There's been a few samples on Splice that I'm fairly confident are actually not cleared.. while I haven't used them, I'm curious. I know it's a big 'what if', but what would happen if I used a Splice sample in a song that becomes a number one US radio hit, and the original owner of the sound comes after me? Can I just point to the agreement with Splice and then Splice has to deal with it?

No, you cannot blame others. If you use it, you are responsible for making sure its cleared. This is why there are music lawyers.

The exposure you get from your number one hit will make up for the whatever they hit you for haha, the bigger problem is will all your beats rely on looping samples and worrying about them being cleared

You know what I love doing, taking a great piece of a sample, setting it to the root note and literally playing the thing like an instrument, there’s no judge in the world that could listen to what I’ve done to a sample and be like yup, that sounds like that song haha, even if the people who made it cried about it, even if the judge knew that i used the audio to make whatever I made out of it, it sounds nothing like it and there are laws in place and if you make something your own and doesn’t sound like the original, they can’t mess with it.

Wasn’t trying to act like a smart a$%, but i never loop any type of sample and I pull anyhing I want off a record and turn it into something else

Just something to think about in the future and taking the time to learn how to put stuff together and play even if it’s only a tiny bit, or just use your ears, but it does help to be able to play a lil, plus layering these samples with synths can be the wow factor that separates you fom everybody else

Whoa.. that's not accurate at all. Sound recordings and the underlying compositions are intellectual property that are protected by copyright. In a U.S. court, infringing on that copyright is basically viewed as theft. It doesn't matter how it's used in the song, it's a violation of copyright. If it's recognized and you are sued, you'll lose the case.

Yep, not only that but these days there are incredibly sophisticated A.I. algorithms that can determine what sample has been used, even if mangled beyond recognition in many cases.

Realize you are still using the original sample(s) to create your "own sound" whatever it may be. And if the judge knows you made it from said copyrighted material, you will lose. It will be more like

Guess I heard wrong, so in the end how do you prove a second and a half completely pitched and twerked in every single way possible came from the original source? Do they subpoena your Ableton arrangement?

If it sounds nothing like the original I would assume the burden of proof is high, and who’s to say you didn’t use the same exact instrument in the same way and then mangle it as it’s only fraction of whatever and your making it your own

Ok so I guess if the judge knows your screwed, but how can someone prove it if it literally has been transformed into something completely different, I might have been wrong about the laws but Honestly the second or so I might use split into 3 different instances could not be identified wharsoever

So since it’s a civil case it’s all up to the judge? I’m sure there has to be a certain threshold that has to be met, if it’s mangled beyond belief how would anyone be able to identify it, especially if it’s been used layered with something else, I’m sure this must have happened to somebody coming up, but I’d like to see the actual beat in question and reference it with the original sample source and see how far off it was

human ears don't even have to identify it—an artificial intelligence algorithm developed to discern the individual 'fingerprint' of any sample can correctly identify it.

I'm not a 'hit-maker', and never will be, so I honestly don't worry much about these things, but any time money is involved, there's a certain risk.

Atma your a hit maker in my eyes, you produce hit posts on this here forum and I learn so much, no joke haha

I think the fair use argument producers have used in the past to avoid paying royalties is where i might have heard that if it’s not possible to identify it good to go

Whether or not someone gets away with using an unidentified sample is a completely different thing than what you originally said. Most of us were responding to:

Manipulating a sample into something unidentifiable from the original is a different conversation altogether. I'm not sure how well software algorithms/databases are at discovering those.

The whole Girl talk argument is what I was referring to, it seems his stuff is up on Spotify and iTunes still and I don’t think he’s paying royalties on it, didn’t he release the list of all the samples he used and they still didn’t go after him? On the basis of fair use or maybe they just didn’t care? Yeah right

Either way, I think the whole recordings can’t be made into your own thing will not hold up, let’s say I use a piano chord(which chords can t be copyrighted) of an album, the whole underlying composition argument goes out the window, then let’s say i twerk and pitch the heck out of it, I think hypothetically it could be considered illegal but not being able to clearly identify the recording due to its transformation would %100 hold up in your favor against copyright infringement.

Give me an instance where somebody has mangled a sample beyond belief and got sued?

But the underlying composition is only 1 type of copyright. The sound recording is the other, and the length of the sample doesn't make a difference, you can still be sued and lose for infringing on the copyright of the sound recording. A "sound recording" doesn't specify what the sound is (chord, melody, note, etc.)... it's just any sound recording.


If the sample is truly processed beyond recognition, then a lawsuit would never be brought, since the copyright holder wouldn't know. So whether it would "hold up" or not is irrelevant.


Do you mean mangled but still recognized? Or mangled beyond recognition? If you mean beyond recognition, then like I said above, there would never be lawsuit in the first place. Still not "legal" though.

If it's mangled but still recognized, then it could still be brought to court if there is a lot of money involved. The suing party would just have a harder time proving the case.

forget about the underlying composition part, since were using a small fraction to make it our own it doesn't matter, jus saying if I sample a d# note from someones guitar melody and set the root note and play my own melody there's no way that you could bring an underlying composition or recording argument, it can't be proven

I guess mangled but still recognized, if I sit you down and I'm like hey check out this sample, it plays for 5 seconds then I play you what I did to it, taking 1 second and completely orchestrating my own composition in different octaves pitches and layering with other instruments and just making it completely different, to the point of there is truly no identifiable features but still has a glimpse of what it is, like I'm not talking about getting granular, but definitely mangling. What I got from the whole Girl Talk fair use thing was if it's made into something completely new, it's almost impossible to show damages and that your literally taking money from the original owner

I'm not super familiar with the Girl Talk case (I just took a quick glance), but I did research US copyright law a few years ago. So my comments are according to what I have learned through research. Maybe some fair use principles are changing... I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure. But I would definitely (me personally) refrain from telling people that it's okay to sample because a judge will rule in your favor under fair use. That's basically all I'm saying. I would encourage someone (the OP in this instance) to do some research before making a judgement.

I just got on my home computer and didn't realize earlier your a moderator, much respect to you and this site, it's a pleasure being able to come on here and throw out run on sentences(so impatient and I need to sharpen up on my grammar and punctuation) to a very knowledgable group of people and also share my opinions

I hope you chimed in earlier out of interest and not feeling the need to cover a legal view as not responding and throwing out your point might in someway be co-signing what I was saying, but if so sorry not trying to throw out misinformation as some might see it, and I know entertainment industry and it's lawyers are cut throat. And if the OP got sued I definitely wouldn't pay him for proving me wrong so I get what your saying haha But I believe what I stated earlier is correct, it doesn't matter if the judge knows or doesn't know if the copyrighted material was used, as in the Girl Talk case where he put out a list for people of the 300 or so samples used on his album, it seems he blatantly uses noticeable stuff sometimes so not sure how those are factored in but the stuff that's really turned into something different I think can't be touched, it's proving that it's being passed off as that specific recording or benefiting from that specific recording in its original form, or somehow taking money from that person by using that recording, so when made into something completely new, that's no longer the case. Once you take it and make it your own, and I don't mean just chopping or slicing it where you can clearly tell what it is, I'm talking about just completely into something new, along with other elements in your song that are original, then your good to go, I stand by that, but I understand your point as well.

As far as splice is concerned, I think your covered Max, just my opinion though, because as long as you can prove you purchased the rights to use the sample through splice, which is what they offer through their service then they would be the ones liable but you would have to forfeit the rights but not pay back any money imo, could be wrong. I really don't think that a site like splice would traffic in shady practices like that, they would have been shut down already but maybe not clearing the samples they get from ppl and making sure they're good could be something that happens, but I doubt it. I no longer use splice as I get all I need from plug-ins, vinyl and other sources, but they do have an amazing selection and I have have tons of samples that I got from there

For me sampling has always been about that dusty depthy artifact richness that is so lost with so many sounds and keyboards we use on a daily, it allows a unique sound to be produced as if it were one of a kind, and in a sense is one of a kind as the methods of sampling it are unique to your setup, then the way you use it, whether it be layering it over a pad or synth or another sample or just playing it like a ballad, or however you twerk it into a new dimension is ORIGINAL art. And I think being able to prove what it is just not doable, my 2 cents

Hey Atma, when those record companies and lawyers find out that the AI algorithm you were talking about can be used and sold to producers in plug-in format they won't need to sue people anymore, they'll make a boat load selling it to the people they were suing haha just joking