Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
My impression was that the 2 Live Crew case had more to do with parody being protected speech and the fair use implications of that, rather than a broader interpretation of just what constitutes fair use. There is some good information available at http://fairuse.stanford.edu/ for them what's innerested. George "Emile Tobenfeld (a.k.a Dr. T)" wrote: > > At 1:02 PM -0400 4/26/00, Michael Tuminello wrote: > >Length is not the only constraint. If a lawyer can make a case for > >it being a major part of a song, like the hook from "satisfaction", > >they could still sue you if you're not paying royalties. As I > >understand it... > > > >best bet is to have it be not recognizable at all, whatever the length. > > > >MT > > The one who dies with the most lawyers wins(-; > > In the one case that reached the supreme court (the 2 Live Crew > case), both the decision and opinion were firmly in favor of a broad > view of fair use. Since few of us can afford lawyers for appeal > litigation, this has not help the sampling cause anywhere near as > much as I had hoped. > > Personally, I adapt the rule of thumb that if the original producer > of the source would have a less thagtn 50% chance of catching it > unprompted, its fair use. How folks like DJ Shadow or Richard Kirk, > whose thing is based on using a large number of recognizable though > obscure samples, deal with this is beyond me. (Kirk releases his own > stuff and, presumably, takes his chances. Shadow hasn't done that > much lately, perhaps because of this very issue.) > > "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man > persists in adapting the world to himself. Therefore, all progress > depends on the unreasonable man. > > -- George Bernard Shaw > > Emile Tobenfeld, Ph. D. > Video Producer Image Processing Specialist > Video for your HEAD! Boris FX > http://www.foryourhead.com http://www.borisfx.com