Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Businesses Media Apple

Eminem Sues Apple for Sampling his Samples 690

Posted by michael from the isn't-it-ironic-don't-you-think dept.
EvanKai writes "To celebrate Grey Tuesday, Eminem sues Apple to show his support for hiphop and sampling. CBS MarketWatch is reporting that 'Rapper Eminem's music publisher is suing Apple Computer Inc., claiming the company used one of the hip-hop superstar's songs in a television advertisement without permission. Eight Mile Style filed the copyright infringement suit late last week against Apple, Viacom Inc., its MTV subsidiary and the TBWA/Chiat/Day advertising agency.' While the ad in question no longer appears, several similar ads can be found here. I can't believe Chiat Day failed to clear the use of these songs with Pink, Mariah Carey, and The Who... or whatever major label actually owns the rights."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Eminem Sues Apple for Sampling his Samples More

Eminem Sues Apple for Sampling his Samples

Comments Filter:

  • Hey! Look! It's a cash cow! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:10PM (#8377759)
    Let's go slaughter it... who cares if it would've produced more for us in the longrun.

  • Would it be cheaper? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PurdueGraphicsMan ( 722107 ) * on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:11PM (#8377774) Homepage Journal
    I can't believe Chiat Day failed to clear the use of these songs with Pink, Mariah Carey, and The Who... or whatever major label actually owns the rights.

    Well, from the sound of Eminem's going rate ($10million plus) it might be cheaper to just use the songs and then pay a smaller settlement fee. Just maybe...

    • Re:Would it be cheaper? (Score:5, Funny)

      by UnixRawks ( 705739 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:15PM (#8377840) Journal
      Even so, the sampling could use more cow bell.

    • Re:Would it be cheaper? (Score:4, Informative)

      by DroopyStonx ( 683090 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:19PM (#8377886)
      It wouldn't be cheaper because you could sue for the rate that you were asking plus "damages". So what would normally have cost them $10 million will now probably cost them 15-20.

      Unless you want to pull a Ray Parker. The studios who made Ghostbusters (name eludes me at the moment) asked Huey Lewis for rights to use his songs in Ghostbusters. When he denied them permission, they took the music to "I want a new Drug" and sped it up. Put lyrics in by Ray Parker and made the Ghostbusters theme.

      Of coursse, it went to court and they had to pay out the azz, but they still got what they want.

    • Re:Would it be cheaper? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by allgood2 ( 226994 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:57PM (#8378387)
      Please, the use of the song is not a sample. At best it would be considered a cover, which has a totally different legal ramifications. Almost anyone can do a cover of a song. If your doing a cover that will be included on an album, then theirs issues around royalities and permissions, but if your doing a cover at a bar, then pretty much the bar pays one of the various record associations some type of fee to cover any band that plays that might do a cover.

      Having kids, students, and others pick a song on their iPod and sing along to it entails a different set of rights than using the song outright or sampling sections of it. If MTV was doing that ultra-silly Karoke show and replayed some idiot doing "Lose Yourself" over and over again, I'm fairly certain they couldn't/shouldn't be sued for copyright violation. That said, I agree with the poster who indicates disbelief that Chiat Day would have failed to clear the use regardless. An agency like that is always better off safe than sorry, and clears licensing all the time.

      Of course this just adds to my below zero disrespect for Eminem. The guy does great music but has become one of the biggest a**holes in music.

  • Sweet Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Djarum ( 250450 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:12PM (#8377783)
    Eminem is sooooo worried about being taken seriously as a artist isn't he?

    First Weird Al and now Apple... I hope no one ever buys that loser's albums ever again and he can go back to being poor white trash again.

    • Re:Sweet Jesus (Score:5, Funny)

      by DroopyStonx ( 683090 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:27PM (#8378011)
      Gotta love the laws that state that satirical works can be used without permission of the original artist.

      If I was Weird Al, I'd make an entire album of Eminem satires just as a big "F you".

    • Re:Sweet Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ewhenn ( 647989 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:49PM (#8378275)
      he can go back to being poor white trash again.

      He never enjoyed an upgraded status. I consider anyone who badmouths his mother, and calls them all type of vile terms trash, white or otherwise. He just happens to live in a golden garbage can.

  • The Register (Score:5, Informative)

    by Eezy Bordone ( 645987 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:13PM (#8377802) Homepage
    Also has a story on this [theregister.co.uk]. The kicker is it all rhymes!

  • michael: RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JohnGrahamCumming ( 684871 ) * <slashdotNO@SPAMjgc.org> on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:13PM (#8377810) Homepage Journal
    If you RTFA then you'll find that Apple didn't "sample" the song at all. Jeez. Can we get some standards here? The entire "story" here is that hip hop artists sample and then one is complaining about sampling, except that he isn't...

    John.

    • New performance, not sample (Score:5, Informative)

      by solprovider ( 628033 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:29PM (#8379612) Homepage
      Eight Mile Style filed the copyright infringement suit ... At issue is an ad for Apple's iTunes pay-per-download music software, in which a 10-year-old sings Eminem's "Lose Yourself."

      I agree. If a 10-year-old is singing the song, then it is a new performance (unless Eminem has a time machine.) To use Eminem's song for a new performance requires "mechanical rights", which are automatically granted for a set fee. Mechanical rights are applied for selling something that includes the copyright (but not perfomances) of an artist. I believe that should apply to advertising that does not include the artist's performance, but IANAL.

      Most songs are handled by the The Harry Fox Agency (HFA) [harryfox.com]. Eminem has 50 songs listed at Songfile.com [songfile.com], which is HFA's online license application for low volume use. The list does not include "Lose Yourself". If the song is not handled by HFA, then you must [musicbizacademy.com] contact the publisher directly.

      There is a lawsuit, so somebody believes they had the right to tell Apple they could not use lyrics in a commercial. But it is not about a "sample", because Apple did not use a "sample" of Eminem's performance.

  • Gotta love irony.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CeleronXL ( 726844 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:13PM (#8377813) Homepage
    The most popular "legal" music download service is now taking heat for illegal use of music.

  • The artists? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BigZaphod ( 12942 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:13PM (#8377814) Homepage
    Do the artists have any say in any of this sort of thing? For instance, is it likely Eminem told his people to go after Apple or are his people going after Apple regardless if he likes it or not?

  • Turns out... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:13PM (#8377817)
    The ad agency bought the song from iTunes for $1 and assumed they could use them.

  • How ironic! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dbesade ( 745908 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:14PM (#8377825) Homepage
    His label, 8 Mile Style, owned by him, arranged for him to be one of the first exclusive artist on the iTMS. Now the label is suing Apple for a song that wasn't legally copyrighted until long after that commercial was run on MTV. Its a ploy to get his name in the papers and keep it there. Ya know he bitches about people not leaving him alone and boycotting him.. then goes and does this over something so little.. ironic.

    • Re:How ironic! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rascasse ( 719300 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:17PM (#8377867)
      I was always under the impression that copyright happens at the time of content creation. Therefore, the song would have been "legally copyrighted" when the lyrics were conceived.

      • Re:How ironic! (Score:5, Informative)

        by dbesade ( 745908 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:22PM (#8377921) Homepage
        Anyone who creates a work of literature, if it be lyrics, a book, etc, has a copyright, but then if they choose they can become a registered copyright, which is a legal copyright, it holds up in court a lot better than just saying "hey I wrote that you fruity bastard!"

        • Re:How ironic! (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Dracolytch ( 714699 )
          That's only a valid argument when dealing with who created the song. This is not a fight about the origin of the work, but proper use of that work.

          One possible defense would be to say that the origin of the song is in question, as 8 Mile Style didn't have the song registered. Considering the circumstances, it looks like that would be a very poor plan.

          ~D

    • Re:How ironic! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DoorFrame ( 22108 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:22PM (#8377936) Homepage
      Are you saying that he released a song with copyrighting it? Copyright occurs at conception, and besides that, why on Earth do you think the Eminem wouldn't have his songs copyrighted when they're released to an outside entity. He may be a rapper, but I'm sure he's got lawyers on his staff.

  • Commercial vs Creative Use (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Unknown Relic ( 544714 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:15PM (#8377836) Homepage
    Is it just me, or is this not a big deal? To me this doesn't indicate that Eminem has any problem with other artists sampling his music, but with it being used in commercials without permission. I mean, come on, just because this is Apple and we all love iTunes and the iPod doesn't make it right. Many people view artists allowing their music to be used in commercials as "selling out", and in Eminem's case, I could see this being even more of an issue than normal.

  • Miata (Score:5, Funny)

    by mrpuffypants ( 444598 ) * <mrpuffypants@gmailTIGER.com minus cat> on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:15PM (#8377842)
    It's a good thing that eminem is suing Apple for the lost revenue. Maybe now he can buy that cute little Miata that he's had his eye on...

  • Not a silly lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maliabu ( 665176 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:16PM (#8377844)
    if what Eminem claimed is true, ie Apply used one of the hip- hop superstar's songs in a television advertisement without permission, then it's a legitimate action isn't it?

    now we're asking why a super-rich like Eminem bothers to stop free advertising. however we must think of a bigger picture where lesser-known artists are not getting a fair share and have no where to go.

  • Dude, Chill (Score:4, Funny)

    by kannibal_klown ( 531544 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:16PM (#8377848)
    It was a 10 year old girl singing the song (acapella) for like 8 or 10 seconds. Hardly a sample or anything.

    However, laws are laws, as stupid as some of them may be. Apple should have known better.

    Thanks to that 10 year old girl, he won't be able to buy his own gold-plated shark tank this year. :(

  • The Fine Print (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PurdueGraphicsMan ( 722107 ) * on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:16PM (#8377850) Homepage Journal
    I just thought...

    Maybe Apple has some fine print in their iTunes Artist Agreement that states that if an artist places his song(s) on iTunes that apple will be able to use them in any manner that they wish. That would be smart if they did that.

    • Re:The Fine Print (Score:3, Insightful)

      by savagedome ( 742194 )
      That would be smart if they did that

      Really. Honestly. You think it would be Smart? I know this is /. and has a gazillion Apple fans (including me) but calling it smart is pusing the boundaries.

      How many times we have argued on /. about the vendors putting asinine stuff in the EULA and how many times have we agreed that EULA, if really pushed, doesn't stand a chance in the court.

      Having anything in the agreement that would allow unfair use of Intellectual Property would be anything but SMART. It would

  • "Every million I make, another relative sues" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bad enema ( 745446 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:16PM (#8377851)
    What a hypocrite.

  • It's Fair Use (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:16PM (#8377853)
    Did they use the whole song, or just a exerpt? (I'm not able to play the ads that the submission links to.) And it looks like they had a kid sing it, so they didn't copy any of the rendering expression at all, just the words themselves. (Not even the melody, since rap doesn't have mel-- oops, I better avoid the flamebait mod and not finish that thought.)

    This Eminem (TM) guy's case is probably on shakey ground.

    any endorsement deal would require a significant amount of money, possibly in excess of $10 million
    Well, duh, that's probably why they didn't hire him to endorse it, and instead paid someone else to sing a portion of the song indicating the kind of things that someone might expect to find on iTunes Music Store. Apple probably doesn't give a damn if Eminem endorses the service or not; they just want to inform prospective customers about what kind of music is available on it, not of Eminem's paid opinion of the service.

  • New Litigious bastard (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IamGarageGuy 2 ( 687655 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:18PM (#8377873) Journal
    The song was rapped by a 10-year old in a commercial. If it was hummed, would it count? This is the state of the music industry today, isn't it? An artist tries to get everybody singing their song and then sues anybody singing their song. Maybe the RIAA and SCO are not so different.

    • Re:New Litigious bastard (Score:4, Insightful)

      by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:33PM (#8378083) Journal
      I bet if he was suing Microsoft, you wouldn't have a problem with it.

      They used his work without his permission, a public performance of his work, used to promote a product/service.

      I can see the practicality of not wanting to endorse for Apple. The whole losing "street cred" thing. Now instead of a white trash hero who came from a broken home to dominate the hip hop scene, his image shifts to an uppity homosexual who buys Apple products.

      It breaks down really easy. Big corporation with monopolistic ambitions broke the law. Individual sues based on his rights.

      Just mentally swap out the parties. Instead of Apple, Microsoft (or IBM, or Intel, or whoever's the evil corporate demon of the hour), and instead of Eminem, your favorite unknown independant label artist.

  • my lawsuit... (Score:5, Funny)

    by zorcon ( 111485 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:19PM (#8377883)
    I'm sueing Apple for using my silhouette!

  • You want sampling irony? Try this..... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by i_want_you_to_throw_ ( 559379 ) * on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:21PM (#8377917) Journal
    One of the most notorious examples of sampling irony is the Negativland/Coca-Cola connection. The California-based band Negativland, copyright infringers of the highest reverence, "illegally" sampled a 1966 religious record and calls their version of the song "Michael Jackson". Samplist Fatboy Slim decides to sample Negativland's song, licenses the Negativland version of the religious sample from SST records, and also calls the song "Michael Jackson." After Fatboy's ensuing popularity, creative advertising executives decide to license Fatboy Slim's song for a Coca-Cola television commercial. Result: Coca-Cola unwittingly engages in copyright infringement. Negativland, whose calling is to debase advertising on all levels, find their music selling soft drinks. Fatboy Slim deposits a huge check in his bank account.

    Negativland writes: "The track 'Michael Jackson' from this Fatboy Slim CD ['Better Living Through Chemistry' (Astralwerks) 1998] samples from the Negativland track 'Michael Jackson' from our 1987 release 'Escape From Noise' on SST Records.

    "Stupidly, Fatboy Slim went to SST Records to get permission to use this sample. SST charged him $1000, which they are keeping all for themselves, of course. Besides the fact that Fatboy could have kept his $1000 and taken the sample from us without permission and we wouldn't have cared, the Negativland sample he used was itself appropriated by us without permission from a religious flexi-disc originally issued in 1966. [In fact, a Negativland member LITERALLY stole this record from the basement of a church in Concord CA.]

    The article I sampled this from is here [superswell.com]

  • This is how the business works, isn't it? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:22PM (#8377934) Journal
    Dr. Dre hires musicians to play baselines differently so that it will fit the legal requirements and he will not be required to pay royalties to the person he is "sampling".

    If he copies a baseline verbatim (or actually samples their record), he pays them a royalty.

    This isn't his decision, this is the decision made by the politicians that made the laws so restrictive. Paul's Boutique could never be made today, because the sampling is too extensive and it would be impossible for the record company to clear the record legally.

    Advertisers must license every song that they use in their advertisements. Unlike "sampling," advertising has always worked this way, afaik. I see very little wrong with The Rolling Stones charging Billy G so many millions to use "Start Me Up."

    So, go white boy go white boy go white boy go. Take those fat cats down. They knew they were supposed to get a license.

  • Law likely on Eminem's side (Score:5, Informative)

    by saddino ( 183491 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:24PM (#8377969)
    This is an interesting case. Anyone has the right to "cover" a copyrighted work, as long as the compulsory license is paid to the publisher (usually a per performance, or per mechanical fee).

    However, in the case of endorsement, a specific license is indeed required (my wife - IANAL, but she is, ahem -- handles these from time to time). If the kid "singing" the song can be construed as an endorsement (probably), then Eminem deserves compensation.

    Also, his likely fee ($10M) is definitely in the ballpark. You'd be amazed how much established artists make for these licenses. In fact, using an original song is usually so prohibitively expensive, that the licensor usually opts for a license to use a "cover" version only (much cheaper, but still a lot of money). That's why when you hear famous songs in commercials, they're often covers. FYI, in these cases, the language in these contracts usually requires a cover not to sound exactly like the original recording.

  • Riiight... (Score:3, Funny)

    by st0rmshad0w ( 412661 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:28PM (#8378019)
    This is the same guy who, during a concert, gave a fan what was supposed to be a $45,000 (or some ridiculous figure) necklace to show he didn't care about money or material things. The only problem was the necklace was actually worthless crap.

    Can't we get Mars candy to sue him for using Eminem? Everytime I hear him mentioned I suddenly want snackfood.

  • First of all, these aren't "samples" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:29PM (#8378030)
    It has nothing to do with "samples". For those to lazy to look [apple.com], they're just ads where various people are singing a capella, ostensibly along with the songs on their iPods.

    They don't need to be cleared with the record label or artist, as this type of non-complete "reproduction" is legally allowable. It does not constitute an endorsement by the artist, and Eminem is a retard for even thinking that it does.

    But in the US you can sue anyone for anything, so I guess we'll see how it turns out.

  • Sampling... (Score:4, Funny)

    by FS1 ( 636716 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:30PM (#8378037)
    May I have your attention please?
    May I have your attention please?
    Will the really stupid intern who did not license the music from the original artist please stand up?
    I repeat, will the really stupid intern who did not license the music from the original artist please stand up?

    We're going to have a problem here..
    Y'all act like you never seen a slashdotter before
    Jaws all on the floor like Intel, like AMD just burst in the door
    and started whoopin their ass worse than before
    they first were ..... i think ill stop before ruffle any more feathers.

    Please im not funny so make sure to mod me down to -3 offtopic, thanks again!

  • Eminem Lyrics (Score:3, Funny)

    by digitalgimpus ( 468277 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:31PM (#8378048) Homepage
    Think he's going to rap about killing Steve Jobs?

    Might have a new target besides his own mother.

  • Grey Tuesday (Score:3, Informative)

    by merlin_jim ( 302773 ) <{James.McCracken} {at} {stratapult.com}> on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:32PM (#8378069)
    Since the site is slashdotted, I thought I'd share what info I can...

    It's basically a freedom of speech civil disobedience thing based on posting DJ Danger Mouse's Grey album for 24 hours on your website (on Feb 24, "Fat Tuesday"), because EMI is (supposedly) wrongly trying to censor this work, as it is a remix of Jay-Z's Black Album and the Beatles' White Album. They claim rights to the White Album. The organizers claim that it is a respectful and positive derivative work and should not be stifled.

    Hardly readable google cache here: http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:OqlsV9RPt3YJ: www.greytuesday.org/+grey+tuesday&hl=en&ie=UTF -8

    As a digital DJ myself, I'm siding with EMI. I don't care if your work is respectful or not. I don't care if its positive or not. If I put hard work into making music, you have no right to profit off that work by remixing that music without seeking permission first.

  • How did the publisher own the song... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pastpolls ( 585509 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:33PM (#8378082)
    The song was not copyrighted unitl October 27, 2003. That was after the ads were pulled. Seems to me if they went to look up the copyright and found none they could use it until the copyright was filed. Basically the published did not own it until the copyright was filed so they are going to sue over a song they later owned... not which they owned when the ad was created.

  • Not Eminem's version (Score:5, Informative)

    by daBass ( 56811 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:35PM (#8378113)
    In the article, it says that it was a performance of the song done by someone else. This type of use does not need to be cleared, even for advertising. How many ads haven't you seen that have a well known song, but performed by someone else?

    Eminem, however, is listed as part composer for this commercial and every time it is played, he will/should be reimbursed for his efforts. But I can tell you that those rates are nothing to write home about.

    The only time you need clearance, or a license, to use a recording for a commercial is if you use, well, the actual recording. This could be the case, as the soundtrack for this performance may contain samples from the original, but there is no way to tell from the articles.

    If those samples do not exist in the commercial, Mr. Slim is acting kinda Shady in this case...

    • OK- What about the Happy Birthday song? (Score:4, Informative)

      by microcars ( 708223 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:38PM (#8379717) Homepage
      It's OK to sing it in a private setting, but TECHNICALLY, (according to SNOPES [snopes.com]) one must pay for its use in any other setting:

      Does this mean that everyone who warbles "Happy Birthday to You" to family members at birthday parties is engaging in copyright infringement if they fail to obtain permission from or pay royalties to the song's publisher? No. Royalties are due, of course, for commercial uses of the song, such as playing or singing it for profit, using it in movies, television programs, and stage shows, or incorporating it into musical products such as watches and greeting cards; as well, royalties are due for public performance, defined by copyright law as performances which occur "at a place open to the public, or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." So, crooning "Happy Birthday to You" to family members and friends at home is fine, but performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license...

      also from here [piercegorman.com] this bit about the song and copyright law:

      Copyright restrictions do not apply to each time that someone sings Happy Birthday to You to a family member, friend, or co-worker. This type of use is not copyright infringement for failure to obtain the permission from the publisher. Royalties are due only for commercial uses of the song, such as playing or singing it for profit (as did Western Union in its singing telegrams), using it in the movies, television shows, live stage shows, or incorporating the song into musical products, such as singing birthday greeting cards or candles. [Anderson, Bruce, "Beyond Measure," Attache, January 2002]. Royalties are also due and payable in instances of public performances, which are defined by copyright law as performances which occur "at a place open to the public, or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of family and its social acquaintances is gathered." [U.S.C. 106 of the Copyright Act].

      So for those arguing that a "cover" of the song can sung without obtaining any rights, I would have a say that a precedence has been set and it does not appear to be in favor of Apple and Chiat Day.

  • More Quotes From Eminem on This topic (Score:3, Funny)

    by ericlp ( 749865 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:38PM (#8378143)
    Later Eminem was quoted as saying:

    "Yo the little ***** shouldn't have been singin my m**** f****** song. Anybody else I'd ah f***** them up good if I wasn't such a punk ass loser."

    Word.

  • Attention: This is totally legal. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jhealy ( 91456 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:40PM (#8378169)
    Apple did not use Eminem's song in their commercial.
    Apple did not sample Eminem's song in their commercial.

    Apple did show a 10-year-old girl COVERING the song, in Acapella.

    Not only could this easily be definied as a cover, which requires no payment of royalties, but I would see it as a parody, which is covered under fair use.

    I suggest you all review the Stanford Copyright & Fair Use Guide at http://fairuse.stanford.edu/web_resources/index.ht ml [stanford.edu].

    There is no case here, mark my words... Apple will win this suit, as Eminem has no case.

    • Re:Attention: This is totally legal. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @06:00PM (#8378453)
      From http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html:

      "10 Big Myths about copyright explained"

      "The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author."

      Apple was not doing any of the above things. They were using the song in an advertisement for their product. Fair use doesn't apply in a commercial context.

  • Um OK (Score:3, Funny)

    by Effugas ( 2378 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:43PM (#8378213) Homepage
    This is ridiculous. The ads contained a cover of the songs being sung, and like every other cover you hear, there's a compulsory license you can pay to get the right to perform someone else's music.

    There was no sampling. Sampling is when I record what you say and play it back. Covering is when I just reperform it.

    I agree with what some other people said -- Eminem suing Apple? I should download his audio on MP3 and show the whole world how he's got...oh crap, now I'm being sued.

    --Dan

  • Compulsory Licenses (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crankyspice ( 63953 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:51PM (#8378297)
    IAN(Y)AL, but, under U.S. Copyright law, any publicly distributed phonorecord (all of the songs on that website, and Eminem's song, qualify) becomes eligible for a compulsory license under 17 USC 115 [cornell.edu]. If the Eminem ad is like the ones currently on Apple's site, Apple's not using the master recording, just the lyrics and rhythm/melody (the "musical composition"), and as such, can argue the compulsory license exception. The only requirements are the payment of a royalty for each copy distributed (IIRC, it's around $.08/recording in physical media, less for Internet streams), and that the song cannot be substantially changed.

    This provision is what lets Marilyn Manson cover "Tainted Love" and "Sweet Dreams," Type O Negative cover Cinnamon Girl, Tori Amos cover Smells Like Teen Spirit (and, well, every song on StrangeLittleGirl, plus Bad Company on her Under The Pink tour, plus...)

    As an aside, it's kind of ironic that Eminem is suing for use of his work, when Dido had no idea he had sampled her work ("Stan") until she heard the CD. Luckily she was "blown away" and agreed to it - and later toured with him...

  • Compulsory licenses and Apple's use. (Score:5, Informative)

    by mark_wilkins ( 687537 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @05:59PM (#8378425)
    OK. So.

    As others have pointed out, Apple's ad agency used an entirely new, original recording of a person singing the song in question.

    Such use is covered by the compulsory license provisions of 17 USC 115, part of the copyright title of the United States Code:

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/115.html

    As long as Apple provided notice to the copyright holder (usually the publishing company that owns the publishing rights to the music and lyrics) and paid the compulsory license fee, they're in the clear. They do NOT need permission for this.

    Furthermore, since Eminem's likeness and the sound of his voice were not used at all in the ad, it's highly unlikely that there's any merit at all to the assertion that he is somehow entitled to fees for an endorsement of their product.

    Since the licenses described in 17 USC 115 are compulsory and the fees are explicitly spelled out, that chunk of statute probably precludes any further claims Eminem could make unless what they did in the commercial went beyond the scope of the compulsory license. Based on what I saw in those ads it almost certainly did not.

    This one's probably dead on summary judgment. I'd be surprised if Apple even tried to settle this one for more than their projected legal costs to get to a ruling on that.

    -- Mark

  • Something totally different... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DreadSpoon ( 653424 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @06:12PM (#8378612) Journal
    Eminem isn't that bad of a guy, on a personal level. My father owned the vehicles and paid the drivers that transported his stage equipment between concerts (along with other figures such as Britney Spears and dozens of other "artists" I don't remember). Eminem was quite nice to the drivers, unlike Ms. Spears who was a complete bitch to them. (Or maybe the drivers were just mad about her not paying attention to them and "escalated" the stories a bit...)

    We got a couple huge (and I mean *huge*) bags of M&Ms from him because he liked the drivers so much, and my sister has a signed N'Sync poster (or is it Backdoor Boys? One of the two.) that Eminem personally got for her.

    Eminem is also the guy who tried to keep my father's business from going bankrupt after the company that held the contract with Eminem's producers/rhodeo/whatever and my father's company (who leased the trucks/drivers to the other company) decided to screw us over majorly (6 figure losses). Granted, my father's company still went bankrupt, but it lasted a bit longer thanks to Eminem.

    Despite that, I still can't stand his music. ~,^

    And that wraps up today's episode of Stuff Nobody Cares About. :)

  • How much "originality" is there? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tripster ( 23407 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @06:43PM (#8379036) Homepage
    I saw an interview with Robert Plant on VH1 Classics a couple of months back, in it he stated that really there is only so many notes to go around, everyone copies someone at some point in their careers.

    Musicians (and actors) as gazillionaires is a relatively new thing in our society, I think a lot of them are really losing it though. In the old days musicians were paid much like the rest of us, for doing a job, ie, playing music for an event or for a group.

    Do I think Eminem deservers $10mil to compensate for some 10 year old girl blurting out his "creation"? Heck no, give the guy a couple of hundred bucks at most, but move on.

    These folks would be more than happy to collect royalties off us all when we hum their tunes in the shower.

    It's time we brought some of these "stars" back down to earth a little. It's a never ending cycle and it's the consumer who is burnt because of it, is any actor worth $20million for 3 or 4 months work on a movie? I don't think so myself, but because some suits in Hollywood think so we're now paying $10 a ticket at the movies, meanwhile these "stars" pump out garbage like Gigli.

    And WTF is with Britney Spears? I saw some video of hers yesterday and she's selling nothing but sex appeal, her singing stinks and she has little talent, but I guess wriggling yer bum is worth millions in the US. How about getting her to put on a concert where she actually stands still and sings her songs rather than runs around lipsyncing everything.

  • It's only OK for Eminem to steal music (Score:4, Informative)

    by eberry ( 84517 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @06:50PM (#8379149)
    It had to already be mentioned, but if not here it is. The Slim Shady LP sampled a song called Pigs Go Home and was sued by the current copyright owner [thesmokinggun.com], a 70 year old grandmother.

  • The issue boiled down... (Score:5, Funny)

    by HarveyBirdman ( 627248 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2004 @07:00PM (#8379283) Journal
    ...so even rap fans can understand.

    A little girl in a commercial sang a small part of a song written by some overrated guy who does that rap stuff.

    The singer is suing for some stupid amount.

    He should lose because he's a dickhead.

    He won't lose, however, because we have a legal system constructed by, for and of the dickheads.

    I hope this helps. :-)

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close