From Kanye to Marvin Gaye, The Blurred Lines Between Sampling & Stealing Posted by Lucas Garrison on 08/21/13 | Filed under Opinion, Kanye West, Production Breakdown, Robin Thicke

Death, taxes, and hip-hop lawsuits over samples. Seriously, rappers being sued over unlicensed samples is a cornerstone of the industry. As much as I would love to live in a world where artists are free to take whatever they want and make it into something new, that just isn’t realistic. Granted if you use someone’s work, it only makes sense they get a cut, but there is a definite gray involved.

Take Kanye (who is no stranger to sampling controversy), who as we all know has a special talent for grabbing samples. Recently, his 2005 hit, “Gold Digger” was the center of a lawsuit. Yes now, in 2013, a song from 2005 is the center of controversy. Now we all know the Kanye produced cut is heavily based around Ray Charles’ “I Got A Woman”. That one is undeniable, but there is one in question. According to the children of David Pryor, “Gold Digger” features a sample of a song he wrote; Thunder & Lightning's 1974 cut "Bumpin' Bus Stop”. This lawsuit seems a little fishy to me for a few reasons. One, the sample in question (:12 second mark of “Bumpin' Bus Stop” and :32 second mark of “Gold Digger) is so minute (and altered) its hard to even tell if it is, in fact Thunder & Lightning's song. I think I have heard “Get Down” in about a thousand songs and the vocals are altered so who can actually say it is from "Bumpin' Bus Stop”? Also, considering it has been eight years and now they are just suing Kanye, it seems a little bit like, well, gold digging. I’m all for paying someone if you use their work, but it seems to me that rappers a quick targets for lawsuits given the nature and ambiguity of sampling.





While most of the time, it’s the artists getting sued, back in March, RZA was the one taking legal action. According to the Hollywood Reporter, RZA filed a lawsuit against JVC Kenwood Holdings, “a multinational company whose holdings include Teichiku Entertainment, which is said to be in the business of acquiring rights to musical sound recordings and compositions.” The copyright claim, based around RZA using Meiko Kaji's "Gincho Wataridori” on Kanye’s “Dark Fantasy” (produced by RZA), caused Def Jam to withhold $50,000 in royalties, and needless to say RZA would really like some of that money. Like “Gold Digger”, I just don’t hear it. Maybe I am biased towards my rappin’ buddies, but I don’t see how a similar sounds automatically means a sample. I listened to the piano on both and they are definitely similar, but its not as if Meiko Kaji has some groundbreaking, revolutionary sound; it was a simple piano-beat. RZA might have been inspired by the song, but the structure and arrangement is noticeably different. If you are going to accuse some one of illegilly using your work, I feel like the evidence has to be overwhelmingly obvious; if it is in the grey area, I don't think you can justify it.





Normally, if you sue the family of Marvin Gaye or Funkadelic, I am probably going to hate you but, like RZA, Robin Thicke has taken action against them both to protect a little song called “Blurred Lines” (you probably haven’t heard it though) and I can't blame him. Like the former two cases, I am again siding with the artist who has been accused of biting. Thicke has it extra tough; not only is he being accused of making a song that sounds “similar” to Gaye’s “Got To Give It Up” but the same accusation is being made around Funkadelic’s “Sexy Ways”.

Again, they sound similar, well “Got To Give It Up” does - “Sexy Ways sounds nothing like “Blurred Lines” so I don’t know what that is about - but I would hardly call it a bite. Granted, the similarities between “Blurred Lines” and “Got To Give It Up” are more obvious than the former two discussed, but their isn’t part that makes me say that he stole it. “Got To Give It Up” is funky as shit, and so is “Blurred Lines”, but just because they have the same vibe, that doesn’t mean Gaye’s family is somehow now entitled to a cut. Do they pay royalties to the musicians that inspired Marvin Gaye? It is nearly impossible to make a song that doesn’t resemble something someone else made already, and just because two songs have a similar vibe or one reminds you of the other doesn’t mean they “bit” it. Great music inspires and influences other musicians styles, but unless they take something directly, making a similar song, doesn’t constitute stealing in my book.

Oh and if you are curious, you can read the lawsuit here; I have to admit its funny seeing “Sexy Ways” written in a legal document







Considering we have been recording music since the 19th century, I’d say its damn near impossible to make a song that doesn’t sound like something else; it is almost impossible to be 100% original nowadays. Besides, since when did making a similar song mean that the original artist is now, somehow entitled to a cut? Does every rock band have to give royalties to Bill Haley' because his “Rock Around The Clock” was the first rock song to achieve success? It seems like this kind of thing happens in hip-hop a lot more because it is an art largely based on sampling in turning one song into something else.

I don’t want to sound like a blind supporter of sampling—if you use something and don’t give credit that’s plagiarism—but great music has always inspired future generations and if you put a price on that, it doesn’t do anyone any favors.

UPDATE: MARVIN GAYE’S FAMILY REJECTS ROBIN THICKE’S SETTLEMENT OFFER

See Also:  Who’s the Best Sample Producer in Hip-Hop History?
See Also:  Meet The Most Unclearable Samples All-Star Squad