If It Takes You 20 Years To Notice Madonna Sampled Your Songs, Perhaps It's A Transformative Use
from the just-saying dept
Ima Fish alerts us to the news that Madonna is being sued for copyright infringement over samples in the hit song "Vogue." That song, you may recall, came out in 1990. So you might think that it's a bit late to claim copyright infringement. Why did it take so long? The copyright holder, VMG Salsoul, claims that Madonna and collaborator Shep Pettibone, used samples of its song, "Chicago Bus Stop (Ooh, I Love It)(Love Break)" and then hid them in Vogue. Yes. Hid them. Here's Chicago Bus Stop:The portions of "Love Break, which have been copied into Vogue and all its various "mixes," remixes," videos, YouTube versions, etc. are numerous but intentionally hidden. The horn and strings in Vogue are intentionally sampled from "Love Break" throughout.The lawsuit notes that, prior to working on Vogue with Madonna, Pettibone had, in fact, worked for Salsoul, doing remixes -- and had remixed that exact song. However, the fact that it took 22 years for Salsoul to even notice certainly raises significant questions about whether this is copyright infringement. One of the issues looked at in determining fair use, of course, is whether or not the work is transformative. You would think, if the original copyright holder didn't recognize its own sample, found in one of the most popular songs of the 90s, that's a pretty good indication that it's "transformative." It certainly isn't a substitute for the original.
Of course, the law around copyright and sampling is a complete mess, thanks to some incredibly questionable rulings, such as the Bridgeport ruling in the Sixth Circuit that claimed "get a license or do not sample." That case did not look at the fair use issues at all, and had various other problems, but these issues rarely come up in court, even in other circuits, because people (on all sides) are afraid of how it will come out. This case, for what it's worth, is not in the 6th Circuit.
There are also questions about the statute of limitations -- and that's another area where copyright law is a mess, but it certainly seems like that would not stop this particular lawsuit, based on a variety of factors.
Either way, the fact that it took so long for the copyright holder to even notice seems like it should be evidence enough to dump this lawsuit in the first place, though that's unlikely to happen.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, fair use, infringement, madonna, salsoul, samples, statute of limitations, transformative
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems Simple Enough
Even if they get it, I doubt the original creator will get any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seems Simple Enough
Even if he's out for a cash grab there's a limit to stupid claims.
How the fck can you hide a sample inside a song? Maybe they scrambled the musical notes so VMG counted the number of each note and reached that conclusion?
No srsly. I'm gonna scroll down to check what the shills have to say, should be hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Madonna saying fuck every artist that isn't me?
It's just an absurd claim to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vogue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My bet is that you try enough samples you'll find one "hidden" in the songs we created with out ever using that sample. If you are having to dig so deeply in to the song that you need technology that has only just come about then the chances are that you are going to start running up the against the fact that there are only so many notes in some many pattens that make music senses in western music and digging about outside the range of noticeable hearing trying to find a link is just going to throw up incorrect matches.
There maybe a chance that the writer of vogue was influenced by the song that he had worked remixing and that some of that influence made it way in to Vogue and that's what the "hidden sample detecting machine" is picking up on.
Yet that's how music works... when does influence become sampled? I know I've written songs based of liking a chord patten I've heard or a given strumming patten. Does that mean if I record those songs I've sampled the things that inspired them even if the end song is fundamentally different?
The answer is no... because copyright is protection of a execution not an idea. If we go down the road that I think this case would likely open up if it's ruled to be true then people won't be able to make none infringing music with in the next 5 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When I read it, I thought he was being a brilliant satirist, illustrating the absurdities of the studios' efforts to make money on the whole sampling process. Now, I think he was just a very forward-looking entertainment lawyer.
I'm going to wash my hands now, and drink gin until I forget this little toad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
22 year and Madonnna still not asking for rights to samples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think he can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Different from the Electric Salsoul Orchestra version?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuJVleNkJj0
It's not, but the similarities are striking. Too bad Mr. Preston isn't around to sue the socks off Salsoul.
Or maybe it's just as well. Don't really need more of this insanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine if the rights holder of James Brown's recordings sued everyone who used the horn stabs in Get Up Offa that Thing. That would be insanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent Reform
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]