In the field of digital sampling, disk jockeys have shown a recent enthusiasm for ‘mash-ups’ — new compositions created by combining the rhythm tracks of one song and the vocal track of another. Most famously of all, DJ Danger Mouse remixed the vocals from Jay-Z's The Black Album and the Beatles' White Album and called his creation The Grey Album. The Grey Album poses a number of difficult issues regarding copyright law and digital sampling. Does such a ‘mash-up’ go beyond the de minimis use of a copyright work? Is The Grey Album protected by the defence of fair use under copyright law because it provides a transformative use of copyright works? Can such remixes by compulsorily licensed? Does a ‘mash-up’ raise issues concerning the moral rights of attribution and integrity, which are recognised in Europe and Australia?
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arts Law Centre of Australia2000, Push the Button: Music Seminar, Harbourside Brasserie, Sydney, 7 December.
2.
BentlyL.1989, ‘Sampling and Copyright: Is the Law on the Right Track?’, Journal of Business Law, pp. 113, 405.
3.
BentlyL.ShermanB.1992, ‘Cultures of Copying: Digital Sampling and Copyright Law’, Entertainment Law Review, vol. 3, no. 5, p. 158.
4.
BlessingD.2004, ‘Who Speaks Latin Anymore? Translating De Minimis Use For Application to Music Copyright Infringement and Sampling’, William and Mary Law Review, vol. 45, p. 2399.
BowreyK.2004, ‘The New, the Bad, the Hot, the Fad — Popular Music, Technology and the Culture of Freedom’, Annual Conference on New Directions in Copyright, AHRB Copyright Research Network, Birkbeck, University of London, 29–30 June.
7.
CarnachanR.1999, ‘Sampling and the Music Industry: A Discussion of the Implications of Copyright Law’, Te Mata Koi: Auckland University Law Review, vol. 8, no. 4, p. 1033.
8.
DaseyD.2003, ‘Judge Turns the Tables on DJs’, Sydney Morning Herald, 23 July.
JensenJ.C.2004, ‘The Grey Album and Misappropriation of Capitol Records, Inc's Sound Recordings’, CowanLiebowitzLatmanP.C., February, www.chillingeffects.org
16.
KaplicerB.2000, ‘Rap Music and De Minimis Copying: Applying the Ringgold and Sandoval Approach to Digital Samples’, Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 227.
17.
LessigLawrence2004, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity, Penguin Books, New York.
LitmanJessica2001, Digital Copyright, Prometheus Books, New York.
20.
McKennaT.2000, ‘Where Digital Music Technology and Law Collide: Contemporary Issues of Digital Sampling, Appropriation and Copyright Law’, The Journal of Information, Law, and Technology, vol. 1, http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt
21.
MoodyN.M.2004, ‘Album Mixing Jay-Z's Black Album with Beatles’ White Album an Unauthorized Hit’, Associated Press, 25 February.
22.
Negativland1995, Fair Use: The Story of the Letter U and the Number 2, Seeland, Concord.
23.
Negativland2003, ‘Two Relationships to a Cultural Domain’, Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 66, p. 239.
Reuters, 2004‘DJ Mixes Beatles, Jay-Z Into Grey’, CNN, 19 February.
27.
RimmerM.2001, ‘Napster: Infinite Digital Jukebox or Pirate Bazaar’, Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, no. 98, pp. 27–38.
28.
SainsburyMaree2003, Moral Rights and Their Application in Australia, Federation Press, Sydney.
29.
SanjekD.1992, ‘Don't Have to DJ No More: Sampling and the “Autonomous” Creator’, Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal, vol. 10, p. 607.
30.
ShachtmanN.2004, ‘Copyright Enters A Grey Area’, Wired News, 14 February.
31.
TerdimanD.2004, ‘Mashup Artists Face The Music’, Wired News, 4 May.
32.
VaidhyanathanSiva2004, The Anarchist in the Library: How Peer-to-Peer Networks are Transforming Politics, Culture, and the Control of Information, Basic Books, New York.
33.
VaidhyanathanS.2004, ‘Is Your Computer a Loaded Gun?’, Salon, 22 July.
34.
WerdeB.2004, ‘Defiant Downloads Rise from Underground’, The New York Times, 25 February.
35.
YoungA.2004, ‘Music Generations Collide on The Grey Album’, Sidelines Online, 4 March.
36.
A&M Records Inc v Napster Inc (2000) 114 F. Supp. 2d 896; and (2001) 239 F.3d 1004.
37.
Abilene Music, Inc v Sony Music Entertainment, Inc (2003) 320 F.Supp.2d 84.
38.
In re Aimster Copyright Litigation (2003) 334 F.3d 643.
39.
Bridgeport Music Inc v Dimension Films Inc. (2002) 230 F Supp 2nd 830; and (2004) 2004 FED App. 0297P (6th Cir.).
40.
Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music, Inc (1994) 127 L Ed 2d 500.
41.
Confetti Records v Warner Music (2003) EWCH 1274 (CH).
42.
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Ng, Tran and Le (unreported, 18 November 2003).
43.
Dastar Corporation v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (2003) No. 02.428.
44.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc v Grokster Ltd (2004) No. 03–55894.
45.
Morrison Leahy Music Limited v Lightbond Limited (unreported, Chancery Division, 21 March 1991).
46.
Newton v Diamond (2002) 204 F. Supp. 2d 1244.
47.
Schott Musik International GmbH & Co and Others v Colossal Records of Australia Pty Ltd and Others (1996) 36 IPR 267.
48.
Sony Corporation of America v University City Studios Inc (1984) 78 L Ed 2d 574.
49.
Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Miyamoto [2003] FCA 812 (18 July 2003); and [2004] FCA 982 (20 July 2004).
