So, let’s see if I got it straight:

Is this is like your teeth getting credit for result of the successive transformations a sandwich you ate will suffer along the digestive system (by saliva, stomach acid, etc.) up until the final (logical) conclusion?

Nonsense and completely misleading.

Credits for KRS-One song (as you mentioned): L. PARKER, R. LAMAY, LOMAX, CHANDLER, BURDON

Credits for Inside Looking Out: J. Lomax, A. Lomax, Burdon, Chandler.

Notice Eric Burdon and Bryan James Chandler were credited in the KRS-One song (I have no idea why it wasn’t necessary to credit John Lomax, or maybe he was and the source I used just doesn’t list him) as well as Lomax.

Notice Alan Lomax is credited on Inside Looking Out.

Therefore it IS relevant to include the entire chain and not just the previous stop on the ride.

So we follow the chain:

Alan Lomax records a common folk song (and receives some questionable copyrights in the process).

Eric Bordun and Bryan Chandler use that melody as the basis for their song (and thus have to credit Lomax).

Grand Funk Licenses the song for a cover, adds a bit of their one material.

KRS-One samples the material Grand Funk added, but due to the retarded structure of “the rules” he doesn’t have to credit Grand Funk (at least not that I found). He does, however, have to credit Bordun and Chandler (who had nothing to do with the Grand Funk part) and by proxy Lomax (who had even less than nothing to do with the Grand Funk sample).

Jay-Z samples KRS-One*. The part sampled has nothing to do with the Grand Funk song. The Grand Funk sample had nothing to do with the original Animals tune. The Animals tune has questionable origins to the Alan Lomax tune (they could just as easily have argued that even if/though they heard the song via Lomax first, they adapted the source material just as he did**). And Lomax (or his estate) get paid why? That this even makes sense or seems logical to anyone would make me seriously question their sanity.

I in know way see this as FUD in any way shape or form.

*I was not able to find a list of credits for Takeover other than Jay-Z, so I don’t know who else had to be credited. KRS-One? Bordun and Chandler? The Doors for the sample of Five To One?

**Of course this would assume bands, especially back in the Animals time, had much control in the process. The labels most certainly would have fought such efforts to cut them out of their share of fees(which is really why these clauses are there in the first place).

@saulgoode – my understanding is that unless you create a new and original work from your recording of a Shakespeare play then no, you can’t claim co-authorship. But, you could copyright your documentary of a performance of the play, so that ayone using your film would need your permission, and any fee you care to negotiate, to use it.

My reading of this issue is that fingers are being pointed at the wrong people. Once the Lomaxes had established their copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office, any use of the copyrighted material subsequent to that would most likely have been handled by the music publisher (without researching, that might have been both/either Lomax, or a third party, or an entity within the record label or label group). The decision to assign a writing credit on the Animals’ record would have been based on a negotiation between their publisher and the publisher of “Rosie.” And so on, down the line.

Often, if only a sample is used, there is simply an acknowledment of that fact in the record credits (“XXX includes a sample from YYY by ZZZ” plus publishing and other details). However, if a large enough sample is used, or if a large chunk of a previous song is reproduced (in a new recording by the second artist) then there may be a decision — as a result of a negotiation between the original and new publishers — to assign a songwriting credit. An example would be “Bitter Sweet Symphony,” by the Verve. They originally licensed a short Rolling Stones sample, were deemed by the original publisher, Abkco, to have used too large a chunk, and were thus forced into giving over 100pc of the writing credit — by the publisher. Jagger and Richards were not involved, just as Lomax was likely not involved in those original, or subsequent, negotiations.

The claiming of the original copyright by A. & J. Lomax is indeed dubious, and much has been written on that subject, but once the copyright was filed the granting of the right to cover or sample that song would have followed standard music publishing industry procedure.

Blame the industry, and blame Congress for passing the laws that created this situation. A good portion of that blame also lies with Walt Disney, whose company has repeatedly lobbyed — successfully — for extensions to these rights, well after the deaths of the original rights holders. And you can be sure those company lobbyists were supported by significant numbers of lobbyists from plenty of big media companies…