91–100 of 180 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kinda like how IP only became a thing once the US started producing it.
It was always a thing in the US. It's in the constitution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't going to be released commercially, as a very successful artist, he knows that better than most. No record label would release songs without clearing things with the relevant artist. Many artists and DJs don't release live sets/remixes because it would be impossible to clear all the samples, I don't see why this would be any different.
David Guetta makes tons of money just performing live, so "not going to be release commercially" feels like a cop-out... But then again, that's sort of how DJing works anyway. Would he have had to pay some sort of royalties had he just remixed one of Eminem's actual works on stage?
The music industry will not like this, seems like a short circuit around royalties and the value of a music deal with an artist.
This isn't going to be released commercially, as a very successful artist, he knows that better than most. No record label would release songs without clearing things with the relevant artist. Many artists and DJs don't release live sets/remixes because it would be impossible to clear all the samples, I don't see why this would be any different.
What would that email look like? "Here's some lyrics you never wrote and some audio you've never heard. Can I use it in my song?"
I think I need an Explain like I'm 5 of why people like this and is willing to pay money for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that’s in a commercial setting, this is during a musical performance. The audience was not tricked into showing up to an Eminem performance and were not tricked into thinking that Eminem was on stage at any point. This is protected speech.
> But that’s in a commercial setting, this is during a musical performance. This means he wasn’t paid for the performance, is that correct? Because otherwise doing it for paid performances and promoting it on social media but saying “it’s not commercial bro” doesn’t seem very genuine
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is protected speech According to a quick google search, even cover bands performing live are required to pay royalties to the original artists whose songs they're performing. Maybe there's some loophole when using an artist's likeness while changing the actual music and lyrics, I don't know. But "protected speech" isn't meant to be a way to make money off of other people's work. Curious what part of "Midler v.…
You’re thinking about this wrong. Do I need to ask permission to impersonate Eminem during a comedy performance? How about during a musical performance? The answer is no. This is fair use 101. If you cover a song of his while doing an impersonation then this is covered by the performance fees the venue you’re playing at pays every year to ASCAP and BMI.
The answer is maybe. See the case I cited above.
> This is fair use 101.
Voices are not copyrightable so fair use doesn't seem terribly relevant here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
David Guetta makes tons of money just performing live, so "not going to be release commercially" feels like a cop-out... But then again, that's sort of how DJing works anyway. Would he have had to pay some sort of royalties had he just remixed one of Eminem's actual works on stage?
The venue he's playing at would have to have a general license with the big labels, from which some money would go to Eminem.
“This is the future rave sound” Then plays a weak ass progressive psytrance drop from 2011
Number 1: Hip hop’s built (to at least as great an extent as EDM) on sampling. And while the degree of respect for clearing and getting authorization to use samples has varied over the years and between artists, as a reference point, Eminem’s breakthrough ‘My Name Is’ uses a Labi Siffre sample as its hook, and Eminem altered the lyrics and content when requested to make changes by Siffre (who is gay, and did not want to be associated with homophobic slurs, for example) in order to get clearance to use it. So there’s evidence there is some basic respect for the artist you’re borrowing from over and above just doing the minimum the law allows or asserting your rights over them. So you know, it might have been nice for Guetta to call and let him know, you know?
2: he’s also part of a culture of musical insults and attacks and rap battle dissing, where throwing out names of other artists and making jokes about them (and worse) is part of the game (see my tongue-in-cheek sibling comment ‘nobody listens to techno’, which is an Eminem lyric about Moby of all people). So he’s more likely to just drop a mean word about David Guetta in a track in the future and call it even than to take him to court. Which would have the advantage of giving Guetta an awesome sample he could drop into future sets, and so the whole cycle completes.