Here Today... Gone To Hell!

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews...538697220091005 (http://"http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0538697220091005")


Sounds like good publicity for both GNR and for Ulrich Schnauss to me.

sounds almost the same as the intro actually:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm39G26PGAo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn604M1IfDk
add on some sounds and it's the intro to riad

I remember some months or years ago where there were som clip in maybe the youtube thread and people thought they heard the riad intro in it, it was probably from this guy..

Sounds like a computer effect.  Can you sue for using the same one? 

Sounds like it might be just a coincidence resulting in a shady cash grab.  :-\

Interesting indeed, I think people are scraping the barrel with accusations...

It is a joke isn't? I can note the similarity...

Thanks for posting those.   The second one sounds like a direct lift. 

guns n roses sampled them..
they are the exact same tracks as the intro...

The claim looks dubious, to be fair.

Even if the claim was true, the damages have to reflect lost revenue to the artist, and there is no way that the little tidbits taken are worth 1 million dollars.

yeah clearly gnr sampled them
but they dont really are worth a million dollars

lol

If Chris Pitman did that I guess he will have to work pro bono on the next tour  :hihi: :rofl:

It sounds strictly the same to me...

Or maybe they sampled gnr? Given the amount of people Axl has links with, you never know. Studio staff can link very random people together.

It is for the court to decide.

im pretty sure when we first heard a studio version of Rhiad, there were a few people commenting on the similarity of the intro to other songs/ samples made by other artists...........who knows.

I cant believe soemone like axl, who has been involved in so many legal wrangles, could fall foul of somehting like this.........

I dont thnk that it is good publicity either, almost everything out there about GnR is negative, and this only adds to that negativity IMO.

I also wouldn't dismiss this either, the recent thing with colplay and joe satriani made the music press is in a similar vein, and in the end coldplay settled out side of court (i think- although i may be wrong).

It is not worth a million dollars. Two minutes on wiki can determine that.

Honnestly, I'm kinda disappointed by that news...

It's really stupid anyway. It's not even plagiarism : they clearly sampled the songs.
Why wouldn't they ask for clearance ? They did it for the samples in Madagascar so why not for these ?

Without knowing everything, it is unfair to judge.

People usually sue for an outrageous price hoping to get more of a settlement.

so if u sue for a million, u might get 250k whereas if u sued for 250k u may only get 50.


clearly the same effect but I don't know many people who bought CD for Rhiad and The Bedouins with all due respect. Probably the worst song on the album.

Riad rocks.  I never liked it initially, but recently realized that it had really grown on me. Give me Riad over Scraped or Oh My God any day.  Great track IMO.

just listened and yeah, i don't know about a million but that is clearly a rip off

How far back does "Riad N' the Bedouins" date?

Because I show here that "A Strangely Isolated Place" was released in 2003?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Strangely_Isolated_Place

And "Wherever You Are" in 2006?

http://www.discogs.com/Ulrich-Schnauss-Passing-By/release/713466

yea they both sound similar. On the Wherever You Are clip I also hear a Radiohead song after the intro lol

should be interesting to see the outcome

1998 - 2001.

Made me laugh so hard when I listened to those Schnauss thingies. I always wondered what made RntB rock so well in the album version, but of course, it was those 10 seconds of superoriginal computer noise in the beginning.

I invented the C note! How many millions do I get?

Maybe that's why the intro got removed from the Rock Band version?

Anyways, who made that intro (I'm at work and I don't have the booklet with me)?

No need to see what we think... "Wherever You Are" was released in 2001, and "A Strangely Isolated Place" was released in 2003. The first performance of "Riad N' The Bedouins" live was 1st January, 2001... unless Axl knew this guy personally and heard the songs before release, plagiarism is impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_Away_Trains_Passing_By
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Strangely_Isolated_Place

Did the 2001 performance of Riad have the same intro?
Is it impossible that this guy had also performed this song prior to it making it to a release, just like Riad saw a 7 year gap from 01 to 08?

I think it is a bit premature to say that it is impossible.

The album version intro is not the same intro that was used in live versions years ago.

Those samples were clearly lifted. But how much is 10 seconds of a computer synth worth? Certainly not what they are asking. Give Schnauss some front row tickets and an album credit on subsequent pressings and be done with it IMO.

Cheeky  ;D

Does anyone think it was the error filled booklet that has caused the problems ? Maybe he was meant to be credited but was missed out on the draft that become the booklet.

I hope it does not upset any touring plans ! 

Those most important thing is not is the intro the same as the live version from 2001.  To me, it's when was the studio version recorded and when was copyright filed on the studio version of "Riad".  If it was filed on 2001 or prior, which is entirely possible, then the case is meritless.

Ali

Actually 2000 - it was performed before the New Years Eve.

The demo didn't have that intro.

Maybe Schnauss lifted it from Axl?  :hihi:

Well... it seems that we're gonna have some GNR Management announcement around this issue soon.

http://www.rollingstone.com/



/jarmo

But was written before then ;)

Joe Satriani lost his lawsuit with COldplay and they stole not only his music BUT Melodies

SO I don't see anyway GNR will be forced to cough up money on this.

Didn't u read what has been said though? The Live version of Riad didn't have the intro

Both obvious and unnecessary. Too bad.

I'm guessing if it's gotten this far GNR plans on fighting and doesn't agree to an out of court settlement?

I two hope they fight it instead of settling just to make it go away.

Does raise a question in music though... I mean there are only so many riffs that can be written... will there be a time when most stuff is similar or accidentally copied?

Yes, the demo we heard.  But, as you know, there have been multiple different demos of various songs to come out over the years.

Ali

I agree that the case will be hard to prove because that will involve proving who predated who. That's a good point from RS.

Ali

I hope GN'R sue that guy for plagiarism  :hihi:

The publicity Schnauss gets now should boost his record sales. Probably part of the plan going through with this "publicity stunt"..

It's a fucking synthesizer soundbite, seems like a far fetched lawsuit. His name will get printed all over the place now...

That doesn't mean a thing, as Ali said, the demo we heard didn't have it, doesn't mean that the live intro would have to have it either. We all know that there is so many other demos that have had varations that've surfaced, Rhiad is no exception.

in the other hand, it's kind of a publicity for Guns N'Roses too.
good timing, there's a tour coming soon...

Exactly, CD will probably sell a few extra copies this week.

Maybe we'll get some longed-for, old-school Axl rants during this tour  :rant:

(thanks Schnauss, I guess)

riad was never played live with that samples, event the first demo didnt have them..
they clearly sampled form this guy..

There's no doubt it's the same sound, but how do you know how many shapes and forms of Riad GN'R has in the vault?

If GN'R has this version from way back, it's simply word against word.. leading nowhere.

Anyway, there's no way this thing is worth $1 million.

Who plays the intro? who plays those parts? is it Pittman? maybe he got the answer to this, or whoever plays it.

Not to nitpick about something trivial, but the HOB show started around 3:30am January 1st, 2001 and let out somewhere around 5:30-6am. 

As much as i think like: "yeah, Riads intro came after", we can't say 100% for sure just because you didn't hear that intro from a 2004 (?) demo or 2001/2002 live shows.

Just to clarify my point of view: IRS (2008 CD's version) is a mix of 1999 demo and the 2004 demo (just listen to the guitar solos!), so that intro could be with GN'R for a long time, maybe originally being used in other working songs, etc.

please, can you explain in what form it is ''clear'' that GNR stole those sfx from this guy?

I'm not saying its not plagiarism. I really dont know. All I want to know is an explanation on why ''it is clear'' that GNR sampled from this guy, like you said above. Any proof?

The first demo WE HEARD.  Unless you can prove exact dates for when the intro was first written, NOT performed live, you cannot make a blanket statement like "they clearly sampled from this guy".

Ali

they sound exactly the same
and i doubt that this guy in 2003 had a unknown demo of riad to sample in two different songs... or he had the same inspiration and played the same exact thing that was recorded on riad..
either way is almost illogical...

gnr sampled the song and now the guy's record company is trying to milk the situation and get some press.. they are assholes

i just find kinda annyonning that some people here try to justify everything.. is kinda lame you know?
im pro axl and everything, but you really have to see that sometimes is like reading a bunch of sheeps

dude go to youtube and search for the songs
they sond exactly the same!

Not trying to justify anything.. I'm just not drawing final conclusions, like you are.

Do you have any inside info to this case? If not, wait and see how things are panning out once all facts are on the table.

it wasnt directed at you
just generally..
it is just logics, you dont need to have inside info to join the dots

As tight as CD was wrapped, no way some guy from Germany could've heard unfinished studio masters. thats all Im saying which leads me to believe that Bucket or pitman brought this in

I'm not saying one or the other is right yet. But I think it's a valid point that countless people have worked on Chinese Democracy over the years, and as you say, maybe Bucket or Pitman had the sample. Or maybe some sound engineer who had worked with Bucket in the past, also crossing paths with this German dude (just one random example).

The intro is, as I have stated before, the exact same sound, but we're not really talking about some melodic masterpiece here.. It's an intro, nothing more. Being what it is, people on both sides here might not have thought too much about using this piece of sound. Especially not expecting lawsuits for using it.

Pt666, you are missing the point. The songs soundin the same isn't enough. It has to be proven that the German song came out before any incarnation of that intro for "Riad" existed. That will not be easy.

Ali

true

some producer from Canada wrote with Beyonce and Kelly Clarkson and gave them both the exact same backing track..........

so an engineer or producer or someone in the band could've brought this to Axl

Im sure Axl had nothing to do with it.

Remember that too, it was a episode of Top Gear

i thought you needed to have something officially released before you could sue?? 
In other words, if that dude has an album out already with that song, then Guns are liable.

Same thing happened to VR with dirty little thing.  Just a chancer looking for a personal pay day.

thats if the law is up for this and doesnt judge the release date superior in this case. given the release date its more like GN'R would have to prove the sample has been created way before.
and how would this work anyway? any intro creator pluggin in external harddiscs in court trying to verify dates and sounds?  :hihi:

anyway the german dude has a point, no matter the money being asked for, let alone the intro being needed on a guns album.
let's hope it can be settled some fast and is not one of this "plans changed against our wishes"-delay-things again.

Why would GN'R have to make an offer of proof?  They are not the ones making a claim of fraud.  It is up to the complainant to substantiate his claim.

Ali

because they have to?
the release dates are all against nuGuns.....and even fans here are talking about the intro hasnt been on any previous 11/2008 version we've heard. thats the main attack most likely, to these facts add some proofs by the german dude when he exactly did created those intros (IF he did himself though) and that he was not asked by Guns management for using it/being credited/being paid and you have the case. then it has to be checked by Axl's lawyers and they would have to prove it being false or find another way out, maybe even to avoid going to court risking lots of money. further the pretty high 1.000.000$ could have set-up because of this, like the german dude's lawyers smell the right could very well be on his side.

Did Vanilla Ice paid something to Queen for ripping off Under Pressure?

"Ice later paid Mercury and Bowie, who have since been given songwriting credit for the sample."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_Pressure

If GnR did sample it and didn't give credit for it (or get permission), then how are they assholes? I reckon GnR would be in the wrong as they effectively stole it and didn't acknowledge the person who actually wrote it- claiming it as their own work and not the original artists.
I don't like that they are suing, but I don't think they're milking the situation- they're perfectly within their right to get proper recognition for their work, and if GnR did use it without permission, then they should be financially compensated for their work being on the album.

So you're saying that in 2003 I could have recorded and released Street of Dreams & Madagascar, and Sued Axl when he officially released them?

I dont think it works quite that way

Umm, no? I think he assumes the songs need to be released in order to be able to sue for plagiarism.

I don't know about that, but I'm assuming it'd be difficult to prove you wrote a song years ago if there's no proof of when it was created....



/jarmo

yeah, like many of us did write "Don't Cry"....but we aint suing the boys   ;)

Speaking of Don't Cry.... Wasn't GN'R sued for plagiarism by some mexican dude who claimed he wrote the main guitar riff for Don't Cry 15 years ago?

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/news/shownews.php?newsid=271

I wonder if intent would also have to be proved.   If you listen to techno, it is not unreasonable to think a pulsating synth could be duplicated identically without intent to copy/steal.  It is not like this is a unique piece of music like the intro to SCOM, etc.

How did that ever turn out anyway?

Jarmo, once a song is created, even the early sketch of what we might think a song is, artists declare the work to their Author's Right's Association in order to protect them from things like this. so a proof of when the song was created must exist, even though it was only released years later. You don't declare your songs once you're ready to release them, otherwise they would be up for grabs for anyone who gets a chance to listen to them beforehand.

Yes, and that's what I meant with having no proof of when it was created.

If your song has been registered and/or released years ago, that's proof of its existence/creation.


I didn't say it has to be released, that was somebody else, because I'm not an expert.




/jarmo

i asked a lawyer about it once. you gotta copyright it.
alternatively, you send your work to yourself by registered mail and never open it.

To me, it sounds pretty obviously lifted by GNR. But I'm starting to think not much is going to come of it anyways.

wtf they sound nothing NOTHING alike. Just some lame ass attemp for some doucher that no ones ever heard of to get a little bit of free pub...... just like the shit that the offspring tried to pull.

::)

Let's be honest. We love Guns N' Roses, we love Chinese Democracy but the intro of Riad sound alike those two songs.

:rofl: they are almost identical  :hihi:
check out your hearing lad : ok:

this is absoulte bullshit.  axl did not steal any eurotrash crappy shit music.  axl is a musicial genius and a virtuoso.  why would he even dignify this shithead by listening to his crapass music?  not only could axl write this music with one hand tied behind his back, but also there's a simple reason why axl didn't plaigerize... because axl is not a fucking liar.  we've heard from beta and countless others that axl is one of the sweetest and most sensitive and respectable people in the world.  so why would an upstanding guy steal music?  answer... he wouldn't.  it just doesn't make one bit of sense to anyone who knows the first thing about axl.

ulrich shit is just trying to steal money from an honest artist and make a name for himself by riding on axl's amazing and inspiring coattails.  even if he gets some quick money out of this, he will pay for his sins in the afterlife.  people don't get away with acting like that.  it's why concepts like heaven and hell were created.

The first song I didnt see anything to prove this, but check this one out man, you'll see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn604M1IfDk

Y'know dude... the more you post, the more I hope you're just perpetrating some joke that only you get.

Sorry jarmo, im no expert either.  I just assumed an official release was needed to claim ownership of your work.  Im most likely wrong though  :)

Anyone claiming they hear no similarity really needs to have their hearing checked. I love me some GNR and all but I can also call a spade a spade.

Lawsuit claims Guns N' Roses copied music

What would a year be without a Guns N' Roses lawsuit?

Sadly, we may never know.

The latest legal issue facing the band comes from two independent record labels claiming Guns N' Roses used portions of two songs by German electronic musician Ulrich Schnauss. The labels are seeking $1 million in damages.

Guns N' Roses and Universal Music Group's Interscope-Geffen A&M label are named in the lawsuit, which was filed by British label
Independiente and the U.S. arm of Domino Recording Company, who own the licensing rights to songs by Schnauss.

The lawsuit, which was filed last Friday, claims that Guns N' Roses used portions of Schnauss' "Wherever You Are" and "A Strangley Isolated Place" on the Chinese Democracy track called "Riad N' the Bedouins."

The claims seem to focus on the first minute of Riad N' the Bedouins, which opens with sounds similar to the Schnauss tracks. However, the song then takes a turn and becomes a guitar-driven track that no longer sounds like Schnauss' songs.

For comparison, here are the songs in question:

Riad N' the Bedouins

http://www.examiner.com/x-23430-Guns-N-Roses-Examiner~y2009m10d6-Lawsuit-claims-Guns-N-Roses-copied-music

that's some kind of rare sarcasm, and it seems he is the only one able to understand it

That's what most people think.  I am willing to bet this German artist thought that since CD came out in '08 and his songs came out in '01 and '03, he'd have an open and shut case.  Problem is, as all of us GN'R fans know, "Riad" has existed in some form since 2000, if not earlier than that.  When the intro was put on is the key question.  People saying because that since the demo version we heard didn't have that intro, it's obvious that the intro was lifted aren't necessarily right.  That could be the only demo version of the song that was heard by the public, not the only version that existed.

The mere fact that "Riad" has existed in some form since at least 2000 complicates proving the intro was stolen.  If "Riad" didn't exist until 2006 or so, then it would be an open and shut case.  That's not what we are dealing with.

My guess is that the most logical thing is that some ball was dropped with obtaining sampling permission, either by the band (specifically Chris Pitman and/or Dizzy Reed), or more likely management and/or the legal team for the band and/or the label.

Ali

There is another - admittedly unlikely - possibility.  There are only so many sounds that are able to be made by one instrument - even a synthesiser.  It's not impossible for two programmers using the same equipment to create the same sound completely independently of each other.

Yeah, it's unlikely, but the key point is that we are just talking about a sound effect.  The very beginning of "Riad", the part that sounds identical to the intro of the German artist's song is not a melody, not lyrics, not even a chord progression, but a sound effect.  A sound effect that is briefly used and has zero to do with the real song.

Ali

that's my guess as well.

either that, or these guys are being assholes and playing games with gnr and the label by giving assurances in the past and looking for a loophole now. similar to the Verge and the troubles they ran into with bittersweet symphony.

either way, i'm guessing (and hoping) this is just a very minor issue that can be settled quickly, or ultimately won by gnr in court.

I remember Axl said something to the effect that they had to make 1 last change to CD as it was on its way to the factory to get mass produced...

He never said what but I always figured it was Rhiad, cause the leak we had only months prior & the final had a few changes (guitar solo, sound affects, INTRO)... Maybe things were done in a rush, and like somebody said the booklet was a cluster fuck to begin with..

Agreed.  I always felt like he was probably referring to Riad when he made that last switch.  Hence, all the changes.  Perhaps Pitman threw it together and Axl, not knowing it was a rip, thought it sounded cool which it does if you've never heard that song.  We'll probably never know exactly what went on there.

Isn't there a copywrite law stating that you can sample up to 9sec of another artist?

Well, the Verve were stupid for crediting Jagger/Richards in the first place.  The Stones jumped in and made some big money.  Bittersweet Symphony was the biggest Rolling Stones hit since Start Me Up!

Finally more people are seeing that Pitman is the most likely band member to have FUCKED UP royally.  I mentioned this and I got my post deleted.

pitman fucked up royally means ulrich get no royalty  :smoking:

I wonder what Lars thinks of all this...

They werent stupid they were legally obligated to do so. If not they wouldve got sued. They clearly sampled the string music in the background. They shouldve known better.

Its funny... Dizzy & Pitman would most likely at fault here(not saying they are), and neither one is named here..

Guns n? Roses ?Vigorously Contest? Claims ?Chinese Democracy? Stole a Sample

Guns n? Roses manager Irving Azoff has formally responded to claims the band illegally borrowed music from two songs by German electro artist Ulrich Schnauss on Chinese Democracy?s ?Riad N? the Bedouins.? As Rolling Stone reported yesterday, the Independiente and Domino labels announced they were suing the band for $1 million in damages, alleging the ambient noise at the top of the Gn?R track was created by Ulrich and used without permission. Today, Azoff said the band ?vigorously contests these claims and intends to respond accordingly.? He added the band and production team?s legal reps will be responding soon, as well. His full statement follows:

    ?The band believed when the record came out and still believes that there are no unauthorized samples on the track. The snippets of ?ambient noise? in question were provided by a member of the album?s production team who has assured us that these few seconds of sound were obtained legitimately. Artists these days can?t read the minds of those they collaborate with and therefore are unfortunately vulnerable to claims like this one. While the band resents the implication that they would ever use another artist?s work improperly and are assessing possible counterclaims, they are confident this situation will be satisfactorily resolved.?

The most recent high-profile accusation of musical plagiarism ? the case of Joe Satriani vs. Coldplay over their hit ?Viva la Vida?  recently ended with a dismissal and, presumably, an out-of-court settlement.

http://www.rollingstone.com/





/jarmo

Credit should have gone to Andrew Oldham.

The Verve wrote those lyrics.  The Stones get 100% of the royalties, The Verve get nothing.

voila!
a guy fuckep up sampling without permission

the stones don't get shit. the company who owns the rights to the song sampled get the rights.

as for GnR, it doesn't appear anyone in the band F'd up. this seems like a bunch of bullshit. some loser trying for a get rich quick lawsuit.

Thanks, nice to get a response.  Hopefully this will not drag on.

this is the dumbest fucking lawsuit I have ever heard of..GN'R are being sued for "ambient noise"??? Are you serious?  They are being sued for the use of a random sound effect that has NOTHING at all to do with the rest of the song...this is laughable.

understood, but what you heard is not music.  It is a random tone.  It is not like they lifted a guitar riff or a drum beat or you know anything else that an actual MUSICIAN would write.  That is like AC/DC suing ever band on earth for using a G chord.  this is fucking stupid.

I have to agree with that.

Many make it sound like GN'R just ripped off major parts of the song, and then you read and realize it's some ambient sounds in the intro!

Not exactly the part you sing along to at concerts.....



/jarmo

GUNS N' ROSES manager Irving Azoff has released a statement in response to claims the band illegally borrowed music from two songs by a German musician on its last album, "Chinese Democracy".

British label Independiente and the U.S. arm of Domino Recording Company, who own the licensing rights to songs by German electronic musician Ulrich Schnauss, allege that singer Axl Rose and GUNS N' ROSES band members and album producers copied portions of two of Schnauss' songs ? "Wherever You Are" and "A Strangely Isolated Place" (hear audio below) ? for a song used on the band's last GN'R album called "Riad N' the Bedouins".

Azoff's full statement reads as follows:

"The band believed when the record came out and still believes that there are no unauthorized samples on the track. The snippets of 'ambient noise' in question were provided by a member of the album's production team who has assured us that these few seconds of sound were obtained legitimately. Artists these days can't read the minds of those they collaborate with and therefore are unfortunately vulnerable to claims like this one. While the band resents the implication that they would ever use another artist's work improperly and are assessing possible counterclaims, they are confident this situation will be satisfactorily resolved."

The lawsuit, filed on Friday but made available on Monday, seeks $1 million in damages.

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=128260

I'm not convinced these short samples were so clearly ripped off, either.  Both are synthesizer effects with some delay.  The first one even sounds like the delay is at a slightly different rate.  In any case, it'd be a matter of just start with approximately the same synth sound, and adding delay (which is incredibly common for "ambient sounds") and you have these sounds.   I could probably dig up a number of effects I've done on my own songs that sound roughly the same.  It's not like these are incredibly difficult to recreate sound effects.

Anyway, given how small of a role they play in the song, and how stupidly easy effects like this are to create, why would anyone even bother ripping them off?  It's not like Chris Pitman (or whomever) doesn't have access to plenty of synthesizers and delay effect machines.    The real artistry here is how all the sounds were mixed together, not the individual sounds.  It just doesn't make sense to steal something you could create in five minutes of work on your own.

dude.. irving azoff is accepting that they sampled the song

the whole: "they just sound exactly the same but maybe is coincidence thing" is over

...and then we wonder why the band takes so long to do anything!
:P

G'N'R is so huge man, they've gotta have every single angle covered before anything can happen just because they're GNR and because no matter what, they've just been like that since day 1.

Nothing's ever fine and dandy in a band's world to say the least...now multiply that by infinity and you've got the band problems that Guns have had/are having.

Failed tour announcements, failed delivery on album release dates, failed tab books...these things all lack any relevance when you've got the album in your hand and are listen to what the band wanted you to wait for...and tell me if that's not worth every second of it.

Now minus the bitching, and you'll see, that had everyone enjoyed their lives instead of shagging the band you love up the ass for attempting to deliver on promises we've demanded..and that album is WAY beyond anything out there.

I really hope this DJ dude doesn't think a pitch shifting sample of someone saying "how are you" in Cantonese or Mandarin (my dialects aren't too great) expects anything more than GNR pulling out giant imaginary machine guns to blow him out the water for being stupid enough to think that Guns would actually benefit from ripping him off after working 14 years to put out a masterpiece such as Chinese Democracy.

If anything, this idiot should pay them for attempting to ride Guns' name to get himself his 2 seconds of fame.

It's understandable if fucking Joe Satriani sues Coldplay, cos those dudes haven't done anything original in their entire career other than be a shitty version of U2...but this is GNR...where the fuck in the Jungle would you have to be to NOT know who they are?! and then ask yourself why they would release something that was plagiarized.


:)

Peace!!!

If GNR have sampled this guys copyrighted music without permission they are breaking the law and the guy who made the recordings should be compensated, either finaincially and/or given a credit on future presses of CD.

Its not about who's music sucks or who the bigger artist is etc.  Thats why music is copyrighted, too stop things like this happening.  Just because its happening to our fave band doesn't make an exception to the law.

He also said:

"The band believed when the record came out and still believes that there are no unauthorized samples]/b] on the track"

I once worked as a video editor. We had plenty of song and video librarys to use back then - it was copyrighted, but we payed to use it. It's like stock photos... Maybe that's what happened, they both used the same snippets of sounds (the vocally intro and the keyboard chord progression).

Still, in order to claim plagiarism, it should have to follow a pattern, I guess. I mean, like three or more bars sounding the same...

well the intro does sort of sound like a voice saying riad riad riad riad riad

so maybe a producer thought it sounded cool and didn't mention it was lifted so he could look like good or something.


It is very obvious  Axl had no idea.

but 1 mil for some secs of ambient noise in an intro?

it's clear that the band didn't/don't know it's copyrighted.

if it was, i think they could have contacted the band earlier rather than making the news.  
it's not like it was just released.

Yeah, $1 million for damages is outrageous.

really? I really think GNR have dragged ulrich's name in the dirt and for him to be connected with that devilish band in any way is a disgrace to his art!
also, he have lost a million bucks to say the least because everybody have bought CD to hear those magnificent sounds instead of his masterpiece of a record  :rant:

he has every right to the million dollars

Probably how he actually views it

Irv's on it and the lawyers, good statement.  Doesn't stand in the way of anything GNR has going on now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKt3Jo8DYzQ&feature=related

Some of it also sounds like the start of silkworms im sure..
but surely yhtere just nromal sinth sounds???

Smells like bullshit. I remember Rhiad during the new year's show in Vegas 2001 and it sounded the same. I think this guy is just out to make a name for himself by dragging GNR's through the dirt.

are you sure? The band played Riad at 01/01/01 without that intro, and all 2002 also without it. Unfortunately, there's no audio from vegas new year's eve.

That is what I was thinking.  The music on 75% of movie trailers are all the same and are part of a royalty free library.  It is the same reason you have the same beat track on every single rap song.   

The plagiarism lawsuit against Guns N' Roses

Guns N' Roses' attempted comeback has hit a snag, said Tom Breihan in Pitchfork. A German "electronic shoegaze" artist?Ulrich Schnauss?is suing for $1 million, saying that Guns N' Roses "samples unlicensed chunks" of his music (listen here and here) on a track from the band's Chinese Democracy album. And "if you listen to all three songs, it's a pretty tough claim to dispute."

Schnauss and his record labels, Domino and Independiente, "are going to have their work cut out for them in proving their case," said Daniel Kreps in Rolling Stone. The Guns N' Roses song in question, Riad N' the Bedouins (listen), "shares no resemblance to Schnauss' body of work." On top of that, "half the stuff on Chinese Democracy has existed for the better part of the last decade, while the two Schnauss songs came out in 2001 and 2003, so it'd be practically impossible to determine" who was first.

Who cares? said Peter Kafka in All Things Digital. Musicians accuse each other of stealing all the time. But this lawsuit is more than a little ironic: Guns N' Roses "made a point of stringing up people who pirated its last album." Schnauss should have gone after GNR "last fall, when there was a biggish to-do about the album," and when the band was "siccing the federal government on bloggers" for posting unathorized samples from the album.

http://www.theweek.com/article/index/101254/The_plagiarism_lawsuit_against_Guns_N_Roses


Axl accused of stealing songs

GUNS N' ROSES frontman AXL ROSE is being dragged to court over his band's flop comeback album.

Record companies Independiente and Domino have filed a lawsuit against GNR and the rockers' label Universal Music Group claiming a track off Chinese Democracy copies portions of two songs by German electronic star ULRICH SCHNAUSS.
According to legal papers filed, the labels are seeking $1million in damages after GNR used parts of Ulrich's tunes Wherever You Are and A Strangely Isolated Place without permission on their album track Riad N' The Bedouins.
Both Independiente and Domino own the licensing rights to Schnauss' music.
It's said their case focuses on 45 seconds of ambient soundscapes that form the introduction of Riad N' The Bedouins before it launches into a guitar-led song that bares no resemblance to Schnauss' work.
The impending court battle will do little to improve Rose's mood after Chinese Democracy - which took the erratic singer over a decade to make - was mauled by critics and largely ignored by the record-buying public upon its release last November.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/music/2670365/Axl-Rose-accused-of-copying-German-stars-songs-on-Chinese-Democracy.html

This really damages GNR's reputation. If this were unfounded, I'd sue that bastard.

This issue is totally stupid... to sue some band just because it copied some "atari" sound that some n00b composed randomly??
This world is full of fags seeking some attention. Hope that GN'R and their management clears this issue ASAP.

Even the most vicious hater can see that this case is built on quicksand.

u would hope so, but think of those people out there that will just see the headline and then spread that like wildfire.

those misleading headlines suck cause u know in today's culture, if u are accused of something, 50 percent of people already assume u are guilty.

Gun?n?Roses Accused of Theft by German Musician: Compare

(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/4122/3085165261e0bbb9da28.jpg) (http://img25.imageshack.us/i/3085165261e0bbb9da28.jpg/)

Over a decade in the making, the already disappointing 2008 Guns?n'Roses disc Chinese Democracy, just got a little worse. It seems that even with this much time to put it all together Guns?n'Roses (AKA Axl Rose and some guys who aren?t Slash) still couldn?t come up with an album on their own, so they stole one.

Ulrich Schnauss, an electronic music artist in Germany, is suing Axl and Co., charging that the band unlawfully used samples of his music on the song ?Riad N? the Bedouins.?

(Below: Compare the Guns?n'Roses track to Schnauss?s tunes)

Yeah, we don?t remember that song either. Chinese Democracy was pretty awful; we?re glad we forgot it. (Apparently, over 3 million people bought it, but we?re not sure why?)

After comparing the songs in question (below), it seems pretty clear that Axl screwed up.

The New York Times reports that Schnauss is seeking at least $1 million in damages. That?s a lot of money, but if we were Schnauss, we probably wouldn?t want to admit that our music was a part of that horrible album, intentionally or not.

Surprisingly, Rolling Stone has taken an interesting stance on the issue stating that since G?n'R worked on the album for over a decade, and Schnauss?s songs have only been out for a few years, it might be difficult to prove who stole from whom. We?re not so sure about that.

Do you think this guy has a real case, or he?s just trying to score a quick buck?

http://www.zimbio.com/Guns+N'+Roses/articles/64SRkGwchQ0/Gun+n+Roses+Accused+Theft+German+Musician

See?

the hatchet jobs are already out and there are loads of people who buy that shit and believe every word they are told.

In Chile FULL Promotion Of This NEWS...  Radio, T.V., Newspaper, Internet...

OMG. Only Haters Whitout Information.

 :rofl:

That always happens, though.  Especially with GN'R/Axl, who already have a heavily negative slant publicly.  You can't control the stupidity of the general public.  Anyone that thinks that Axl is responsible is just being idiotic and looking for an easy scapegoat to take a potshot at.

Ali

All they have to do is see, GNR on the stage, Im sure that RIad will be played in all its glory, in asia, and what people will see will be amazing, its kinda like I would react, oh yeah you think you got me UFCK OFF!, and the stage and show will shut haters up!

they could loop those intro sounds for some minutes right before playing the song live  : ok:

YEs :)

The fools youtube link of Riad was a live version that bears no resembelence to the album version. This 'Barryst' who wrote that article is a pillock.

I think this situation has been designed by the music writer and GNR management for joint publicity.

The timing is great for GNR on the brink of a world tour. Will be settled out of court and each will go about there business.

No harm done to GNR at all in this...doesnt exactly change that song itself...if it wasnt there at the start of the tune would anyone seriously care

Why would the band use this kind of promotion? I mean, they still didnt made any kind of regular promotion that would have a far better reaction...

Its not promotion. When they use terms like "disappointing sales", it only makes the album seem weak.

Should've expected at least one person to come up with conspiracy theories...




/jarmo

This type of publicity as opposed to promotion is being used in the entertainment business all the time. The idea is simply to bring your name into the spotlight..this is seen as of more benefit to ticket/albums sale than doing nothing at all...which agree has been the format to date by GNR mgt. Maybe this is the first move into promoting the name GNR, tour and album. I really dont see anything negative in this for GNR.

The guy talking about "dissapointing sale"..GNR management never said that, where are you quoting that from. Im just talking about GNR Management and theyre statement.

So you're saying the German artist's record labels were contacted so they could sue GN'R and their record company?

"Hey! Could you sue us? It's a brilliant way for us to get some publicity!"





/jarmo

It's only a sound, in electronic music, lot of samplers are repeated in a lot of songs, and there aren't plagiarism.

Sorry for my english  :'(

Can you copyright a synth sound? They both could have used the same software/synthesizer and it could have been a pre loaded sample?

That's why I used "this kind of promotion" and then "far better reaction".

You forgot the Dr. Pepper lawsuit  :hihi:

Nah, don't think so. Plagiarism is a very serious accusation for an artist.

The German artist was famous before this?

I believe in these strategies...

in a couple of hours left hundreds of articles talking about the plagiarism of GUNS N 'ROSES, countries like Chile, Peru, Argentina, Mexico, Hispanic-speaking countries had not mentioned the Asian tour

I want to believe, that this is only for Chine.Dem Advertising, GNR & WORLD TOUR 2009-2010.

 : ok:

I like that candid style there Jarmo...your doing a fox news on me! he must be a moron...conspirancy nut job :hihi:

Ok I accept that it is a shot in the dark, who knows the truth but all I can say is that in my view this does both GNR and german bloke no harm...and gets the name out there and people listening to the artists...

I would say this does indeed harm the band. Most people won't bother to actually read the whole story. So they won't know what's supposedly being copied. They won't bother reading that the sound in question is some random computer generated noise. They'll read the headlines "Gn'R being sued for Plagiarism", and immediatley just think it's true....Axl stole music from another artist.

Sure, we know Axl didn't steal music from anyone, but you all know what most people are going to think, they'll place the blame on Axl. Like they always do.

So yeah, there IS such a thing as bad publicity. This is one of those cases. The band doesn't want this, and whoever suggested that this is some sort of deliberate set up, is obviously on some very pure crack.

I think some people are overstating how BAD this is for the band.  Now maybe I give people too much credit, but whenever one of these plagiarism cases pops up I'm interested to actually HEAR how close/important it is.  I hate Coldplay, but I at least checked out the Satriani song before making my decision.  I would hope others would do the same.

Tickets are being sold in Asia ... Your calm ...

 :smoking:

You're right. People SHOULD listen before they make their descision. But most won't. Now, I'm not saying this is HORRIBLE for the band. They've seen a hell of a lot worse, haha, I'm just saying that this is in no way GOOD for the band.

This is not good for the band.

Sometimes there's no "at-any-cost-promotion". This isn't promotion, this is something that is not the best thing that could happen to the band.


Luckily, is not music, is not lyrics, it's just a tiny intro of a song. Sincerely I don't care, "Riad N' The Bedouins" is a great song with the intro or without it.

Guns N' Roses 'Vigorously Contests' Lawsuit

(http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/79/102323axlrsoe617409.jpg) (http://img340.imageshack.us/i/102323axlrsoe617409.jpg/)

Guns N' Roses manager Irving Azoff has said the band "vigorously contests" claims that it used portions of two songs by a German musician on their last album "Chinese Democracy."

Guns N' Roses and Interscope-Geffen A&M were sued by British label Independiente and the U.S. arm of Domino Recording Company, who own the licensing rights to songs by German electronic musician Ulrich Schnauss.

According to the lawsuit filed Friday (Oct. 2), which is seeking $1 million in damages, Axl Rose and Guns N' Roses band members and album producers copied portions of two of Schnauss' songs -- "Wherever You Are" and "A Strangely Isolated Place" - for the track "Riad N' the Bedouins."

Azoff has said the band "vigorously contests these claims and intends to respond accordingly," in a statement.

The rest of the statement reads: "The band believed when the record came out and still believes that there are no unauthorized samples on the track. The snippets of 'ambient noise' in question were provided by a member of the album's production team who has assured us that these few seconds of sound were obtained legitimately. Artists these days can't read the minds of those they collaborate with and therefore are unfortunately vulnerable to claims like this one. While the band resents the implication that they would ever use another artist's work improperly and are assessing possible counterclaims, they are confident this situation will be satisfactorily resolved."

"Chinese Democracy," the band's first new album of original material in 17 years, was released last November.

Besides Rose, who is the only original member in the band, the other current and former band members named in the suit include guitarist Brian "Buckethead" Carroll, bassist Tommy Stinson, and Robin Finck, who currently plays lead guitar with rock act Nine Inch Nails.

Interscope-Geffen A&M has not made any comment

http://www.billboard.com/news/guns-n-roses-vigorously-contests-lawsuit-1004019187.story#/news/guns-n-roses-vigorously-contests-lawsuit-1004019187.story

that's a bad ass fucking picture!

 :hihi:  Yeah, that doesn't make any sense at all.

true they just see the words like 'gn'r' 'plagiarism' 'disappointing'  won't bother checking the pieces. :no:
if the claimer was another well known musician, maybe they would.


that's nothing to do with the German claim.

A response to Azoff's statement... :-\

Brian Caplan of Caplan and Ross, an attorney representing Schnauss? team disagrees, telling Rolling Stone, ?The band and the record company are ultimately responsible for copyright infringement.? He added, ?I can tell you that there is no paper trail authorizing the use of these songs and nobody from the plaintiff?s side authorized the use of this song.?

Rollingstone.com

I think it's obvious this is headed towards an out of court settlement for figure that I'd bet would be significantly less than $1 million.  That is outrageous.

Ali

Well, Well, Well...  GNR Is Dead... Ulrich Rulez...

OMG... This Losers BRIAN CAPUT... You Artist Need Most promotion ? Wait... The TOUR When Play RIAD live.

The rest of the statement reads: "The band believed when the record came out and still believes that there are no unauthorized samples on the track. The snippets of 'ambient noise' in question were provided by a member of the album's production team who has assured us that these few seconds of sound were obtained legitimately. Artists these days can't read the minds of those they collaborate with and therefore are unfortunately vulnerable to claims like this one. While the band resents the implication that they would ever use another artist's work improperly and are assessing possible counterclaims, they are confident this situation will be satisfactorily resolved."

So from reading the above we are being told a guy in production took/wrote/borrowed music and said dont worry about any paper work its all sorted lads! to which the expert Azoff said thats grand dude we trust you...lets go ahead with the distribution of one of the most anticipated albums of all time  I thought this type of thing would be managed a bit more tightly than it appears from the statement above.

It also says: "...and still believes that there are no unauthorized samples on the track".

It's virtually impossible to check every single thing on an album like you want.

How do you start? By listening to everything recorded since day one and compare to your new songs?


The Rolling Stones "borrowed" a main part of a song and didn't realize it. It was a big hit too!

Imagine that they didn't manage to check if one of their new songs sounded like something that had been on the radio/MTV a few years earlier.... It wasn't even a bit of the intro.


Seems to me like you're looking for clues that aren't there again.





/jarmo

This definitely is the fault on either Pitman or Dizzy. For an album that took awhile to complete, SOMEONE should have done due diligence. Hopefully, the next album will not have as many problems as CD. 

The statement reads "The snippets of 'ambient noise' in question were provided by a member of the album's production team.."

My guess is, it was brought in by someone outside the band who were (as it reads) part of the production team.

Please provide us with the proof of this claim. Since you state it as a fact, it shouldn't be a problem.... : ok:


Ignoring the comment from GN'R's management, as pointed out by Spirit...




/jarmo

Axl needs to release a new album as soon as possible and make CD as distant a memory as possible. The entire album outside of the finished product was a nightmare and a disaster.

Thanks for your support.  : ok:


Why don't you go finish your album?



/jarmo

PITMAN, What,,?

You Read The Statement ??

That was funny  :hihi:

I have to disagree, D.  While I see your point that the promotion, or lack thereof, has been a difficult and negative situation for many, I don't want CD to be a distant memory.  I still play the record quite a bit, and frankly, I don't think it should be put to bed until they tour behind it and play more of the album's tracks live.  After that, yes, it will be time to move forward.

Ali

the album came out nov 23 2008 and it took them all this time to sue gnr in october in 2009 something smell and the track does not sound alike

its not the whole track, just the intro

Axl himself spoke of how hard it was getting the album finished etc. Numerous lineup changes, label hassles. CD got the monkey off his back, now with DJ he should finish up the leftover songs and get something out next Summer, put the whole CD thing behind him. Its turned into his whale.

I think people are shrugging their shoulders too nonchalantly towards this allegation. I am positive Axl had nothing to do with it, but this kind of accusation can be devastating to a band, especially once u consider the press' hatred for all things Axl anyway.

"Can be devastating". Sure.


But this is a case of sounds in an intro. Not a full song, not a chorus you sing along to, not a guitar melody etc.

Coldplay are still selling out venues as far as I know...



By the way, maybe it's time for you to change your signature now.




/jarmo

Does anybody even know how many people had anything to do with this album? Axl brought in a lot, he might not even remember everybody. Nobody could ever check every little thing on an album with this many people working on it. It looks like to me that this guy heard about a tour starting soon and he wanted to get some publicity off of it.

i know that but they waiting all this time to sue gnr

maybe they just heard CD for the first time recently

that could be true

maybe this loser knew the new version of RIAD in RB..

According to this article: http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/10/05/2009-10-05_welcome_to_the_jungle_of_lawsuits_axl_guns_n_roses_sued_for_copyright_infringeme.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/10/05/2009-10-05_welcome_to_the_jungle_of_lawsuits_axl_guns_n_roses_sued_for_copyright_infringeme.html)


Domino Recording Co. claims in the suit it advised Geffen on Feb. 26 that the Guns N' Roses song steals from Schnauss' tracks "Wherever You Are" and "A Strangely Isolated Place."

The suit asks for a halt to all sales and distribution of the platinium-selling "Chinese Democracy," which sold over 3.2 million copies worldwide.

 :o :o :o

Bye Bye... World Tour...

I just want to respond back to a few people. Whoever it was -whether it was Pitman, Dizzy or someone from the production crew- it doesn't matter! The point being is that this should have been checked out. Enough time went into this album. If it is proven in court then this is just carelessness. As talented as Axl is, he has to be able to manage Guns business better. It makes me wonder if one person  can do it all.  Maybe it's time to make Tommy a partner in the new Guns or bring back Duff or Izzy as partners.   

Coldplay didn't get any negative venom in the press and aren't polarizing like Axl either. The headlines are VERY misleading when it comes to GNR.

so if my honesty rubs u the wrong way, I'm not apologizing for it. Being accused of plagiarism is the worst thing u can be accused of.

people don't care about the truth, they see the headline and that is what they will believe.

I agree with you. Plagiarism isn't the worst thing you can be accused it. But it certainly would help if GNR had a high output of material and performances to offset something like this.

Well that stinks. :P  And not that I think it will EVER happen...I might pick-up another copy. :)

IRVIN mentioned counterclaims ... if this happens to higher GNR is going to go against these people yet

Is this story getting huge exposure though?  I mean, is anyone talking about this outside of the hardcore fanbase?  I realize Rolling Stone, Billboard, and other media outlets have written about it, but I just don't think it's getting or will get anywhere near the exposure that Coldplay got.  For a multitude of reasons.  For this, I think people are overreacting a trite.  We all make any bit of GNR news out to be bigger than it is.  Is the rest of the music world even taking notice of this?  Not that I can tell, we're the only ones talking about it.

Guns N' Roses Sued for Plagiarism

(http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/1331/axlrose200112008.jpg) (http://img59.imageshack.us/i/axlrose200112008.jpg/)

It looks like Axl Rose and Coldplay's Chris Martin have something in common. Guns N' Roses are being sued for song theft by two independent record labels that represent German electronic artist Ulrich Schnauss. UK label Independiente and the US arm of Domino Recording Company -- the companies that hold the licensing rights to Schnauss' songs -- are seeking $1 million, according to details of the suit released Monday.

Schnauss' labels allege that portions of his tracks 'Wherever You Are' and 'A Strangely Isolated Place' were sampled without permission and used on the track 'Riad N' the Bedouins,' one of the songs on the 2008 release 'Chinese Democracy,' the Axl Rose-fronted outfit's first album of new original material in 17 years. Aside from Rose, the suit names guitarist Brian Carroll (aka Buckethead), bassist Tommy Stinson and guitarist Robin Finck, as well as GNR's record company, Interscope-Geffen.

While there has yet to be a response from Axl's camp on the suit, the band is reportedly gearing up for a busy December, with tour dates slated for enormous venues in Asian locales like Taipei, Seoul, Osaka and Tokyo. A formal confirmation of these dates is expected shortly.

http://www.spinner.com/2009/10/06/guns-n-roses-sued-for-plagiarism/

Don't know dude, I don't have a direct line of communication to the billions of people in the world.

hopefully it hasn't done too much damage but there really is no way to know the full scope. I just think the headlines are very irresponsible

Coldplay stole an entire song and melodies and didn't get this misleading of headlines.

Press always hated GNR... 80's, 90's, 2000, etc.

Not sure how to quantify the hot topics but there's no sign of anything GNR related on the top 40 google trends.  And I haven't heard them mention this on The Howard Stern Show yet.  They LOVE discussing these music plagiarism deals.  They were all over the Coldplay/Satriani thing,  Fergilicious/Supersonic.  And a few weeks back they played a Black Eyed Peas song that sounded like another lesser known song.  When they take notice of this, THEN I'll admit that it's getting mainstream attention.  But it's just not there yet, in my opinion.

Do you know why this hasn't and won't get as much pub as the Coldplay-Satriani situation?  Because that was an issue of theft of a melody.  This is an issue of unauthorized sampling of ambient noise.  Not a melody or lyrics or a distinct guitar riff, but AMBIENT NOISE.  There is a big difference  Especially considering the noise has zero to do with the actual song itself.

Ali

It could also be argued the other way around, in that this was a direct lift of a song, or sound, or whatever.  The Coldplay/Satriani debate is one where melody lines are often devised through chord progressions, with some lending to its creation easier than others.  Such was the case with the Rolling Stones single "Anybody Seen My Baby," which was pointed out to Jagger that it was very similar to K.D Lang's "Constant Craving."  Having noted the similarities Rolling Stone credited Lang with a songwriting credit.  My bet is this is what happened with Coldplay/Satriani, as there was another dude from another band who claimed to have written something very similar to "Vida La Vida."

In this sense, a direct lift of a portion of a song is, in my opinion, worse than involuntary reproduction. 

Mind you, I'm not really sure what the difference between this and all the samples you hear in hip-hop and dance music.  Though I suspect those artists require permission from the original creator/writer.

And who ever said being found guilty of plagiarism is the worst fate for an artist is correct.  In the world of art, there is no greater crime.

All this being said, it's just a stupid little intro and not integral to the song's essence.  It's not like without it the song loses its identity.  Sounds like a cash grab to me; I suspect these German dudes being paid off, but for far less than the $1mil they're looking for.

Cheers,

Andrew

possible result for upcoming albums: reducing the synthesizer components!

Axl felt it was right to put all those stuff on the songs, and at points it fits well, but if exspecially the intros on riad and twat have been that needed at all? highly doubt that! and if "ambient noise"-samples are not even created by band members but 2nd hand persons (i'd analyze Arzoff said "production team" as not coming from the band members themselves) then it can get out of control little faster - as it seems to be proven in this case.

I'm sure he's thrilled to have your advice on how to conduct his business affairs.  : ok:

I cant believe the amount of bullshit I read here. When something positive comes up, people dont believe. When negative shit pops out, its like "thats it, the band is finished".

For me, there are some "fans" making it even worse than the media.


I think those intros are great. As a big Queen fan, Im used to it.

"The band believed when the record came out and still believes that there are no unauthorized samples on the track"
My final point on this is that this statement confirms no checking was done on the piece of music supplied. To believe something you have been told as opposed to knowing something (preferably in a legal format) are very different things.
I know what you are saying re the greater world of music and impossible to check, but if this was supplied by production then surely you would ask..where did this come from? If you wrote it please complete this document...if you got it from someone else who wrote it..get them to complete this document..ye know.
I dont think its impossible to check who has written everything thats on this album! when you look at the CD inlay in particular everything is very documented about its writers...more than on any inlay I have seen.

You should be used to the fact that everything gets twisted around with GN'R in the press.





Your "honesty" isn't exactly the positive D you claim to be.



So do some fans. Who should know better but don't want to.




Where does it say they didn't ask?




Some headlines about that:

Coldplay Sued By Joe Satriani For 'Viva La Vida' Melody (MTV), Joe Satriani sues Coldplay over 'Viva La Vida' (LA Times), Coldplay sued by Joe Satriani for copyright infringement (The Guardian), Joe Satriani claims Coldplay plagiarism was a 'dagger through my heart' (NME), Satriani claims Coldplay stole song (Chicago Tribune), Guitarist Sues Over 2008 Coldplay Hit (ABC News), Coldplay sued for plagiarism (ITV) ?


Pretty similar to GN'R's headlines. You're right, in GN'R's case, they use the same words to describe something minor...

But the point is. Do people dislike that band more nowadays? They still seem to sell out stadiums in the UK....




/jarmo

I hated Coldplay before and still hate them now, so my opinion has not changed due to their copyright case.

And GNR is not going to lose any fans over this case either.

the complaint is circulating as .pdf!
it appears they allready contacted Geffen on Feb 26, 2009 but without any reply by the defendants....

that is true but a few like gnr

I think that is because the positive things that pop up are few and far between and are never really pushed or backed up. Whenever there seems to be some sort of momentum it generally is never backed up with more positive momentum. The stop and go stuff has hindered all that.

For the most part, as many people have stated, the press generally gives Axl/GnR a bad rap. So whenever they smell blood they come out and start adding to the pile. If GNR could just be like every other band out there and rock the world with music, tours, interviews, etc for a cycle of time they can just thwart a lot of that bs.

I don't agree with that at all.  People will continue to demonize Axl for all the things that have happened in the past, especially for the demise of the old band, no matter what.  I recently read an interview with Vernon Reid from Living Color talking about "One In A Million" as if it happened recently when it happened 20 years ago.  Perhaps some of the BS can be halted with more regular activity, but I think Axl will forever be a whipping boy for the press so long as the new band exists and the old band is a distant memory.


Ali

Guns N' Roses: The NEW PLAGIARISTS

(http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/8273/6c5e39gunsnrosesp.jpg) (http://img127.imageshack.us/i/6c5e39gunsnrosesp.jpg/)

Plagiarism is fashionable. And it Just ask the likes of groups Coldplay, Amaral, Black Eyed Peas and a long list of artists caught red-handed with their hands in the dough. Today, it's up to shame an institution of rock: Guns N'Roses

Even the classic monsters in the history of music can rely on divine inspiration intermittent. Sooner or later, all the great composers of this planet will face the always desperate "blank sheet". However, while some opt for patience, effort, or resignation, others prefer not to waste time seeking enlightenment and lost his prying eyes posing in existing works.

Michael Jackson, MAN G, Oasis, Alejandro Sanz, Shakira and the Red Hot Chili Peppers are among the names belonging to the Black Legend of imitation. If the cases mentioned above could generate a discussion about the chances, that of Guns N 'Roses (or what remains of them), little or nothing to do with chance. Here is no question of interpretation, the fact is undisputed here.

http://musica.terra.es/articulo/guns-n-roses-6646.htm

pd. Sorry BY Translation..

pd1. AXL Face... Kick Ass !!

 :hihi:

I totally agree. I didnt mean to say that regular activitity would end all the negativity. I meant that it would simply curtail some of it. But we both agree that Axl will generally never get the benefit of the doubt from the media. But that might be a good thing because it probably fuels him....which in turn..helps create great music/lyrics

Guns N' Roses' manager fires back at plagiarism accusations

(http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5491/chinesedemocracy320.jpg) (http://img195.imageshack.us/i/chinesedemocracy320.jpg/)

Guns N' Roses' manager has fired back at allegations the band illegally borrowed music from an German electronic pop artist.

Axl Rose's band and Universal Music Group executives have been sued by bosses at two indie record labels, who have accused them of copying portions of songs by Ulrich Schnauss.

Record companies Independiente and Domino claim 'Raid N' The Bedouins', a track on Guns N' Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy, features illegal samples of Schnauss' 'Wherever You Are' and 'A Strangely Isolated Place'.

But music mogul Irving Azoff insists the band didn't knowingly use any samples.

A statement from the manager reads, "The band believed, when the record came out, and still believes that there are no unauthorised samples on the track. The snippets of ambient noise in question were provided by a member of the album?s production team who has assured us that these few seconds of sound were obtained legitimately.

"Artists these days can?t read the minds of those they collaborate with and therefore are unfortunately vulnerable to claims like this one. While the band resents the implication that they would ever use another artist?s work improperly and are assessing possible counterclaims, they are confident this situation will be satisfactorily resolved."

http://www.3news.co.nz/Guns-N-Roses-manager-fires-back-at-plagiarism-accusations/tabid/418/articleID/124427/cat/55/Default.aspx

yeah but most of those ColdPlay headlines weren't too bad. Satriani CLAIMS etc just seems like he said he said. With some of the GNR it is just stuff like "GNR Sued for Plagiarism" and that one above, GNR the new plagiarist.


I think it sucks that people are going to think GNR stole a song when what is on there is so insignificant, it is ridiculous.

but think about people in the world, they read a headline and automatically believe it to be true. I wasn't being "Negative" just pointing out why this is bad for GNR and how I wish they would move away from the entire CD era and start with something else just due to how much stuff has went wrong in this particular era.

As with anything, sensationalism, gossip and negativity sells.

It seems like the truth doesn't interest the masses.




/jarmo

anyone can remember since when Chinese Democracy is released? ??? 1 year and soon the guy is now saying "OMG ,they copied my song"  :rofl:


it's just fucking ridiculous ::)

Let's see how many times we'll have the same article posted by this guy.

As journalist, I would say it really doesn't. But still, it's up to the media to check the facts before publish it.

In this case, I think the Rolling Stone article was more accurate and didn't judge the band before hearing from them.

Ok, we appreciate all the news articles, but unless there's something new in them, please don't post more...

They're all the same, except some are in non-English.

Thanks.




/jarmo

Damn! GnR used some sounds in the intro to a song, that sounds like something a german artist used some years ago.. Hey, lets sue GnR for make music! Ive heard that kind of art has been made before...! and the colors on the album cover!

This whole thing is ridiculous... "Riad" is one of my favorite songs on CD and the intro is cool. That said- it's hardly an essential element of the song and Axl probably hums more interesting tunes while cleaning out his sock drawer. If it had been properly pointed out to him that the clip was protected and needed a license/release- I'm sure he would have applied for one OR scrapped it and come up with something cool on his own. Sorry- but you can't tell me that the same guy who dreamed up the masterpieces that are "November Rain", "Estranged" and "Prostitute" couldn't come with an alternate intro to "Riad". Hell... knowing Axl he probably has 35 different intros sitting in his studio vault!

IF GN'Rs at fault- it's only in its licensing review process and/or not getting to the bottom of this and settling with this guy before it went public...

Pagiarism.................definitely not a good look.

Your right Jarmo it's all those things, sensationalism, gossip and negativity which sells.

However, the problem is that perception is reality in most cases and I can't believe after having so many years to deliver the album that they could be so sloppy.

Great song by the way, easily my favourite song off the album!

So very true! And GNR have had to put up with it all along and I don't think it will ever go away. They like trying to provoke Axl and they always will. He is a guy that will stand up for what he believes And they just can't stand that. I wish there were more men out there like that!

what looks bad is didn't u guys say they left that out of the rockband version?

Almost could be seen as an admission of guilt........ so that could help the German dude in court.

While I personally think this is an obvious case, the only thing I would say against that particular argument is Madagascar. From everything I've heard GN'R went to great lengths to secure rights to the samples in that song and they're not in RB either.

That is a good point also.

I can't see them having to pay 1 million or anything

but I just don't like what it could do to their rep thanks to shady journalism.

Here's the thing; Is it shady journalism? Yeah. Is there something to it though? I think so. I'm not a lawyer, I don't know the in's and out's of all this shit. I don't know the first thing about electronic music, the machines that make those sounds or any of that. But I know this, those sounds are exactly the same.

If I were GNR, I'd make a case for that fact that this "case" makes up from less than a 10th of Riad N' The Bedouins. I'd release that fucking song to radio now as a single. Capitalize on it. Turn the negative into a positive. Have rock DJ's be like "Did you hear that? Those first 10 seconds are what GNR is being sued for.. now check it the REST of the tune... it's "Riad N' The Bedouins" from Chinese Democracy..."

 :beer:

this is absolutely retarded... i can't believe how ridiculous this plagiarism crap has gotten. yeah... one of the biggest bands in history need to steal from a nobody.

that makes perfect sense...  :confused:

It is very sad and unbelievable, yes. But the part that gets me is that it has to be true! The samples sound so similar it is crazy.

Russ, I think that might be a good idea. It would definitely regain momentum for the album and help Axl defend against this case.  Definitely turn things into a positive.

Sad and unbelievable, yes.  What's most unbelievable is that the part that was sampled is completely insignificant to the actual song.  The song itself is a pounding, beat-driven rocker with some killer, Led Zepp-esque vocals by Axl.

Ali

I love the phrase 'illegally borrowed' in the RS article. As in, 'I illegally borrowed your car'.

I doubt this will harm the band much, once people get past the headlines of 'GNR sued for plagiarism' and see that its actually about a few seconds of noise rather than lifting a melody.

what media is doing is really sick. i got like 100 google alerts from this subject. They only change the titles (they are becoming more aggresive and false with pass of the time), but the content is always the same. Assholes.

Dude HBK Please take note:

Now what is the fun in that?!? I want all 100 articles from Google Alerts! It's great to see so many different news articles.

With all of the different news in them?

yeah, no shit.  if axl delivered a homeless woman's baby on a streetcorner, the headline would be "axl cuts innocent child's umbilical chord."  everyone in the media and the entertainment world is in a giant conspiracy against him trying to make him look like a jerk when everyone who really knows him says he is one of the kindest and sweetest and most honest people they've ever known. 

the things that axl puts up with from punks in the press is a lot like the things i put up with from teachers and guidence counelsors and parents and shit.  whatever i do, they try and make me look bad.  kinda like some of the jerks on this forum who demonize axl and mock everything his fans say.

Promotion By Tour In ASIA...

 :hihi:

Of course! :hihi:


You're still here? Not everyone is anti-Axl and hate everything he does. I admit, a lof of the media is bias against him for his past -- but that doesn't mean everyone hates him. You're prespectives on the world vs. GNR is messed up. Every post I read of yours is "FUCK THEM! THEY HATE AXL. THEY HATE GNR. I LOVE HIM. HE DOES NO WRONG." Like I mean really -- do you honestly 100% believe that?

The 'Me vs. The World' mindset that you are in right now is completely off the charts and you look like a fool with all your posts being of the same nature. Like the Stephen Colbert thing -- it was a joke that he and his writers created to make a funny moment on the show. The audience laughed and got the joke. You on the hand basically took it personally and got extremely upset over it.

Relax...say it with me now. Relax. It will be okay.

Just chill out and let the good times roll. Good times are ahead for GNR (or so it seems...) with the tour coming up and stuff.    ...just better hope mommy lets you go ;)

so lemme get this straight... you agree that the media is in fact biased against axl.  but you don't think that should piss his fans off? 

wow... loyalty is in short supply these days.  no wonder axl hasn't toured.  i wouldn't want to play music for a bunch of ingrates.

There's being pissed off by bias and misinformation... and there's being a complete loon.
I guess I don't need to tell you which one we think you fall under.

Media will always be bias, and like I said -- especially because of Axl's past. But not EVERY SINGLE PERSON that is a member of the media hate Axl. I have read countless good articles about him (ex. visiting cancer center in 06/07..don't remember exactly). My point is there has been plenty of good press about Axl/GNR but there will always be haters out there.

Your point of view is that there is NEVER anything good about GNR out there. Every person hates GNR and thinks very lowly of them. Which in return, I believe, tells me that you have a 'Me vs. The World Thing' and judging by your previous posts -- it appears to me it is that time of your life in your teens. I went through it, everyone did. Just more noticeable on some than others.

GNR fans shouldn't be pissed, IMO, cause it has happened for so long -- they should be used to it  ::). Of course if a really untrue article comes out, there may be an exception.

As for loyalty, I honest believe that all the members of this board are loyal -- some more than others. Did you go see GNR on tour in 06-07? Did you travel to Las Vegas to see them from NYC? Loyal fans to me will go, at great lengths, to see their band anyway they can. I personally wouldn't go to Japan to see them, don't have the money nor time to do so. However I did go to Vegas in 06 for a 'long long' weekend to see them and had the time of my life.

Fans like you ruin it for others, and give the GNR fans a terrible image. Now I don't know if you post other places (really hope you don't) but if you were to go to a Metallica form, Bon Jovi forum, etc. and read a post on GNR where they bash a little bit -- you would go apeshit. The stereotypical GNR fan on many forums I visit -- is you. You can't handle when people talk badly about GNR/Axl and you freak out and cause a stir. When in reality, most fans aren't as anal as you and can take the bumps and bruises that are thrown at Axl/GNR.

It isn't the end of the world when a few 'bad' articles are posted on GNR/Axl. Keeps them in the news and stirs up interest in them again. Like many have said before me -- there is no bad press. Gets the name out there and gets thoughts going about the topic again, which in this case is GNR/Axl.

 :beer:

wow... don't forget, jarmo clearly posted rules about calling each other names. 

okay, you disagree with me on whether or not it's cool for the press to pick on axl.  you like it, i don't.  okay... but you and others have gone on to call me a loon and compare me to a murderer.  i can't believe this is allowed.  it's bad enough that half the "fans" around here shit on the band.  now fans have to get shit on just for sticking up for their favorite band?

what's happening to this place?  a tour's about to start.

There is a difference between sticking up for your favorite band and being completely wacky about anything bad said about GNR.
You my friend, have fallen into the second test group.

As for calling each other names, you called me an ingrate a few posts above. I don't appreciate being called that. You also called me a jerk above, not very nice.

: ok:

You don't understand.  I don't like the negativity in the press.  A lot of the time I hate it because it's based on pure conjecture or the word of people who haven't spoken to him in years.  When I read reviews of the show and album in which they'd already decided on a poor verdict before they'd even seen/heard it, it annoys me.  When I see coverage of things like this with headlines clearly insinuating that they are guilty, it annoys the shit out of me.

You know what also annoys me?  On other forums, Guns N' Roses fans are a joke... I've been ridiculed for defending Axl with logic around the internet countless times.  And you know why?  It's because of people like you who over-react to every little thing, and act like Axl is an infallible God.  You've even gone so far as to call other current bandmembers disloyal before now for simply playing a gig.  And you paint everybody who attempt to think about things with less obsessiveness as people who hate Axl.  We don't!  We just don't think he's infallible!  And I'm pretty sure neither does he!  So please, just chill out.  Loyalty is not measured by how many people you claim to hate for what you perceive to be doing wrong.

Exactly what I said! Thanks to you, among others fallungong, you've ruined our image! :rant:

Enough with the off topic posts.

I hate you all.

Thank you.




/jarmo



PS Just playing along with the supposed "image" I have...

The media allways try to f*ck Axl, I hope that Axl doesn't let the media f*ck him, this lawsuit is for a sound, and they said that GNR stole some songs!! They are crazy. The only thing that media wants is put some shit on Axl.

Go Axl! Do the asian shows and f*ck the press again.  :beer:

AXL should be concentrated for days writing a statement and the whole breadth of losers will have to get their articles by the ASS...

 :hihi: :rofl: :hihi:

From the alleged "complaint"... >:(

C. That Defendants be required to deliver up to be impounded during the pendency of this action all infringing phonorecords and other infringing material in their possession and/or under their control and to deliver up for destruction all infringing copies and plates, molds, matrices, masters, tapes, film negatives, or other articles by means of which such infringing copies or phonographs may be produced;

Without any intension of stirring anything up so dont reply but who else  has read the last few post and just thought to themselves get a life, i dont know whats worse having to read the same old bashing  again or having to post myself in reply

I don't know if I'm included, I am in the last few posts, but I'm not bashing anyone.  Well, maybe the plaintiffs...a little.

Hopefully the statement that appears in the official page of GNR ...

thanks

At least there's some actual news to talk about.

Is vigorusly contest instead of vigorulsy deny a legal type thing the manager is saying? I have a feeling it will be "settled out of court" with GNR paying them money-could Guns sue who brought the sample in? Maybe this was covered, sorry-I'm still surprised there aren't more lawsuits from this album from people who claimed snippets or ideas were theirs-there were so many people working on this album

well I think he meant to say if you are here you should know the news that claims gnr nicked other's songs is misleading and untrue. 

While I don't think "GNR" lifted the "ambient noises" I wouldn't go as far as saying it's not true because someone in production might have lifted it. The court will have to decide, although the case seems trivial from what I've read and probably will be thrown out. Keeping fingers crossed.

I find it interesting that someone in "production" is providing ambient noises. Those ambient noise are VERY easy to create on any synth, so I'm surprised they didn't just do it themselves, and by "they" I'm not referring to some 20-year old in production, I'm referring to Chris or Axl. Seems very odd.

AC

Yeah it's kinds strange but that's what the press release insinuated. I'd think that if you spent all this time on CD then you might check it better when you sign off, but we on the board don't have the inside information about the intimate details of creating CD.

Jeez, sometimes blind adoration of our idols can cause us to say some absolutely idiotic things. Before I ever opened this thread I figured there would be more than a few 'omg that german guy is a money grabbing asshole Axl would NEVER do anything that isn't 100% original!omg wtf!'.

This isn't about some ambulance chaser trying to get some free money. This about getting paid for your work. Anyone here that has ever recorded and released a piece of music is lying if they said they wouldn't feel sleighted if a sample of what you did appeared on a much bigger release by a bigger band and you didn't give permission or get paid for it. To look at it from a different angle, what if somone sampled a bit of ambient noise created by Chris Pitman from a GnR recording and used it without permission? You'd be screaming for their blood. Don't be hypocrites, fair use is fair use. If it turns out that they did in fact use samples of this guys work I'd have no problem saying 'yeah they need to pay the guy.'

But we weren't there, and we have no idea what went down. Maybe this guys lawyer misfiled the paper work GnR sent, maybe they did steal it....maybe they used it figuring 'it's just a few seconds we shouldn't have to clear this', maybe another engineer put it together. It is entirely possible that it went on to a sample cd or a hard drive years ago and they forgot where it came from. Who the fuck knows, there are a million possible reasons for what happened. But the professional, morally right thing to do is to pay people for their work. To my ears it sounds an awful lot like they used some of this guys work.

Oh well then that settles that.  If it sounds an awful lot alike to your ears than GNR must be guilty.  ::)

And the flip side is also true.  Some people will just assume GNR is guilty just because they're GNR and maybe, just maybe, that's what these people are hoping.



Pot say hello to kettle.

no, sorry.  you're wrong.  if i was ever talented enough to record a piece of music that axl rose liked enough to include on his masterpice, then i'd be thankful for the honor.  i wouldn't be a bitchy, whiny little punk about a few seconds of ambience.  if you can even call it that.

the professional, morally right thing to do is have respect and reverence for artists that paved the way for you.

Right.

'Oh thank you Axl for stealing from me, please sir, fuck me in the ass some more!'

If you think I am wrong then you are pretty fucking dumb. I suppose if it were the other way around then Axl should be honored that someone were to use his music, too? Last I checked copyright law still applies to Axl Rose. You want to use a piece of a copywritten work in your music? You have to pay. It's pretty fucking simple. I suppose the estate of Martin Luther King should have been happy being honored by such a wonderful dynamic modern day performer? I mean what the fuck did he ever do besides talk on some steps?

Your argument is about as thoughtless and ignorant as they come. Sorry.

Believe it or not, to some people being on CD is of no consequence to them and they couldn't give a shit...they probably just don't like being stolen from. Imagine that.

 anyone who listens to those and tries to say they aren't the exact same need to go get hearing aids or just give up listening to music all together.

Did Axl intentionally do this? Of Course not

but to say these don't sound alike make u look dumber than Vanilla Ice when he tried to say he didn't sample Under Pressure.

So if someone stole your music and made millions on it u wouldn't care?

Maybe the dumbest statement I ever heard.

myth:  axl made millions off 10 seconds of ambient noise. 

truth:  axl made millions off his own amazing compositions and hard work.

ulrich shit should be happy anyone knows his name.  i'll bet he's made quite a pretty penny by dragging axl's name through the  mud in yet another frivilous lawsuit.  it's not like ulrich shit wrote the whole song or the lyrics or the melodies or anything important at all.  to me, it's like he supplied a paintbrush that axl used to paint a masterpiece.  how much was the brush worth?  not a million bucks.  maybe 50 cents if he's lucky!

Maybe the dumbest statement I ever heard.



Fixed it.

How did this Ulrich guy make money? Do you really think people will buy his albums just because GN'R might have used a sample of 'em? Or because they compared the intros on youtube?

 :hihi: :hihi:


It's true, this piece of shit don't made millions, it's only a ornament

Guys...

There is really no excuse for sampling music and not clearing the samples.
Don't try to pretend that because it's a famous band it doesn't apply.

If tomorrow U2 samples some GnR and doesn't clear the samples you would totally go "OMG FUCK BONO !!!11!!"

If it's a only music that means nothing in the song, I will not say "Fuck Bono".

This isn't the case of Vanilla Ice with Queen, this was plagiarism, and the piece of Queen give fame to Vanilla Ice with the riff of Under Presure

I think that it shouldn't be so difficult to be able to look at it in both ways.

Obviously there was something wrong when a part of a song was used in another one, but hey, as some people say, it's a little odd to come and demand 1 million dollars for some seconds of plain "sound".  It's exaggerated and everybody knows it.

But on the other hand, the fact remains the same, whether Guns knew about it or not, it was a mistake if it happened the way this guy claims.


So it's not necessary to think that just one of those two options is right. The best thing is to understand each one and get a genereal view of the situation, I don't think that either "ulrich should be glad to be in a GN'R record" or "GN'R made millions with it" are sensible statements.

Someone used a portion of someone elses music without permission. Obviously the 2nd party owes the first an apology and some money. It couldn't possibly be more simple.

To say otherwise is delusional.

Whoever earlier said that an artist should be thankful to have had there music taken without permission and with no financial recompense has serious issues. It's just fair that if someone admires your work enough to lift a portion that you pay enough respect to 1. ASK and 2. offer a financial reward. I have no doubt that Axl didnt do this deliberately though as I think he's a man with a lot of integrity.


My only question is that after 10 or so years of experimenting with sounds and electronica why didn't they have some really cool stuff of theyre own???

I can't believe we are still discussing this.   This synth crap is not an arrangement, nor does it add anything to the song...it is 'simulated environmental noise' which appears to be used to 'set a mood'.  Under this suit, It seems like anyone who plays guitar could sue GnR because their 'C' sounds exactly like GnR's 'C'.  Hell atari should sue this moron for stealing from space invaders.  If every combination of notes or keys could be 'owned' irrespective of the overall direction or arrangement of the song, then music is dead...some rich a-hole will just copywrite every possible keystroke, and cash in.  Of course, if this was a direct copy off a Schnaus CD, that is sick in a whole other direction.  I am still of the opinion that perhaps we could do without a lot of Chris' intro programming/synth work...and this distraction just reinforces my opinion...but that is only my opinion.
     

Does that make it right to take it without permission?? just cos you think it's not that great?? Obviously someone in GNR liked it. Hell Axl liked it enough to add to his most heartfelt album to date.

I don't think anybody is saying that.

But it appears like some of you think Axl personally listened to that guy's cd and copied the sounds. Or that the samples alone are the only reason why people bought the album and therefore "made millions".


To me it looks like a misunderstanding. It happens. We're all human.





/jarmo

Well said, I couldn't agree with you more.

so if i bought a waldorf synth cuz i love german synthesizer's and decide to use an ambient and a fx default patch in my music but someone that i dont know have used it before and released a record before me ;the guy had the right to sue me?
cuz for me thats exactly what happened here ...

No. This group released music....it got sampled and put onto an album that was apparently ' the most anticipated of all time' according to the nuthuggers and they expect some form of $$ for this......fair enough too. It is a creation THEY made and released.

This is basically a storm in a teacup though.


The 'fans' that blame the original musicians for asking to be recompensed for the music they made are massively out of line IMO.

Just because somebody thinks the German guy asking for millions for some ambient sounds is out of line, doesn't mean they're saying "stealing" is ok....

There's a difference.


And why are you even talking about this as GN'R took something without permission?




/jarmo

Can someone post the diferent rules between sampling and covering?

To me it seems this guy wants to get publicity, I would like to see the legal reasoning for this tho. :P

Sampling is just that - using a small piece of the original work as your own. Covering is usually the whole song, although not always. In both cases, the original artist should be credited. Also, typically a royalty fee is agreed on.

I don't think this is some guy who wants to get publicity. If he feels he wrote it, however ridiculous it may sound, then it's his work and he's entitled to complain about it. People might not think it's a big deal, but if you let small things like this (if in fact it was taken) get through, then you set a precedent.

 Also, the $1 million request isn't that absurb in that the band probably doesn't expect to get that, but you always want to start on the high end, so when it's reduced (or the other party asks for a reduction), then you don't take as much of a hit (in theory, anyway).

Exactly.

Like I said before, we weren't there. This could be anything from this guy's manager misfiling the paperwork to clear the sample, or someone in the GnR camp having these samples on a disc years ago that weren't documented properly. Who knows. But there is a precedent to be set, especially in the climate the record industry is in today. Whether you negotiate a flat rate buyout for use of the sample or you agree on a specific royalty per record sold, there is some sort of process in place to a) gain permission and b) properly compensate the artist in question.

Given the nature of the samples in question I'm leaning toward an oversight on the part of GnR's camp that will be easily solved by cutting the guy a check and saying 'hey sorry man....we fucked up, this should cover it.' It's only fair.

Two US Courts of Appeal have, in the space of nine weeks, confirmed two clear and concise rules for using samples without consent:

For musical compositions: when sampling another writer's song, the sample must be so short or insignificant that the average listener would not recognise the original composition from the sample taken; and

For sound recordings: irrespective of whether the sampled recording can be recognised in the new recording, get a licence from the owner of the original recording or do not sample it at all.
On 9 November 2004, the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals affirmed its own decision of last year in Newton v Diamond in the case brought by the jazz flautist James Newton against the Beastie Boys for infringing the copyright in his composition "Choir".
In 1992, the Beastie Boys obtained a licence from ECM Records to sample the recording of "Choir" for use in their own recording "Pass the Mic". The Beasties Boys did not, however, obtain a licence from Newton to use his composition embodied in the recording from which the sample was taken. Thus, while the band were entitled to use the 6-second sample of the sound recording which was looped throughout the new recording, Newton claimed that they should have obtained his consent to use the portion of his composition (consisting of three notes, C - D flat - C, sung over a background flute note) that was embodied in the sampled recording . The judge at first instance found that the sampled snippet of Newton's composition was too short (and therefore insufficiently "original") for copyright protection and that the extract from the song "Choir" embodied in the sample was too insignificant to constitute an infringement of the copyright in the original composition ("de minimis").

The Appeal Court agreed and confirmed the rule that use of a portion of a composition requires no licence if it is "so meagre and fragmentary that the average audience would not recognise the appropriation". The court further stated that this "reflects the general test of substantial similarity, which also looks to the response of the average audience". In other words, if the man on the street can "name that tune" (i.e. identify the composition in the sample) then a licence to use the sample (as a portion of the composition) must be obtained.

On 7 September 2004, the 6th Circuit US Court of Appeal in Bridgeport Music v Dimension Films reversed a first instance decision regarding the NWA song "100 Miles and Runnin", which contained a sample of a recording of a three-note guitar riff lasting 2 seconds from "Get Off Your Ass and Jam" by George Clinton and Funkadelic owned by Bridgeport. The Appeal Court found that this was an infringement of the copyright in the sound recording.

NWA had licensed their recording to Dimension Films for use in a film.  Dimension admitted that the offending sample was used in the NWA recording (looped for a total of 35 seconds).  However, Dimension argued successfully at first instance that the sampled portion of Bridgeport's recording was too short to constitute an infringement ("legally insubstantial").

The Appeal Court could not have disagreed more. Noting that there are currently 800 other cases yet to decide involving samples from recordings, the court recognised the need for a "bright-line rule" and did not hesitate in formulating one: all sound recording samples must be licensed and the concepts of "de minimis" or "substantial similarity" do not even enter the equation in relation to sound recordings. In support of this new hard-line approach, the court noted the "ease of enforcement" of such an absolute law and claimed that "the market" would create fair licence fees which would never be greater "than it would cost the person seeking the licence to just duplicate the sample in the course of making the new recording". However, the court also made the correctly observed assertion that "sampling is never accidental" and that when a producer samples a sound recording he knows he is "taking another's work product".

Notwithstanding the possibility that the US Supreme Court may review Bridgeport Music v Dimension Films (which may be untenable insofar as it appears to deny the globally accepted concept of "substantiality" in relation to copyright infringement) it seems that these two decisions have supported the old licensing-friendly position from Grand Upright v Warner [1991] but also extended it much further.

Though these are US judgments not directly applicable in the UK and while it may still be possible, if seriously risky, to sample a small portion of someone's composition without consent, the door to sampling even a tiny part of a sound recording appears to be, at least for the foreseeable future, more tightly shut and the most prudent advice is: get a licence or do not sample.

The full text of the Newton v Diamond judgment can be accessed via: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/.

The full text of the Bridgeport Music v Dimension Films judgment can be accessed via:
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0297p-06.pdf