The German Supreme Court (BGH) clarified last week that sampling does not infringe on copyright in the work from which samples were taken for the purpose of creating a new work. There is a catch hiding in the details, though. According to the official press release (in German), the highest judicial authority in Germany ruled that a certain statutory exception principally covered instances of sampling. The relevant exception is anchored in section 24 to the German copyright act, known as “free use” (freie Benutzung). Free use is not fair use, but you can think about it as an extreme version of the transformativeness element familiar from the U.S. fair use analysis. Accordingly, the new work must transform the work of which elements it uses into something independent and wholly different. While using the copyrighted elements taken from the prior work, such use should be so transformative that the first work becomes hardly recognizable as the source.
There are two additional constraints on the application of the free use exception in the case of music. First, you are not allowed to use recorded portions of a sound recording for your new song without permission if you are capable of playing it yourself. Second, concerning musical works, a “melody” taken from the early piece should not be recognizable in the new, standing-alone piece. (The BGH once legally defined melody as an “in itself a closed and ordered tone sequence, that confers upon the work its individual imprinting.”)
So the scope of this sampling exception is quite narrow. If its conditions are not cumulatively met, the sampler might end up facing infringement liability. Interestingly, free use was the main legal defense in the thumbnails case I blogged about here. There, the court refused to apply the exception since it considered the way search engines used the images on their result pages not sufficiently transformative. That case was appealed and the BGH is likely to say its word on this issue too.







I believe this to be fair.
Nearly everything in this world is built on the back of previous knowledge or works.
As long as the original piece and modified sample are not recognizable, where is the harm.
These laws seem quite ambiguous in nature and are quite subjective in interpretation.
I get both sides but if you look at everything else from articles to newspaper writing to patents, music should be no different. Everything is sampled these days and as long as the rule they suggest as the new piece to be totally unrecognizaeble from the original seems fair. If you take a look at patents a new product only needs to be about 25 percent different as I recall. In this case, if the music is totally unrecognizeable and thus not all that similar to the original works then it does seem fair by our standards.
thanks for information...
------
betsson10 - betsson15
This is interesting to me because I make entrainment MP3s and CDs. I use music as background to embed the entrainment into. This makes my audio "...into something independent and wholly different." from the original recording. Or does it?
The melody is not changed, it sounds just the same except for the added tones. But it is now something completely different.
I suspect that if I used other people's music without paying for it though, I would be guilty of breaching copyright. I don't think I will risk it!
I think the intent of this rule is completely fair, but there will be a fine line as to whether or not the new piece created is entirely original. At some point they will have to draw that line.
Post new comment