>>6082521Okay, you're a little confused about copyright law but you have the spirit of it.
Sampling is technically almost entirely illegal depending on which ruling you look at. The landmark case that most people agree with is this case where n.w.a. just two seconds of a song and still lost their case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeport_Music,_Inc._v._Dimension_FilmsHowever, later on a case against Madonna said the opposite, where as long as the sample is pretty unrecognizable it's alright:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMG_Salsoul_v_CicconeWhat this guy did though obviously would not fall under any of these laws, but he's not actually ~entirely~ wrong. Technically, while Ame's voice is a sample on top of a sample (with the lyrics being written by Dr. Seuss and Hololive owning the recording), Holo bass actually *does* own the rights to his song. Just because you sample something does not automatically make it the property of the thing that you sampled, because it's just a constituent work, something that's part of a larger whole.
The sampled person can DMCA to get the song taken down, sue for damages, etc... even sue for ownership, but technically he does own the copyright for now, so he can sort of DMCA against her as well? At this point you start to get into grey areas that haven't been decided in the courts yet.
