'Cutting up the dancefloor: the glorious, dubious...'

[Mike]

Guardian running an interesting article

Cutting up the dancefloor: the glorious, dubious history of the disco edit

some interesting points, such as nowadays more likely to re-record/recreate rather than sample to avoid copyright/payment issues

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/jul/13/cutting-up-the-dancefloor-the-glorious-dubious-history-of-the-disco-edit

[Mike]

 

[Geeselad]

10 hours ago, Source said:

Guardian running an interesting article

Cutting up the dancefloor: the glorious, dubious history of the disco edit

some interesting points, such as nowadays more likely to re-record/recreate rather than sample to avoid copyright/payment issues

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/jul/13/cutting-up-the-dancefloor-the-glorious-dubious-history-of-the-disco-edit

Virtually everything Craig Charles plays is an edit, non new releases anyway. I've often wonder who gets paid, the editor or the artist? 

[Mike]

1 hour ago, Geeselad said:

Virtually everything Craig Charles plays is an edit, non new releases anyway. I've often wonder who gets paid, the editor or the artist? 

looks like there's a 'growing trend' of avoiding artist payments

clip from the article

''Despite their track sounding almost identical, LF System didn’t technically sample Silk’s I Can’t Stop (Turning You On). “We actually got a replay on that sample,” says Finnigan, referring to a growing trend for major labels to commission teams of musicians to do a replica version of the original. Instead of sampling the original, they’re interpolating it – meaning they only have to get approval from the songwriter or publisher, not the owner of the recording itself. “It’s an interpolation of Silk, that’s why it sounds slightly different,” confirms Finnigan. 

[Merve]

14 hours ago, Source said:

Guardian running an interesting article

Cutting up the dancefloor: the glorious, dubious history of the disco edit

some interesting points, such as nowadays more likely to re-record/recreate rather than sample to avoid copyright/payment issues

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/jul/13/cutting-up-the-dancefloor-the-glorious-dubious-history-of-the-disco-edit

Can't say as I fully appreciated his description of Send Him Back  ! That's part of my misspent youth he's belittled there

[Daved]

That LF System song has totally destroyed the Silk original. They should be prosecuted. not only for stealing another song, but also what they've done to it.

[Chalky]

It's nice to see soul and disco top of the charts but I disagree with the use of the original in whatever form without recompense to the original copyright holder.

[Fiftyboiledeggs]

Berry Gordy ripped off more artists than anyone.

[Benji]

Please no whataboutism. This isn't about Mr. Gordy and his business behaviour.

My view on disco edits (or any edits that is): I'm fine with them (and there are some pretty good ones out there!) but as soon as they earn money with them the original artist (or whoever holds the copyrights) must be compensated.

[Jnixon]

On 15/07/2022 at 00:23, Source said:

Guardian running an interesting article

Cutting up the dancefloor: the glorious, dubious history of the disco edit

some interesting points, such as nowadays more likely to re-record/recreate rather than sample to avoid copyright/payment issues

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/jul/13/cutting-up-the-dancefloor-the-glorious-dubious-history-of-the-disco-edit

How does re creating avoid copyright payment? 

[Mike]

24 minutes ago, Jnixon said:

How does re creating avoid copyright payment? 

quote in post above explains?

' referring to a growing trend for major labels to commission teams of musicians to do a replica version of the original. Instead of sampling the original, they’re interpolating it – meaning they only have to get approval from the songwriter or publisher, not the owner of the recording itself'

as they are not using the original recording no need/requirement to pay the original artist/label 

[Autumnstoned]

The article confirms that the songwriter and publisher ie the “composition copyright owner”, have to give permission for any interpolating and also receive royalties from any use of their music. Who really cares if the owner of the “master recording copyright” ( ie the record label - often a corporate with no involvement in the creative process) don’t benefit. They had their cut from the original recording and can continue to receive income from reissues if there’s a market for them.

It’s just a point of view.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mike]

1 hour ago, Autumnstoned said:

The article confirms that the songwriter and publisher ie the “composition copyright owner”, have to give permission for any interpolating and also receive royalties from any use of their music. Who really cares if the owner of the “master recording copyright” ( ie the record label - often a corporate with no involvement in the creative process) don’t benefit. They had their cut from the original recording and can continue to receive income from reissues if there’s a market for them.

It’s just a point of view.

 

 

 

disagree, what about the artist/s?

if the track was sampled they would/should get a % , if the track is re-created then they don't ?

that's how I read this, that's right yep?

[Mickey Finn]

2 hours ago, Source said:

disagree, what about the artist/s?

if the track was sampled they would/should get a % , if the track is re-created then they don't ?

that's how I read this, that's right yep?

This kind of issue was behind Ian Levine's decision to re-record tracks with the artists for The Strange World of Northern Soul. Using original recordings would have had the project tied up in legal nonsense with no guarantee of any reward for performers. Re-recording would avoid the hassle and offer a chance of payment to the performers, who were also beneficiaries in being rediscovered and possibly having their singing careers revived.

Nina Simone received 3000 dollars for recording "My baby just cares for me". No royalties. According to the link below, an estimated loss of over a million dollars, following the revival of that tune during the 1980s:

https://www.cryptrecords.com/nina-simone-my-baby-just-cares-for-me-work-song-7.html

In other words, even legal clearance of the use of original recordings does not guarantee any return to the artist.

[Autumnstoned]

3 hours ago, Source said:

disagree, what about the artist/s?

if the track was sampled they would/should get a % , if the track is re-created then they don't ?

that's how I read this, that's right yep?

I’m not sure Mike. I read it that songwriters and publishers, who make their money collecting and distributing the royalties  ( modern publishing contracts usually give the songwriter/s at least 50 % ) receive royalties from these recreations. The performers or artists as opposed to songwriters need to ensure they get a songwriting credit if they were involved in the composition of the song and their name on the publishing contract. Otherwise they don’t get paid except a session fee and for live performances. That’s my understanding but I’m not a music biz expert although I did have a publishing contract with Heath Levy music ( long expired I imagine ) and am a joint composition copyright owner of a number of songs nobody has any interest in hearing let alone recreating 

 

[Blackpoolsoul]

I have to admit that I have no knowledge of the law regarding samples and found this useful, it seems, article which gave me some more info (I hope it's correct Mike ?)

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/permission-sampled-music-sample-clearance-30165.html

[Chalky]

The difference between the use of sample and an interpolation explained...

https://help.songtrust.com/knowledge/what-is-the-difference-between-a-sample-and-interpolation

[Mike]

10 hours ago, Blackpoolsoul said:

I have to admit that I have no knowledge of the law regarding samples and found this useful, it seems, article which gave me some more info (I hope it's correct Mike ?)

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/permission-sampled-music-sample-clearance-30165.html

That's a usa web page and so concerns itself with American copyright law, may be better off using an official if possible uk page for advice/knowledge

[Blackpoolsoul]

3 hours ago, Source said:

That's a usa web page and so concerns itself with American copyright law, may be better off using an official if possible uk page for advice/knowledge

So if a European uses a US sample who or which area covers the law Mike ? I am correct in thinking that if the Copyright was used in the UK from the US it would then fall under EU law ?

Edited July 20, 2022 by Blackpoolsoul

[Chalky]

1 hour ago, Blackpoolsoul said:

So if a European uses a US sample who or which area covers the law Mike ? I am correct in thinking that if the Copyright was used in the UK from the US it would then fall under EU law ?

I would imagine you would go through the representative body for whichever country you reside in to license others work, in our case in the UK the PRS, they have according to their website agreements with over 100 countries.