GNR sued for plagiarism

[D]

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.

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.

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

Maybe the dumbest statement I ever heard.

[falungong69]

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!

[Fernando]

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

Maybe the dumbest statement I ever heard.



Fixed it.

[suicide]

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.

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?

[axljungle]

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

Maybe the dumbest statement I ever heard.



Fixed it.

 


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

[The Glow Inc.]

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!!"

[axljungle]

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

[Anywaythewindblows]

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.

[carmiedisco12]

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???

[IKnowWhereIAM]

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.
     

[carmiedisco12]

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.

[jarmo]

Does that make it right to take it without permission??

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

[Albert S Miller]

Does that make it right to take it without permission??

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.

[imsorry]

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 ...

[carmiedisco12]

Does that make it right to take it without permission??

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.





The previous poster and a few others have basically said as much.

IMO there is no doubt that this is accidental, there is no logical reason why GNR would rip off a segment of basically ambient music when they are talented enough to do a piece themselves.

Unfortunately the nutbags on the extreme hate/love sides take over. IMO the extreme 'fans' are the scarier by quite a long way though.





/jarmo

[carmiedisco12]

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.

[carmiedisco12]

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.

[jarmo]

The previous poster and a few others have basically said as much.

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

[norway]

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.

[NaturalLight]

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.

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).