Legal question relating to hardware convolutions inside instruments/effects
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 109 posts since 25 Jan, 2016
Hello,
I'd just like to clarify any legal do's and dont's when it comes including convolution based samples of hardware in your work.
I would gather from nebula products it's legal to use them but it's not legal to name them without approval? Is this correct?
Forgot so say, I own the items myself that are being used, if that makes any difference and they are files I created.
Cheers guys.
I'd just like to clarify any legal do's and dont's when it comes including convolution based samples of hardware in your work.
I would gather from nebula products it's legal to use them but it's not legal to name them without approval? Is this correct?
Forgot so say, I own the items myself that are being used, if that makes any difference and they are files I created.
Cheers guys.
- Beware the Quoth
- 33109 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
Two basic issues; basic digital media copyright, and trademarks. No different from any other sampling.
1) Any redistribution of anyone else's source material can only be done with permission. So if you're relying on taking an IR of someone else's convolution device or impulses, you're in the same position as sampling an existing recording. If its an analog, or entirely algorithimic, device, then there's no 'recording' copyright to infringe.
2) Dont use trademarked names without permission
1) Any redistribution of anyone else's source material can only be done with permission. So if you're relying on taking an IR of someone else's convolution device or impulses, you're in the same position as sampling an existing recording. If its an analog, or entirely algorithimic, device, then there's no 'recording' copyright to infringe.
2) Dont use trademarked names without permission
my other modular synth is a bugbrand
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 109 posts since 25 Jan, 2016
Yeah, I'm not re-distributing
Thanks for pointing that out. I was a little unsure on the naming as kontakt has a MPC-60/SP-1200 mode, I can't imagine akai/emu said, "oh yeah those are spot on" so I was a little confused, also some convolution reverbs do name hardware models but not manufactures, eg, model numbers like 480l
Thanks for pointing that out. I was a little unsure on the naming as kontakt has a MPC-60/SP-1200 mode, I can't imagine akai/emu said, "oh yeah those are spot on" so I was a little confused, also some convolution reverbs do name hardware models but not manufactures, eg, model numbers like 480l
- Beware the Quoth
- 33109 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
For private, personal use, you can basically do what the hell you want. As soon as you pass on anything derived from an existing recorded work, that's where copyright starts applying.HardSinc wrote:Yeah, I'm not re-distributing
When its a large company, I'd assume they either have permission, or their lawyers have checked and there's no applicable trademark.Thanks for pointing that out. I was a little unsure on the naming as kontakt has a MPC-60/SP-1200 mode, I can't imagine akai/emu said, "oh yeah those are spot on" so I was a little confused, also some convolution reverbs do name hardware models but not manufactures, eg, model numbers like 480l
my other modular synth is a bugbrand
-
Zaphod (giancarlo) Zaphod (giancarlo) https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=111268
- KVRAF
- 2595 posts since 23 Jun, 2006
It is something a lot of developers are doing in hidden form. It is very difficult to have a proof (in most of cases they are not exactly irs). Emulating a device is pretty common both in hardware and software world. Brand names should not be used.