Suing for smapling is an outrage. If people cannot take the work of other artists, twist and use it to make something different, then culture is dead. All music is the sum or part sum of everything that has gone before it. There is no lost note or missing chord to be found.

That internationally acclaimed artists (well off ones at that) can sue other artists for creating art is abhorrent.

Suing for smapling is an outrage. If people cannot take the work of other artists, twist and use it to make something different, then culture is dead. All music is the sum or part sum of everything that has gone before it. There is no lost note or missing chord to be found.

That internationally acclaimed artists (well off ones at that) can sue other artists for creating art is abhorrent.

This story doesn’t really distinguish between sampling a sound recording - and sampling the ‘melody’ behind the sound recording - the underlying composition This is all about the ‘melody’ I think - the notes that make up the melody (or the song) as far as I can see - and there dont seem to be many notes here - its only two seconds! After a case involving the Beastie Boys it seems that where a ‘melody’ is sampled the use must be substantial - or perhaps at least recognisable (Newton v Diamond). In the UK though it was held that four notes WERE recognisable and so protected by copyright. BUT - as US law stands, ANY use of the actual sound recording will infringe copyright. As a judge did say - if you want to sample - get a licence!

While I probably wouldn’t get upset if two seconds of one of my songs was sampled, if someone used a significant piece of musical composition to for the basis for a new song, I would expect to be paid for it.