The internet isn't a lawless space. Whether you steal a photo (one photo costs a €50 fine in Europe) or remix someone's song without asking and permission, it's legally a copyright infringement and therefore punishable. Whether you'll get caught is unlikely, but whether you'll face charges is rare. Whether it's YouTube, SoundCloud, or other platforms, every song is scanned, and whether your song is accepted is a gamble. Pick a song, email the author, and get permission to remix the song.

You're only on the safe side with a remix if you: Clarify the rights (copyrights and related rights) with the rights holders, or Clarify the rights (copyrights and related rights) with the rights holders, or Use music that explicitly grants a license to remix.

Spoiler: Cover song, remix & mashup after the copyright reform

Cover song, remix & mashup after the copyright reform
https://www-musikrecht--rechtsanwal...l=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

What is an adaptation in copyright law? An adaptation is essentially a modification of the original work, resulting in a new work. Such an adaptation may only be published or exploited with the consent (license) of the author. An exception is so-called pastiche (more on this at this link), for which no consent is required.

Do you get your own rights to the cover version or the remix?

Yes. However, you don't receive a (translator's) copyright. However, you do have the ancillary copyrights as a performing artist (Section 73 of the Copyright Act) and possibly also the ancillary copyright of the sound recording producer (Section 85 of the Copyright Act) , i.e., the right to the recording (master owner right), unless this is held by a label.

This right can either be transferred to a label by contract (e.g. band takeover contract or artist contract) or the label acquires the right when the recordings are made , e.g. if the cover version was recorded on behalf of the label.


Publish a remix or mashup

A remix can be defined as "a new mix of a music track based on the original tracks or parts of the original tracks." The remix can either slightly alter the original work or take a completely new artistic approach.

A mashup is the mixing of two or more different songs together.

In both cases, original recordings are used. The rights to these recordings (neighboring rights, or internationally, "neighboring rights") generally lie with the respective record companies that released these recordings and must be clarified with them in case of doubt.

To the extent that the remix or mashup deals with the original work in an artistic way, publication or exploitation may be permitted in exceptional cases under the aspect of a “pastiche” ( details on pastiche can be found under this link ).

In case of doubt, the copyright to the composition must also be clarified with the rights holder or their music publisher if the remix or mashup constitutes an adaptation. As mentioned above, adaptation may be permitted in exceptional cases under the consideration of a "pastiche."

Creating Remixes 100% Legally

You're only on the safe side with a remix if you: Clarify the rights (copyrights and related rights) with the rights holders, or Clarify the rights (copyrights and related rights) with the rights holders, or Use music that explicitly grants a license to remix.

For example, a so-called Creative Commons license, such as on the website: https://ccmixter.org. Such licenses are ultimately nothing more than a contract with the author or related rights holder. The license is granted for either non-commercial or commercial use. You should familiarize yourself with the license terms in advance.

 

A thing to remember as well: You cannot be hit with a judgement greater than the demonstrable revenue generated + related ancillary damages (illustrated later). (for infringements originating in the US)

The Verve story is kind of a unique case. Biz Douche was already wealthy and made it very clear he'd drag it through the full process. The Verve didn't have the money to match so capitulated and gave up all rights (this would still be before any significant royalties came in or monies earned from sales/tours because of this song). These generally never even make it to court. Og artist is like..um..hey... sampling artist is like..opps, yeah... they formalize an agreement and everyone carries on. What makes the Verve stand out so much is the straight up robbery by Biz Douche of Ashecrofts rights to the song. A similar instance happened 15 years earlier with Van Halen. Tone Loc got permission, but he got it from the wrong person.. the manager, not the band. Band heard song on radio and was like.. uhmm..?? And sued. They, however, didn't try to rob Tone Loc. I think the payout was 200k. That single sold millions of copies. The album sold millions of copies. That song is still generating money today. Tone Loc did not in anyway 'lose out' by paying a settlement. That is how things generally go with sample cases. Even the Gaye estate case for Blurred Lines...The final number was 3M + 50% future after the court corrected it, and that 3 represents 50% of earned royalties plus appreciation to that point in time. A 50% agreement is likely what they would have had to pay the Gaye estate if they had an agreement beforehand. Controversy of the case itself is another thing... but the award itself is consistent with the typical 'make whole' payment equal to roughly what should have been earned in the first place.

The stupid expensive and ugly long drawn out court battles are almost always about songwriting copyright infringement (Blurred Lines, Ed Sheeran, etc), not mechanical (samples). Hell, if you go absurd enough you get to establish case law and keep all the royalties (2LiveCrew with Pretty Woman)

Not saying any of that to encourage not clearing samples. But to point out that a perception of artists being totally fucked when caught not clearing isn't very accurate. The norm is you're 'out' about the same amount of money as if you'd cleared it to start with. Frankly, The Verve is the only instance I can think of where the artist got completely screwed out of their fair share in a sampling case.

 

Remixes, memes, pastiche: What rules now apply to uploading user-generated content?

https://irights-info.translate.goog...l=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Source German: https://irights.info/artikel/welche-regeln-gelten-jetzt-fuer-remixes-memes-und-pastiche/31090

 

Right I agree with eveything you stated, thanks for the input.

 

The volume of illegal remixes and stolen samples is so large that the legislature approached the platforms that published them directly and worked together to develop solutions, as otherwise the legal system and the courts would be overwhelmed. In short, the volume is so large that other solutions were found.

The platforms' AI scans your uploaded song for copyright infringements, and like with SoundCloud, you immediately receive a message saying they won't publish it because the song contains film clips or live TV reports, for example, or the song you remixed.

On YouTube, if a musician finds their work, they report it to YouTube, and you receive a complaint from YouTube asking them to delete it. If you haven't acted after two complaints, your account will be blocked.

If you have a song on your private website, a musician may write to you stating that they are the rights holder and informing you that if you don't delete it, they will sue you.

If you write a chart hit with millions at stake, they might sue you until you go bankrupt. This is partly a business model of lawyers who send cease-and-desist letters.

 

Blurred Lines, per AI; ended up costing around 5 million, with the publishing company on the hook for some of it. It doesn't matter to my point anyway; but the way it is stated in the search result looks sort of sketchy. Anyway, there is a very easy way to get screwed by that. Firstly, the Estate did not sue or stop distribution of the track via cease and desist the way that Verve track was done. ( I actually have an original press white label vinyl of that from 97) They just let them keep selling copies of Blurred Lines and making money by promoting it, etc. Or it took that long for them to notice it was "ripped off". Maybe 5 million is not a lot to Pharell and Robin Thicke, but a lot of musicians would be spending those profits along the way. A 5 million dollar judgement might sound like a very big number to someone who no longer has the money. Not to mention, if the case is not settled first, losing the judgement can have all legal fees and court costs added on top of that, and then whatever the defense lawyers costs are also.

One thing about damages, is they can award more than the "actual damages", by factoring in future potential damages. They have become much more realistic numbers, and need to be based on reality; but some of those early cases had possible future damages factored into the judgements. The initial big sampling lawsuits often started with crazy high, pie in the sky numbers being sought for damages.

If the original topic was "will I get caught?" I'd not mention any of this. My answer would be that the chances of getting caught are proportional to the possibility of someone having some self-distributed "accidental hit" that just gets away from them, in 2025. The answer for that is close to Zero.

 

Also dont mix (pun intended) bootleg remixes with official remixes, they are two totally different things.

 

@clone
5 million was the initial jury judgement. Claim was seeking 7 something at filing. Both numbers would have been punitive. The final number was 2.9 lump with interest factored (the interest is the damages portion) and would then continue with a 50/50 split going forward. The same amount of money that would have been paid with a contract beforehand.

Sidenote: it goes to the fundamental problem with all these llms being heralded as some magical knowledge base. It's neat tech. Yay forward! But they're probabilistic coin counting number reporters. Who covered the court case and reported on the day of judgement? Everyone. The first number? 5M. Thats alot of data points for confidence. Who covered the the remaining dates and filings? No one. There's no ad dollars in that. So now "I'm a spreadsheet not an intelligence" looks at all those mentions of 5m and goes..,.yup, that's the answer to that question, since it has zero ability to fact check.

Anywho...The batshit thing here is that the whole claim was absurd. But regardless, the 2.9 paid then was 50% of already realized revenue. It's immaterial that the estate didn't immediately move to block. 50% is 50% no matter the base... well, 0 aside. If it where a mechanical rights claim it would be pretty cut and dry. They still had the other 2.9 in the bank, minus interest and now another 6 figure something for legal fees. Now, Pharellel and Co were literally robbed... but in normal circumstances, they would have always owed that money, and always had the knowledge they 'ripped' off a work without consideration.

Ed Sheeran essentially faced the same bullshit songwriting copyright claims. But he had the idea bring his guitar and play a gazillion songs within a couple minutes that all used the same progression to drive home for the jury just how idiotic the claim was.

But that was also what I was trying to distinguish...should have added something more explicit... but The Verve, Pharell, and Ed are all absolutely bullshit cases with all three taking at least some form of loss. The vast majority of claims/outcomes are not similar to those three. So, yes I agree with your points. These guys got hosed, Ashcroft particularly. And other musicians like Ashcroft who are only gonna touch the sun once and briefly would absolutely be screwed if any claims against them are treated like those cases But those claims are also the unicorns which was what I meant to distinguish. For every one of those... there are ... um.. a bigly number of claims that are settled in your lawyers office with no claims ever even filed in court. The majority are treated pretty much as clerical errors. Just call the persons label, get to legal, and they'll start the ball rolling usually. (for mechanical rights)