All that talk about covers and samplings made me wonder: can ANYONE just outright make a cover song? I thought that the cover/sampling artist had to first ask the original owner/writer of the song and sign some sort of contract giving royalties, or at least pay a large, flat fee, to the original owner/writer of the song (or else face a big, fat lawsuit from them - like Vanilla Ice with David Bowie and Queen). So this would mean that Puff Daddy, Brittney Spears, Jessica Simpson, Marilyn Manson, Sixpence Nonethericher, Orgy, Smash Mouth, Sublime, Sugar Ray - ALL had to pay the original artists in order for them to cover their songs (and take some liberties with them along the way). Isn't this the way it works in the music industry? Or do the original artists get jipped? I just thought that all the ranting and raving about how blatantly bad today's covers and samplings were - it would make one think that today's artists are committing art-theft. Now, if the original artists were not compensated (as in SoHo's sampling of "How Soon Is Now?" by The Smiths), then I would answer: "yes, THIS is art-theft." BUT if the original artists were compensated by way of royalties or a flat fee/large amount of money, then I would say: "hell no!" If music fans today are angry at bad covers and put down these artists for doing them, then you also have to blame the original artists as well (they sometimes even work on it together - remember Sting and Puff Daddy?).

This argument pretty much comes from the fact that Enrique Iglesias covered Yaz's song "Only You." Usually, I would not put down an artist/singer - it's just bad karma going around hating this, hating that, but I have to make an exception: I HATE ENRIQUE IGLESIAS AND HIS HORRIBLE COVER SONG OF "ONLY YOU." What could possess this nonsinger, unartist, to think he could sing this song? What about Vince Clarke? I bet he got paid well by the son of Julio Iglesias...

Artists don't need the permission of the original songwriter to cover a song. They just need to pay the songwriter royalties. When it comes to taking a sample from an actual recording however, the artist does need to get permission as well as pay royalties.

There have been a few cases where legal action has been taken by artists who have disapproved of their work being sampled. There was an early Beastie Boys song that contained a sample from AC/DC's "Back in Black", which AC/DC didn't approve of. As a result, the song had to be taken off the market, and I believe it's now impossible to find that Beastie Boys song anywhere.

: Artists don't need the permission of the
: original songwriter to cover a song. They
: just need to pay the songwriter royalties.
: When it comes to taking a sample from an
: actual recording however, the artist does
: need to get permission as well as pay
: royalties.

: There have been a few cases where legal action
: has been taken by artists who have
: disapproved of their work being sampled.
: There was an early Beastie Boys song that
: contained a sample from AC/DC's "Back
: in Black", which AC/DC didn't approve
: of. As a result, the song had to be taken
: off the market, and I believe it's now
: impossible to find that Beastie Boys song
: anywhere.

So, basically, ANYONE can do a cover song/sample even if the artist does not agree with the idea.

I guess I'm thinking of "Weird" Al's hilarious, parody/ cover of "Gangsta's Paradise" by Coolio (boy, was he ever pissed...) and of SoHo's horrible rip-off of The Smiths's guitar riffs from "How Soon Is Now?" (in which The Smiths lost the court battle).

: I guess I'm thinking of "Weird" Al's
: hilarious, parody/ cover of "Gangsta's
: Paradise" by Coolio (boy, was he ever
: pissed...)

If he's pissed, then that is a perfect example of a double standard since Coolio's song itself borrows liberally from Stevie Wonder's classic "Pasttime Paradise"

: I guess I'm thinking of "Weird" Al's
: hilarious, parody/ cover of "Gangsta's
: Paradise" by Coolio (boy, was he ever
: pissed...)

It's my guess that what saved "Weird" Al was that he DID ask permission, and when teh record company people screwed up and gave Al the wrong answer, he was able to prove it. He also wrote a letter to Coolio apologizing, and (of course) sent along the royalties.

I bet SOMEONE at the record company lost his/her job!

: SoHo's horrible rip-off of
: The Smiths's guitar riffs from "How
: Soon Is Now?" (in which The Smiths lost
: the court battle).

Did the Smiths really lose their case against their work being sampled? I didn't think that was possible. I've never heard the SoHo song, but the riff from "How Soon is Now" is pretty famous, so I can imagine how it sounds. I always thought that the original artist's permission was absolutely necessary for a sample to be legal.

I will more than likely get crap for saying this, but I actually like the SoHo song. And I am a huge Smith's fan!!!

: Did the Smiths really lose their case against
: their work being sampled? I didn't think
: that was possible. I've never heard the SoHo
: song, but the riff from "How Soon is
: Now" is pretty famous, so I can imagine
: how it sounds. I always thought that the
: original artist's permission was absolutely
: necessary for a sample to be legal.

: Did the Smiths really lose their case against
: their work being sampled? I didn't think
: that was possible. I've never heard the SoHo
: song, but the riff from "How Soon is
: Now" is pretty famous, so I can imagine
: how it sounds. I always thought that the
: original artist's permission was absolutely
: necessary for a sample to be legal.

Oh yeah, this was a while ago. I read it in the newspapers and in some The Smiths/Morrissey's websites/fansites. I don't like to advertise for artists I do not like, but the song that SoHo did was called "Hippie Chick" and used the renown guitar sound throughout. As far as I know, The Smiths were never asked or compensated for this, but I have not read any follow ups to that case since I first read it in the papers years ago...