I am currently building a softsynth based on one of my 'hero' synths from yesteryear. Has anybody had any experience of problems that you may run into with the copyright of the origonal manufacturers (they are still trading).
atb
Ian Webster

that seems to be a non-issue as far as "classic" stuff goes , like roland never sued jomox over the 909 clones etc etc.

unless you re planning on making zillions of dollars with your softsynth i wouldn t worry too much!

I'm currently in the same situation (making a clone), and assuming you're fairly safe if the synth is out of production and you don't use any trademarks. I might wager that this extends to GUI based on hardware design/graphics that are "intended to mislead"...

- m

hey ... thats at least 3 of us in this boat then ... ive preferred to go down the 'inspired by' route rather than go for a straight emulation though ... avoids all kinds of potential problems as far as i can see ... just look at refx and all that nexus bollocks ...

... cheers rob

That's really wrong info guys. Companies like Roland, Korg and Yamaha are very protective about their designs, names, likenesses and especially source samples.

Check the old Nexus threads here or talk to Mike @ ReFX for proof of how serious they can get.

There is a lot of behind the scenes lawsuits and licensing settlements that have happened that are not public knowledge.

I wouldn't risk it if I were you.

spectrum
(aka:EP from Spectrasonics)

If you're not using any kind of samples I'd think you were ok, I think that was Nexus' big problem as they wanted to include the original Wavestation samples as well as have it import sysex from the original. If you were creating a 3 oscilator synth that resembled a Minimoog with the same basic architecture and a similar GUI, I seriously doubt you'd run into problems as long as you avoided stealing anyone's logos or anything. So if you guys are doing analogs then you should be fine.

so eric ...

wheres the line between [for arguments sake ... not that this applies to me ] producing a yamaha tg33 clone / emulator and building a 'generic' 4 osc [2 waveplayer / 2 fm] vector synth that might have been inspired by the yamaha [especially if no gui elements or sound sources are 'borrowed' from the real machine]

... or even the difference between a 303 clone and something like tau ...

horrible grey area ...

... cheers rob

If you're not using the TG-33's waveforms nor the FM configuration that Yamaha does there should not be a problem in your case. It's when you literally clone hardware and use the name that thing get bad.

They own the name, they own the design, they own the samples.

You can be inspired but you're not duplicating to a degree that should be a threat to Yamaha. But it doesn't hurt to investigate. Roland is very aggressive in copyright issues in the U.S. It also depends on laws in various countries.

eXpeRIMentFOUR wrote:

... or even the difference between a 303 clone and something like tau ... horrible grey area ...

Tau doesn't resemble glorious 303 nor in design nor in sound IMHO
ReBirth does

What x_bruce said is right. But check with an intellectual property attorney to be sure.

The further it is away from a clone, the better.

spectrum

The soft synths included with Creamware Pulsar/Scope gear include "U-Know 007" which is a Juno clone, and also a Minimoog clone. In both cases the UIs look (almost) exactly like the original hardware. They sound pretty good too. AFAIK Creamware hasn't credited Roland or Moog. There's no trademark messages in the docs, etc, and the hardware manufacturers' logos don't appear on the UIs.

Maybe they just use the same lawyers as microsoft

sublogic wrote:

Maybe they just use the same lawyers as microsoft

I take your point about 'inspired by' guys but unfortunately the synth I'm 'cloning' had a particular type of control surface (struggling not to give too much away here !!) that I have managed to replicate and I guess that that makes it a bit trickier.
Interestingly enough when I spoke to the company, in general terms, about the keyboard they were at pains to point out that they don't support it any more.
I think I will try to adopt the Pro-52 route where the look and feel is similar and avoid using any specific terms or control names.. Or again I could always show the finished item to the company and see what they made of it.. I can understand that at the price I'm thinking of selling it I don't want to get snagged up with lisencing deals, way too expensive..
Thanks for the input
Ian Webster

Don't show them anything.
You know nothing.

"What? Oh, huh...? Yeah, that's funny, it does kind of work the same way... Hey, you want a copy?"

Yeah I'd not show them anything either, as you may hear from their lawyers before you even get a chance to release the thing. Remember you're just making a synth, no big deal.

ianweb123, look and feel is fairly subjective. Change a color or two, make sure not to use signature graphic or emblem kind of things.

You'd have to be doing something very close to circuitry to get in trouble on a non sample based synth. The reason Roland can't touch all the 303 clones has more to do with the way these clones get to the sound.

Programs can be decompiled. They would have to prove you used some kind of routines specific to Roland. In the 303's case this is highly unlikely. Later day synths like the JP8000 are software based but again Roland would have to prove you stole their design or software.

Unless you are shady, and not saying you are, it's moot. They can nail you on appearance - possibly and they will nail you if you were dumb enough to put their name on it, maybe even the exact name of the synth, but that's about it.

When you record their samples you've crossed the line here in the states. It varies throughout the world but in general the rule of thumb besides getting a intellectual properties lawyer is staying away from anything other than clever, original designs based on the ideas these synthesizers are identified with.

Wouldn't you then be able to sue Roland's ass off for breach of the DMCA ? Imagine their execs being arrested by the FBI just like they did to that russian guy?

x_bruce wrote:

Programs can be decompiled. They would have to prove you used some kind of routines specific to Roland. In the 303's case this is highly unlikely. Later day synths like the JP8000 are software based but again Roland would have to prove you stole their design or software.