...copyright is death + 70 years???? How is that rational? How is that protecting the artist?

As for paying the artist for a sample... how does one figure out the price? If the song lasts 4 minutes and the sample takes up 12 seconds of it, does the person who made the 12 seconds with absolutely no intention of helping you nor any concept of those 12 seconds' usefulness to your future project... possibly made the 12 seconds as little more than filler or an arbitrary line of dialogue with little impact on the movie it was in... do they get 12/14400 of the profit made from the song you are then hoping to use those 12 seconds in?

I absolutely believe in the copyright system protecting the living, and especially the "little guy." I don't want that overturned. I just don't see the need for MGM to get a check every time a shred of dialogue from a movie is used. The whole storyline... sure. But "Here's Johnny"... really? Somebody better get paid or there's a lawsuit a comin'? Just doesn't seem right. But again, I am a lowly hobbyist, so I just don't understand how one day of work 20 years ago is supposed to pay off in perpetutuity. There should be a reasonable cut-off.

---------- Post added at 06:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:03 PM ----------

and regarding selling used DVDs....
Selling a used DVD (or CD, or VHS tape, or book, etc, etc) to one person is a very different scenario from what we are talking about here.

The used DVD/CD seller makes a buck. The buyer gets the pleasure of hearing/seeing all of that copyrighted material without a penny of that enjoyment going to the copyright owner. Should the staunchest supporters of copyright law have their way (as I have often hear in these debates), selling used media of any sort should be prohibited until a system for the copyright can squeeze a little more profit from the material... considering it is understood that you never buy a DVD/CD but merely buy a single user license. The RIAA has lawyers well versed in this.
 
Last edited:
The Google issue is where they take out of print books from the deepest recesses of libraries and private collections, and then pays workers to sit in a building and scan them for any and all to enjoy. If someone can show ownership of the old books and protests, then Google drops it from the public view. Basically the works are treated as abandoned property. But the people protesting are often not the owners, but are largely made of groups utterly obsessed with copyright principle to the extent that their victory could result in these books essentially disappearing. Far from a perfect analogy to this issue, but still one where copyright sacredness seems to hurt more than help.

That's way off the mark of what the Google Book Search Settlement is about, not really relevant to what the thread is about anyway.

For the record, I think legally that most sampling from movies is going to be de minimis and okay to use without permission. You may run into trouble if you use a part that someone can readily identify as having come from the movie, but otherwise it's probably ok.

See http://openjurist.org/264/f3d/622/murray-hill-publications-inc-v-abc-communications-inc for example.
 
Back
Top