Yeah, I don't know much about laws really, but I would not hold myself back and not release a remix just cause I don't have a official permission. But in that case I would release it independently, and avoid releasing on Spotify for instance, cause that could get me issues with the distribution services.
As an independent artist a remix can really help you get some attention you would not have with original work only, and let's be honest, what's the chance of a big label even reply for a small and independent artist asking for authorization to officially release a remix?

 

normally you require the audio tracks or even the midi, so contacting each other is the first thing to do anyway. plus it can be fun to meet new people and it also something to do with fairness and respect.

if you are a label, you would usually do 50/50 with the rightholder and/or publisher for sublicensing, and the only chance to let the rightholders know that you care not gonna make any profit with it would be to ask for permission.
otherwise they might notice it only 10 years later and then sue you right away, without contacting you first, just like you did.

if you need more attention, try nude unicycling in the pedestrian zone.

 

I'm curious, has anyone here actually done a remix and had it released to the public?

I DJ so when I remix I get my enjoyment and gratifacation from people in person playing it to them but I've never try'd to have it distributed in any other meduim. I also then go sicken my self of it or find there's some really hidden fault and never want anyone to hear it again.

But in the current day and age I have thought if I made some thing good enought I'd somehow sent it to one of the original artist social media accounts. It seems to be the best way for the original artist to hear it. If they hear it and like it, you have a chance to get permission to realease it.

Now I've read this back all I can think of Is the singer Melanie singing "Look what they done to my song, Ma".

 

I totally agree with that. Releasing an unauthorized remix can get you some trouble? Maybe. But let's be honest, writing to Warner Music and asking for them to authorize your remix for the new Dua Lipa's song will not help much, specially if you're an small and independent artist. I would release the tracks anyway and even send for the artists themselves, specially if they're DJs as well, and, even if they don't officialize that specific remix, maybe they can think of you next time they plan to release a remix EP for example if they liked your work. In the end there's a lot of unauthorized remixes out there, the remixers are getting some attention and at the same time the original artists are reaching new audiences, everybody wins. I think it's super fair as long the remixer don't try to get money out of the remix itself. And even in case things go wrong it'll probably only result in your remix being taken down by the platforms.

Things I would consider are always giving all the credits for the original artists in the title and/or description (believe or not there are a lot of people who just releases remixes as original works), avoid certain platforms like Spotify and Apple Music for example, as that can lead to some issues with the platform itself and with your distributor, and always leave a contact e-mail for DMCA in the description, that allow for an easier solution if something went wrong. But I don't think a record label will sue anyone who's just helping with publicity, but again, if one's making money out of the remix then they'll probably want their money back and that's totally fair.

 

the composer will only win from that under certain cicumstances you had to take care of, and the original publisher of the song will loose the money he would have gotten if it would be based on a deal with you.

that the orginal song of a famous superstar will be promoted by someone making a bad remix of it and spreading it across an indian porn video blog is highly questionable and honestly sounds a bit like a lame excuse of the remixer to use the song of a famous superstar to promote his own stuff.

otoh, that "famous superstar" and his publisher might as well simply tolerate it that you monetarize your youutbe channel when you at least properly register (in the youtube system, that is) their title.
so i am not saying it would be dangerous or something like that.

 

... like you said here in this example.

exactly: that is not only totally legal, it is the reason why the song has been published: that others can use it, to create income for the rightholders.

and when the author is with ascap, and your radio station pays their fees for sending music, the money transfer basically goes automatic and nobody has a problem with the fact that you eventually make further profit with it.

completely independent from that question is that f.e. stems from a contest might also fall under some kind of protection.

the re-release of the original recording (for example when another label wants to include something on a compilation) always requires the permission by the publisher. in theory he can hardly stop you from using it, but he can ask for 100% to make it impossible.

 

Can I release a cover of an original song?
Absolutely yes

Can I rip an acappella, produce a rmx with it and then publish my work on distribution platforms?
No, this is 100% illegal (that’s the whole point of copyright)

Can I rip an accappella, produce an rmx with it, and then post it on youtube?
Again no, this is copyright infringement, but you can hope that no one (algorithm or human) will report the video, the worst that can happen is that youtube will unpublish it

Warning: you never know, there is the possibility that your song can become a hit and you start doing business with it: officially publish it, promote it, gig etc .. Now, if you release a successful song containing undeclared samples then rest assured that an attorney for the copyright holder will come out of nowhere asking you to pay all the income (past, present and future) generated with the song.
I've been through this nightmare, my advice is to stay away from copyright infringement

The only way to use samples legally is to contact the label and negotiate the clereance (hoping they don't ask your kidney for the deal).
Good luck

 

Last edited by a moderator: Feb 6, 2022

No it's not. Because you are releasing your version for sale. You still need to obtain permission for that.

 

To add to recycle's comment...

You can create a remix, with a ripped acapella - but you cannot release it under any circumstance without opening yourself to a legal fight - however, you can also approach the label who owns the right to the track and ask whether you can complete your track using the real vocal stem itself. You'll have to share your work with the label (potentially for a decision) and see how that goes.

Edit: This way, the label can see whether you're a serious producer, with potential or a bedroom producer with an ambition but lots of room for improvement.

I did this last year - huge label btw, they didn't say no and they didn't reject the track. I didn't get a yes either - but an answer that said the artist themselves aren't looking to approve remixes at present. So, I'll try again in a few months time.

Btw, i do have a few official releases up my sleeve where I have recorded a few cover versions of some very popular European rave tracks and had plenty of remixes produced for me. So if you go about it the right way - it might just work out for you

 

Last edited: Feb 17, 2022

I agree with the goal but totally disagree with the way of going about reaching it. It is a maze. A nightmare that will cost you time, and resources. Moreover, since you are not familiar with the process you will end up getting screwed by the copyright holders. the proper way to go about it is what @waverider suggested:

Here are the best of the best in the business:
https://www.dmgclearances.com
https://www.harryfox.com
https://www.tracklib.com

There is more to licensing a sample than simply obtaining a license. Sample clearance takes away from your creative process so it is something that is better left to the pros. Finally, whatever you do, do NOT release the track prior to clearing samples. If you do so, the sample owners can make you do whatever they want. That includes having your song banned and asking the court to impose fines. If you do it, do it the right way.

 

We've done this in the past. We've often even done this only on the phone, send the remix to the label and waited for the permission to publish it. No problems.

 

I did not say it can't be one like that, I said that it is not the best way to go about it. For starters, you go to the label for the master recording license. However, sometimes the label that released the track does not own the rights to the master so you need to find that out. Then, you need to find out who controls the publishing, and most likely it will be several people and each one could potentially have a different entity administering their copyright. What if a writer or producer can't be found? How do you get over that bump on the road to clearance? I personally do not have the time for that. It is a freaking PITA, and easily avoidable by using one of the sample clearance services.

 

As I explained above, that should not be done. Again, once you release a song using an unauthorized sample or interpolation of a song, the copyright owners have you by the throat. They can ask for 100% of royalties and publishing. That is exactly what took place with Juice WRLD's Lucid Dream which interpolated (not sampled) Sting's Shape of my heart without first negotiating for it. Sting took 85% of the publishing. Moreover, The copyright owners can demand that the song be withdrawn. They will go after you for attorney's fees, losses and damages. In sum, releasing a song that uses samples or interpolates someone else's work without obtaining permission prior to releasing it, or even producing it, is neither advisable nor the right thing to do.

Good point. That is another reason for which the sample clearance services exist.

 

Totally agree with you and I really think it's important to make clear that are risks involved. My point in this whole thread was that as small and independent artists it's not that simple to get the rights as it involve numbers and money. And being down to earth how many of those slap house remixes of famous songs getting millions of views on youtube really have a permission from the owner? And I don't think that's a bad thing for the original composer in the end, I mean, there are some people who would never play a Dua Lipa original song but listen remixes from her songs literally everyday, let alone the fact that these remixes can easily be played on clubs, which probably would not happen to her original songs.

I'm not saying there's no risks involved and everybody should do it, but if you know what you're doing and are willing to take the risks, then you probably have more to win than to lose releasing an unnoficial remix. And if one ever do that, I emphasize that are some good pratices that can not only avoid bigger issues but at the same time be fair and respectful with the original artists/team.

 

Hey, thank you for this.
My problem with these services, pretty much all of them, is the prices which may be acceptable for successful professionals, but way out of reach for your average non-rich bedroom producer.
Also, when you say sample clearance, I suppose you mean the act of using segments from other people's songs in your own, right? You're not talking about using samples from legally purchased royalty free sample packs?

 

Correct. Sample pack usage is controlled by the provisions of their particular license agreement. By purchasing (not downloading it from AZ or a torrent site) you acquiring a license. In almost every case, the sample pack remains the property of its manufacturer, who is the Licensor, and you are simply a Licensee. It should be noted that some companies will sell you a sample pack, and you are free to use it without paying royalties, however, in some cases if your track is streaming or selling over a preset amount royalties to the Licensor kick in. To be clear, let us say you purchased a sample pack from company XYZ. According to its terms if your track streams over 1million or sells over 500,000 copies you must start paying xx% in royalties. Therefore, if that happens you must do what you "agreed" to by buying the sample pack. Purchasing it implies that you agree to its licensing terms.
When it comes to "royalty free packs" you must read the license agreement. Some are not 100% free. They set a cap for free usage and other restrictions. Some are really free for you to do as you please. Again, read the terms under which they are being offered.

 

Hey, thank you for taking the time to write this. I'm relieved because just imagine if you would have to clear every little noise sample that you use in a huge track lol.
And I think I've seen staggered contracts or however you legally call them. Where they ask you to pay royalties if you get more than X amount of streams or downloads. It's worth it to check those agreements in full before buying or using their stuff. Because otherwise you could have a bad surprise down the line.

 

You will need to get the permission from the record labels. You might need to get permission from more than one label for a worldwide release. An illegal remix caused the Art Of Mix remix service to shut down. The remix was Madonna's Vogue. All the top remix services such as Razormaid,Ultimix, Select Mix, Full Tilt Mix and others get permission from the record label before release. You will need to send a copy of your remix to the record label for approval before you can release it

 

I think this means "Bank Transfer."

There many songs that are now free. Look up "public domain 2022."

 

Last edited: Feb 19, 2022