5/22/08
Link


Rappers Kanye West, Method Man, Redman, Common and their record companies were sued on Thursday by late U.S. jazz musician Joe Farrell's daughter, who accused them of using her father's music without approval.

The lawsuit, filed by Kathleen Firrantello in the U.S. District Court in New York, names the rappers along with various labels owned by Universal Music Group./

None of the record companies or representatives for the rappers were immediately available for comment.

The lawsuit said all the rappers used portions of Farrell's 1974 musical composition "Upon This Rock" in three separate songs -- West in "Gone," Common in "Chi-City" and Method Man and Redman in their song "Run 4 Cover."

Firrantello is seeking punitive damages of at least $1 million and asked that no further copies of the songs be made, sold or performed, according to the lawsuit.

that's a tight ass loop!

i love that Meth & Red track!

though her lawsuit is ridiculous.

magnificentsynthesizer said:

Why do you say that?

was his music recorded before 1929 it is in the public domain i think or i think if it was less that a certain amount of time used it is ok, not sure

anyone know music law?

i can't read lol, 1974, i have no idea, maybe fair use?
[Edited 5/23/08 17:06pm]

All the old artists should sue these shit hoppers into the very fires of hell. When they don't have anyone to sample, then the labels will be forced to sign people who actually have talent.

vainandy said:

Yeah, we're in agreement on this!

vainandy said:

i agree,
you always bring a smile to face with your posts

PFunkjazz said:

I'm on the panel

magnificentsynthesizer said:

Not at all. If they sample her father's work without permission from that very composer/songwriter, then the lawsuit is fair game.

I agree with the above. If they did not get permission then it's Kanye's problem.

how about these pop hop artists start writing their own music and stop desicreating the brilliant contributions of many generations of MUSICIANS>>

It's offensive to my ears.

It kills me that a so-called "artist" who'd want credit & praise for his own work would willfully steal from another artist & keep on moving. It's fucking crazy! Pay up mf's...

You guys are ridiculous. They used the DRUMS.

missmad said:

I think copyright lasts 50 years after an artists death. And there may be ways to extend it. And recordings may be a diferent story.

But so the story goes that you still have to pay royalties if you sing Happy Birthday in a movie.

Any Erykah Badu fans in the house?

I guess labels should stop signing trash like Erykah Badu then.

For sampling some DRUMS. Not even a melody.

They didn't even sample Joe Farrell's sax part, so why should his daughter get a million dollars for this?

Oh, U quiet now
Mm-hmm.

(c) Bob George

Cinnie said:

I'm pretty sure Prince frowns upon any reference to him at al....oops, shit

But to address your point, I think for some, it's the principle, not the actual quantity of the theft of music. So it doesn't matter if it's stealing a penny or a million dollars. If you take a single note of the recording without permission, it's theft (not necessarily to me, I'm just sayin)

NDRU said:

Yeah and I am saying, they didn't
a) "take a single note", they used drums
b) use Joe Farrell's saxophone performance at all

So why should Joe Farrell's daughter get a million dollars?
[Edited 5/24/08 12:38pm]

Cinnie said:

I'm not saying she should morally, but legally she must own the rights to the recordings, even the drums.

Cinnie said:

Apologist! Burn him at the stake!

NDRU said:

ah ok. maybe them they should've gotten permission to use it. i wonder though what constitutes fair use if any in these kind of situations?

Cinnie said:

So by your comment are you saying that drums are less significant musically than a melody? What a slap in the face to drummers. I know that in the "I make beats" era people don't always give drummers their respect, but as these samples indicate, drums are integral parts of many songs. At the end of the day, the ryhthm is someone's original creation. A MUSICIAN created that and should receive RECOGNITION and COMPENSATION for it. If these labels aren't going to sign actual MUSICIANS with true creative talent, then maybe they can start hiring stuio players like the Funk Bros. to create some ORIGINAL music and stop pilfering the coffers of these true musicians. It's disgusting.

I am a writing teacher and I have students who plagiarize all the time. I call them the "plagiarized generation." They think nothing of snatching someone else's work, adding a few lines of their own and then turning it in as if it is their own work, much like these so-called artists that they mimic. I am constantly getting on them about it and telling them that there are consequences to it. I use examples like this from the music industry, since they love rap and R&B, to support my point. I show how many of these acts have had to pay artists for ripping them off. When all is said and done you have to PAY for STEALING someone else's ORIGINAL work. So, hopefully these people will pay for their theft.

bellanoche said:

People commenting on this thread would insinuate that these artists took a song, ran with it, and are talentless. I am pointing out the fact that their new creations still indicate a level of creativity and artistry that is NOT largely reliant on ''Upon This Rock'' the "song".

Not that it shouldn't have been cleared or whatever other words you're trying to put in my mouth.

Cinnie said:

I don't think I tried to put words in your mouth. I just asked you to clarify the ones that came out of it. In two posts you referenced that "only drums" were taken. So, I womdered what you meant by that.

aalloca said:

co-sign!

I am so fucking sick and tired of damn near every song on the radio -pop, rock, hip hop, whathaveyou, being all sample and no song.

Cinnie said:

Doesn't matter. The copyright is for the entirety of the recording. If Farrell held the copyright his heirs have authority to sue for copyright infringement.