uncleared sample question

[meistromoco]

I've got a nice sized house music label interested in putting out one of my tunes that pretty liberally samples not so obscure funk tune. Not major label material, but also not super unknown either. Samples appear throughout the song. The label is aware the song contains samples (it's obvious).

The label, as far as I can tell, doesn't really deal with sample based music too much (although the dude that runs it has released a good amount of sample-based house tunes in the 90s).

Anyhow, the contract they sent me puts it all on me (which I assume is pretty standard):

ALL Artists and Writers warrant that they are free and able to enter this
agreement and that the work contains no third party samples or infringes the
rights of others. The Artists and Writers also agree to indemnify the label for any
losses or expenses, which arise from improper assurances made as part of this
agreement.

So, I guess my question for the strut is: should I worry about this? The stakes seem low and tons of house music that gets relatively big in the underground contains pretty obvious samples. What doth teh strut sayith? Sign or :walk_away_son: ??

 

[knewjak]

dude. I'd say say sign it and release it. Just don't cash your cheque for awhile and see what happens.


...Think about it this way. If you get busted, the song must have been a big enough hit to reached enough people, right? That right there is a badge of honor.

 

[LaserWolf]

As a lawyer I would say... oh wait, I'm not a lawyer.





Congrats on getting your tune picked up.

 

[Delay]

if they license the song for a commercial or whatever, you will ultimately be responsible if they are sued.





any label in business in 2015 is going to have their catalog available for sync

 

[Jonny_Paycheck]

if they're aware of the sample and still want to put it out I don't think it's unfair to ask that that language be removed. otherwise, I'd ask them to clear it. failing that, do it anonymously.

 

[DocMcCoy]

JonnyPaycheck said:if they're aware of the sample and still want to put it out I don't think it's unfair to ask that that language be removed. otherwise, I'd ask them to clear it. failing that, do it anonymously.




This.





When I used to make a living at this caper for a couple of the majors, official policy was that if we (in this case, the publisher) were made aware of it, then we had to clear it. Likewise, if we hadn't been told there was a sample but it was obvious there was, we'd tell the client it had to be cleared - we couldn't just pretend we hadn't noticed it. Insisting on even a standard liability clause in an agreement when you're fully aware the track contains infringing material that hasn't been cleared is dirty pool.

 

[BeatChemist]

DocMcCoy said:JonnyPaycheck said:if they're aware of the sample and still want to put it out I don't think it's unfair to ask that that language be removed. otherwise, I'd ask them to clear it. failing that, do it anonymously.




This.





When I used to make a living at this caper for a couple of the majors, official policy was that if we (in this case, the publisher) were made aware of it, then we had to clear it. Likewise, if we hadn't been told there was a sample but it was obvious there was, we'd tell the client it had to be cleared - we couldn't just pretend we hadn't noticed it. Insisting on even a standard liability clause in an agreement when you're fully aware the track contains infringing material that hasn't been cleared is dirty pool.




Yeah... if the label knows it's an illegal sample, and still wants to make money off of it, then they should bear some of the liability.

 

[meistromoco]

thanks for the feedback, fellas. Had a pretty candid email conversation this morning with the label boss and we went over a series of "what ifs" that I am comfortable with. Dude has a great rep, has been in it for years, and ultimately I'm not concerned.





But I am def saving that email.

 

[francois parker]

A flick through the top 100 records for sale on Juno at any time in recent years will reveal 100's of records with un-cleared samples and then there are all the Edits that have popped up in the last decade especially the last five years,its like Sampling Law never happened.


Most of these are records where the most they were every going to sell was 300 ish copies and the general feeling is no one is suing over that few copies being sold. Im only aware of on Cease And Desist order being issed on an edit EP, Im sure there have been more but they are few and far between.





Id say go for it, unless you really believe your track is going to blow up.

 

[meistromoco]

francois parker said:





Id say go for it, unless you really believe your track is going to blow up.




ha! I suppose you never know, but def not expecting that to happen.

 

[DocMcCoy]

meistromoco said:francois parker said:





Id say go for it, unless you really believe your track is going to blow up.




ha! I suppose you never know, but def not expecting that to happen.




Here's something I'd often tell people in off-the-record conversations; if you're concerned about the sample, but can't wear the expense of clearing it at this early stage, at least make sure you know who the rights owners are. Do your research beforehand, so if you do wake up one morning to discover that your record is shaping up to be a huge hit, you can at least get on the phone to the people concerned and try to thrash out some kind of deal. Yes, you'll have to give up some of your publishing (hopefully not all of it), and you may have to fork out a hefty sum to clear the master use too. But you'll probably end up with some ownership, and you'll have a hit record.





Once a track is out there in the world, you have absolutely no control over where it's going to go and who's going to hear it, especially in the digital age. And if the rights owners call you first, you lose whatever bargaining power you had - as far as they're concerned, you used their work without permission, so they hold all the cards. I've made a few calls like that. Mad Decent's licensing department could probably have sorted out the samples on that Harlem Shake record in an afternoon with a few phone calls and the offer of a couple of grand for the master buyouts. But because the industry is now awash with people who don't know what they're doing, it never occurred to anyone to take care of all this when the buzz on the track was beginning to build.

 

[Horseleech]

DocMcCoy said:meistromoco said:francois parker said:





Id say go for it, unless you really believe your track is going to blow up.




ha! I suppose you never know, but def not expecting that to happen.




Here's something I'd often tell people in off-the-record conversations; if you're concerned about the sample, but can't wear the expense of clearing it at this early stage, at least make sure you know who the rights owners are.




And if it turns out to be Aaron Fuchs, run for the hills.

 

[youngEINSTEIN]

If you receive a lawsuit that's a sign that your record is doing great. Have no fear of releasing it just be prepared for negotiation to possibly take a while. I've had to eat top ramen for 2 months once while waiting for money to clear.





Peace, stein...

 

[holmes]

I have done the exact same thing several times & never had a problem, just go for it.