Sampling and Beat Jacking

Hip-hop artists have traditionally employed a norms based approach to things like sampling, quoting, and the levels at which these are accepted.  For much of the 90s, imitation was considered flattery, and instances of hip-hop artists suing each other over copyrights were rare.  Then, hip-hop became popular, and popular music is largely owned by corporations. 

Hip-hop recognizes ‘biting’ as the appropriation of another’s lyrics and passing off such lyrics as their own.  Acceptable ways in which an artist may quote another artist are out of respect for another’s skill, and when an artist uses another’s lyrics as a springboard for their own creation. 

Beat jacking is the appropriation of another’s beat, the non-vocal equivalent of biting. Sampling is the borrowing of other beats and combining them into a new whole, and the appeal is in how it’s combined.  Sampling is among the highest form of flattery within the culture, but with caution.  If done without permission, it can lead to a lawsuit under copyright law.  

The case of Jarvis vs. A&M Records in 1993 was a landmark in the industry.  Boyd Jarvis’ song, “The Music’s Got Me,’ was sampled without authorization.  The defendant’s attorney argued that it contributed to fragmented literal similarity. The court rejected the argument on the basis that copying even small portions may diminish the original work.  Sampling penalties softened over the next 10 years and the hip-hop community became too comfortable with the law’s seemingly open policy.  Then In 2004, The Sixth Circuit made it clear that there is no exception for unauthorized copying of a sound recording without permission in the case of Bridgeport Music vs. Dimension Films. 

Obviously, these suits could have been avoided by clearing the samples before production.  In 2005, the Beastie Boys were sued over the use of a three bar sample. They won the case because they obtained a license from the record company for the use of the sound recording in question.