Sony Issues Takedown Of Mashup Album That Did Reinterpretation Using Original (Non-Sony) Samples
from the fair-use-for-me-and-not-for-thee dept
Ah, Sony Music. A label called Gummy Soul and a musician named Amerigo Gazaway released a 55-minute mashup last year called: Bizarre Tribe: "Quest to the Pharcyde." As I understand it, the concept was to take a bunch of the original jazz, soul and funk samples that the band A Tribe Called Quest later used to make its music, and to create reinterpretations of Tribe's music. It's kind of a cool idea, when you think about it: to take the original sounds that inspired works that you like and rework them. However, Sony Music apparently had problems with this. Despite the fact that the 55-minute "album" only actually samples less than 3 minutes of work from A Tribe Called Quest, and was released for free (rather than for sale), Sony apparently decided that this must be infringing and issued a takedown.Gummy Soul did take down the work, but also wrote quite the open letter (with redactions that seem completely pointless), quoting what appears to be Sony Pictures' fair use claims when it was recently sued by the estate of William Faulkner, to point out how odd it is that Sony defends fair use in such cases, but cracks down in others (though, to be fair, Sony Music and Sony Pictures are fairly separate entities).
To be clear, the re-orchestrated instrumentals on Bizarre Tribe were sourced from the original jazz, soul, and funk recordings SAMPLED by [redacted], allowing Amerigo to create his own, distinct production within a similar framework. Given the brief and limited use of [redacted] material on Bizarre Tribe (around 2 minutes of material out of a 55 minute album), and the method by which our reinterpretations are created, it is clear that Amerigo's effort is protected under the fair use exception of copyright infringement.The whole thing seems pretty silly, but right out of today's RIAA playbook: assume infringing first, deal with any fallout later.
We would further add that the presence of documentary style sound-bites, interviews, and news clips included on Bizarre Tribe to provide a narrative of the group's history and commentary on their work only further protects us under the fair use exception, undermindes your claim against us, and provides a clearer distinction as to the uniqueness of what we do at Gummy Soul. As you know, [redacted] is no stranger to the fair use exception as you have relied on it many times yourselves.
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: amerigo gazaway, bizarre tribe, copyright, mashup, mixtape, samples, tribe called quest
Companies: gummy soul, sony music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It is just the latest in a long series of anomalies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is just the latest in a long series of anomalies.
But thanks for the advance buildup! You kids wait upon my arrival like an ankle-biter giving pratice yaps when imagines what it'll do when a cat strolls by. So now I've given you the notice you trolled for: go into a frenzy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It is just the latest in a long series of anomalies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is just the latest in a long series of anomalies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why won't you tell the truth?
Did you ask you mommy for permission to use the PC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But when Techdirt posts a story about anything else (like copyright infringement), they're spreading FUD.
And, of course, merely speaking about the silencing of protected speech under the guise of "copyright protection" means that you "LOVE PIRACY" but are "too dishonest to admit or to discuss it."
Uh huh.
It's amazing how low you are willing to sink. You are possibly the most dishonest asshole I have ever encountered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FTFY. And yes, it really *did* need fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course, it's beyond his capability to understand the difference, let alone address why something that's clearly fair use (an exception within the law) can be correctly classed as infringement without a hearing. But he is one of the drooling idiots that whines constantly about the very subjects being written about here, so understanding the nuance of the real arguments is clearly beyond his intellectual capacity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do you even FIND these anomalies?
Anyhoo, yet again, when you do "transformative" work, you are explicitly basing it on prior material that's likely copyrighted, so you're INVITING big heartless corporations to harsh your buzz.
But besides that, guess I just don't get the urge to "transform" -- nor listen to derivative mangling, that I know of. There are so many streams and works that don't have this problem* -- and in my opinion are more likely to be good because more original -- that I get back to title question: isn't it a BIT surprising that Mike can even find "transformative" anomalies to complain about? Is there a special switch you can give Google to find anomalies?
[* The now defunct download.com music section used to have THOUSANDS, dozens of which I found near great.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do you even FIND these anomalies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How do you even FIND these anomalies?
It's like how you can't see the top of a tower when you're standing inside the tower.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do you even FIND these anomalies?
"nor listen to derivative mangling, that I know of. "
You do. Every piece of music, text or art is derivative. Nothing is new it's all re-inventions and adaptations. That is why the huge copyright terms have the potential to harm our culture and why many oppose them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How do you even FIND these anomalies?
Yes, because if I base my transformative work off of the same source material you based your transformative work off of, you somehow get to control the source material because you're a BIG, BAD megacorpoaration.
What part of "if Sony doesn't own the source materials than Sony doesn't get to dictate how they are used, just because they did a transformative work first" don't you understand.
(and then you wonder why nobody takes your copyright "arguments" seriously, because it is just that sort of irrational "logic" that has turned me from a staunch copyright supporter into a copyright "destructionist" over the past decade)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Redactions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this a sign of how pathetic the obsessed trolls have really become, or a sign that there's really nothing to add? However you want to spin this, it's an abuse of copyright powers that does nothing positive for the artists, labels or culture. That the trolls can't even attempt to address the actual points raised any more is telling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It might be better to adopt an Reddit-styled up vote/down vote system and move them to the bottom, or at the very least a way to collapse and expand discussion threads (and not just for the trolls, but to make navigation easier)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the movie Pitch Perfect the music You're gonna miss me when I'm gone (cups) is a direct rip off of the two girls that produced that routine on the internet and they called themselves Lulu & The Lampshades, now just Lampshades, which it turn used an old music I believe from Charlie Monroe
Youtube: You're Gonna Miss Me When I'm Gone - Charlie Monroe - Radio Transcription
WTF! I thought Hollywood was the center of the universe when it came to creativity, why are they ripping off the interwebz it only has cats in it.
But I digress would Lulu & The Lampshades be able to takedown VEVO's clips?
(Rhetorical)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will Pitch Perfect pay the people who produced the original meme anything at all?
Or will Battleship LLC pay the guy who made millions smile with his messy life exposed on a security camera?
or any of the others memes directly lifted from the web?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]