Clearing classic drum breaks?

F

fingerbib

Guest
Is it still necessary to clear samples of classic drum breaks (the amen, funky president, apache)?
 
i really don't know. but then you can alter the sample to where no one reconize it:)
 
I definitely run the breaks through lots of DSP processing, but I still think people who are quite familiar with the breaks can identify them.
 
As far as I know there aren't any laws on sampling drum patterns only. Now if the drums include some form of music in the background i.e. bassline or something of that nature then it's not considered a drum track anymore but rather a music sample. The rules may have changed, you want to do a little research about it.
 
Well i heard u are sweet to sample drum breaks as long as they were recorded like more than 50 years ago. something like that anyway
 
DaLabRat said:
As far as I know there aren't any laws on sampling drum patterns only. Now if the drums include some form of music in the background i.e. bassline or something of that nature then it's not considered a drum track anymore but rather a music sample. The rules may have changed, you want to do a little research about it.
Click to expand...

Why would drummers be left out of copyrights? Doesn't make sense. Without remembering the specifics, practically everything falls under copyright, if not intentionally made copyright/royalty free (sample cd's). And copyrights expire, if my memory serves me correct, like, 50 or even 70 years after the DEATH of the original artist.

Correct me if I'm fully wrong, some of this stuff might apply only here in Finland.
 
Drum patterns can be copywrited just like anything else.

50 years after the death of the artist applies in the UK and US as well.

There is no international copywrite laws: piracy is legal in some countries.

When James Brown realised people were sampling funky drummer, his record company brought it out a gain with an additional track which was basically just an extended break, to
make it easier for people to sample it.

At the same time they set up a department to find anyone who sampled it and to sue them.
 
Drum loops fall under the category of sample clearance and are elligable for copyright. T&S and Big Fish etc.. copyright all their samples and you have to pay to use them . At Samplecraze we copyright all material but once you pay for our beats you have global use of the loops but need to credit the writer, however there are no royalties to pay as we believe once you've paid for the loop we shouldn't charge you again if you use it on a single that gets airplay or sells, unlike some competitors.
Vinyl breaks fall under the category of song content and you are not allowed to lift it and use it without the consent of the writer unless the loop is licence free and offered as such in a public domain, like library music.
The labels, artistes etc.. pay a substantial amount to have beats made up for them otherwise they would just go around taking what they liked and using it. Remember the beat makes up the essence of most dance based music as it is categorised as the drive of a track and no drummer or programmer will allow you to simply lift it, as the same as a vocalist or muso etc...

It's music, pay the man and live in peace.
 
It could be argued that drum breaks are not copyright protected, since it contains no melody. Copyright law completely ignores the concept of rhythm. Ever wonder why 10 Dancehall artists will be using the same beat?
However, what is not disputable is that ANY musical work in a fixed tangible state ie, CD, tape, LP, etc, is copyright protected.
What does this mean? It means that even though the drumbreak itself, may "possibly" not fall under copyright protection, the sound recording of the drumbreak does. Somebody owns the rights to the SR, and when you sample it, they are owed something.
 
Ikemurda said:
It could be argued that drum breaks are not copyright protected, since it contains no melody.
Click to expand...

it could also be argued that drum breaks have melodies, since every drum hit still has a certain pitch, although it's not so clearly audible as in, for example, a piano melody ...
 
...found this article on getsigned.com where this entertainment lawyer guy, ronald bienstock (??!), states that "bass parts" and "drum parts" do not make up the essence of songwriting - as far as copyright interests are concerned.

...which i found weird coz what happens when you start writing a drum 'n' bass track where the drums and the bass ARE the main essences of the track? :D
 
krushing said:


it could also be argued that drum breaks have melodies, since every drum hit still has a certain pitch, although it's not so clearly audible as in, for example, a piano melody ...
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct. It "could" be argued either way. This is a gray area of copyright law.
 
Sometimes i feel like i'll never get the handle on this copywrite law thing. :( so many rules change so fast.
 
...you dont wanna be doing internet laws then. heh. word has it that there's one internet law being amended everyday on average in the states :D
 
Tell me about it. First we had the 2 bar rule, then the 1 bar rule, then the sequence of note rule, then the copyright lifespan changed from 30 to 50 years then European Law ****ted on the whole thing here in the UK. Makes you wonder if they do this cos they are all briefs and lawyers make fortunes. Doesn't help us tho.:mad:
 
someone said this already, but it bears repeating. drum parts typically aren't protected under the publishers copyright, but they are protected under the sound recording copyright.

in other words, with melody, you can't sample an elton john track without his permission, but you also couldn't hire a singer to resing the song and use that without his permission.

whereas with drum tracks, you can't sample the drums without the copyright holders permission, but you could hire a drummer to recreate the pattern and use that.

that's how it works 99% of the time as i understand it.

but looking at the last 15 years of drum'nbass/jungle, it doesn't seem like the winstons gave anyone any problems...
 
Samplecraze said:
Tell me about it. First we had the 2 bar rule, then the 1 bar rule, then the sequence of note rule, then the copyright lifespan changed from 30 to 50 years then European Law ****ted on the whole thing here in the UK. Makes you wonder if they do this cos they are all briefs and lawyers make fortunes. Doesn't help us tho.:mad:
Click to expand...

I've never heard of a specific bar rule thing actually. It's pretty clear. An existing recording is owned by who recorded it and that's it.

Make sure to not mix up mechanical license (the notes or the words, not the sounds) thru HFA mostly, with master license (recording, thru label / etC)
 
I've heard that until you actually start profitting off of a specific work you can't be touched. But sample the drums and when I say drums I mean the ENTIRE pattern from Impeach The President, Funky Drummer,Apache, etc etc, package it, market it and sell it to the buying public and see if you DON'T get your butt handed to you on a silver platter. I think the patterns can be copywritten but each specific HIT (snare,kick,hi hat) cannot. As far as the bar thing goes I have heard that alot over the years but I have never found anything out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top