The title sums it up really... Are there any plugins or developers who do not allow use for commercial sample pack design? All presets and samples would be completely original.

Well I'm sure there would be some kind of issue, with any synth that uses samples in it's processing chain. Such as Camel Audio Alchemy, where the samples have restrictions or similar.
As for non-sample based synths, with original presets only.
Many sample companies sell those. I mean NI samples it's own synths and sells them for their sampler.
You just can't sample presets. They must be your own sounds.
You can't sample anything with samples, that are not your own.
As you said, they would be all original, so should be no problem then.

It may be in bad taste to sample presets, but I'm not convinced that it's illegal to do so. That would be like saying that it's illegal to sample the single preset available on an acoustic piano.

Recordings are subject to copyright, sounds are not. There may be issues in redistributing presets as part of your own patch bank, but that's a different issue. There may also be issues of trademark with the names, I suppose, IANAL, I'm not sure. You should probably at least choose your own names.

But if it's generated via synthesis, you can't copyright the sound and redistributing a sample of that sound is NOT a distribution of the patch itself, which is the only work in this setting that is subject to copyright.

Has there ever been such a case?

...AFAIK you can't sample other parties presets and sell them. you have to make you own presets. I don't know what the situtation is regarding sample based synths - if it's allowed to sample your own presets you have made with these. (For instance, there are sample libraries made with sample-based synths like the M1, the D-50 or the Wavestation, which seem to be legit - Hollow Sun's Nostalgia comes to mind here)

But anyway, if it's allowed to sample & sell your own presets, there also would be a necessity to define what your own original preset would be - just changing the filter frequency of a factory preset could change the sound quite drastically, however it would have been just tweaking another parties preset.

And there should probably also a distinction between sample-based synths and samplers - I can't imagine that, e.g. Soniccouture, would allow sampling & selling presets that have been made with their synth sample libraries.

If it's a synth that doesn't use samples - I'd say, it's fine. However, to me it is not clear how wavetable synths should be treated, since wavetables again are samples.

And what about psysical modelling? AFAIK, modartt doesn't allow to sample Pianoteq for a commercial library even if you have made your own preset.

So I guess, there are a lot of different aspects to consider and it doesn't seem likely that you could establish some simple rules of thumb here...

Obviously, that's what I was talking about because of course sampling your own presets wouldn't raise an eyebrow. So again, based on what legal premise? Sounds are not copyrightable. A recording of a preset, is not the preset, nor is it a copy.

Do you have references to any cases on this?


You can't distribute other people's presets, but that's not the same as sampling the preset. Now, you may have agreed to abide by a license when you purchased the preset or the synth that contains the preset and that license may have language to the effect of "you can't sample our presets", but that's not a copyright issue and I'm not convinced that it would make for a compelling complaint because how are you going to prove that it's your preset? It may sound very much like your preset, but it's a sample, from a synthesizer.



This is a good example of a license restriction, it is NOT a copyright issue. You agree to the restriction when you purchase Pianoteq. Whether they could make it stick is an entirely different matter; most software venders are not eager to rigorously test shrink wrap agreements in court.

The advantage that pianoteq has is that their product is relatively unique, and it's a bit difficult to acquire or gain access to great pianos. So it may be fairly easy for them to prove that you violated their license. But, so what, I'm not sure how that would pan out because again, it's not a copyright issue.


How you go about it is more likely to affect the kind of support you get here at KVR, however, so you want to keep that in mind.

I think that you're on much thinner ground, for example, if you sample all of the factory presets from Diva and call it "Diva Factory Preset Monster Sample Library" than if you sample a bunch of Bass presets from a collection of plugins and call it "Monster Bass Collection Volume 1."

I'm not convinced that there are any copyright issues in either case, but the latter is much less likely to piss people off.

I don't have any references - I was just asking questions. I think there is problem in this area because of the difficulty to establish standards - by any party - e.g. the manufacturers, the sound designers, customers rights and the actual laws of the respective country, in which a legal matter should be solved.

So - as a theoretical example - the developer is setting up a licence agreement, which should prevent a misuse of his product, the sound designer may demand he wants his work to be treated or protected in this or that way, the customer might claim that all of this is not right because it's violating basic consumer rights and the jurisdiction might say "you guys are all wrong, because this is not the actual law". And they might return "yeah, but the law is no good for our situation here - so you have to change it!"

The point is that we have discussions like that on various issues all around the globe - e.g. the discussions about the legality of sharing and using films, music, software etc.

For instance - again, as far as I know - a sample developer can't tell a person living in Germany that he's not allowed to sell that sample cd as this forbidden in the licence agreement. To my knowledge german law argues like "the cd is the property of this person, so he is allowed to sell it no matter if it is a data medium for a product that has not been sold but licensed to that person". Or the copyright law in Sweden for example - from what I understood something like Pirate Bay was legal under their law back then. Or what about SOPA? Or the obections of the Pirate Parties against copyright laws? Or what about the currently ongoing discussion about Albino - whether Linplug may implement an Albino preset import into its new synth or Rob Papen has the right to prohibit that (if this is actually what he wants to do )?

So I admit, I have no expert knowledge on all this, but nevertheless a number of questions come to my mind on these issues. That's why I was asking them. Anyway, a lot of times I get the impression in these discussions that a majority of the participants argue in a way like "it's not exactly legal, at least not everywhere, but you can get away with it and it is not likely or it is very hard that party X or Y will drag you into court - so good luck with it!"

To make it clear (and to give a simple standpoint) - that's not how I see it or would act like that. I wouldn't sample anything that isn't my creation. Presets are the intellectual property of their respective author and if I'm not allowed to distribute them, I also cannot sample them and sell the sounds. Intellectual property is in fact the result of another person's work. It should be respected and not be used to make money from it without either the consent and/or financially compensating the author.
And I would check beforehand if it is allowed to use this or that equipment. If it is not, I wouldn't use it - and that's why no love for Pianoteq, for instance (I wouldn't want to create a multi-sampled piano - just one layer!). However, this is just a personal approach and doesn't solve these questions in general. But I'm very much interested in this discussion and I think if someone is able to solve this issue, he might be able to solve a whole bunch of copyright issues.

And to the OP - just have a look what you want to use and check the licence or ask the developer.

As I have already said, it may be in bad taste to do so, but your logic is not a legal argument at all.



Um, no. The whole point of copyright is a limited protection to encourage innovation and the public good. The reason not everything is protected, and what is is limited, is precisely to further the public good. The ability to copyright sounds would be stifling. Nobody could ever produce anything without licencing hundreds or thousands of sounds. Anyone with an academic paper knows that he cannot restrict others from making money from his ideas. There are lots of things that could be viewed as your "work" that are not subject to copyright protection, and for good reason.

Certainly plugin developers profit from the work of others when they make use of their intellectual work, e.g. papers on filter and oscillator models, in their designs. Certainly makers of libraries use the intellectual work of others when they, subconsciously or not, release a preset that is really just another variant of a basic voice that has been well understood since the minimoog. Or, more concretely, when they learn something about sound design from these forums and incorporate those ideas into their work.

None of these are examples where the author of the original intellectual work is owed anything directly for the use of his work. In the U.S., at least, what can be protected by the various intellectual property laws is limited for a reason. Namely, that it serves the public good more to limit protection for some things than to grant it.

I mean, I agree with your general sentiment and we should acknowledge the giant shoulders upon which our work stands; however, I feel that there is value to be proactive in helping to keep the line shiny and white in public forums such as these.

If it was not legit to sample presets, then you couldn't sample early drum machines like the TR-77. They are synths, with only one preset.



Again, I want to discourage this idea that we should always ask someone else for permission when there is no legal reason to do so.

...there are some things that really interest me. How could one argue that sampling another person's presets and selling them would be innovative and serve the public good? And if someone would want to exploit an idea or invention commercially would he really publish it as an academic paper? Or would he publish it as an academic paper because he wants the thing out there in public? Or is he obligated to publish it because he is a scientist paid by public money to serve the public good?

And of course developers profit from such papers on e.g. filter models etc. because they're meant to inspire development. There is a difference between articulating theoretic ideas or priciples and actual blueprints like there is between creating something after a certain idea or just copying something. It's true that nothing is created out of nowhere. A creative process is all about taking existing things and change certain aspects of them, putting them into a new context, looking at things differently or combining new and different things. Anyway, there is nothing wrong about doing all these things. In fact, you have to utilise these creative techniques as much as possible just to make it your own creation. Just changing one parameter of something existing might be problematic. Noone would forbid you to write something as unique as a song about falling in love (imagine that!), but try to do that with the exact same lyrics, chord progressions, melody and instrumentation of that famous xy-song. And this is not meant to discourage anyone, but to consider his own definition of being a creator of something. And having created something legitimates the exploitation of that certain item.

So, I find it questionable how sampling another person's preset would differ from sampling a portion from another track into you latest track? Or using a song in your movie? You are using another one's work and product to be part of your work. And I can't imagine that Fair Use would apply here, since doing so for a commercial product only serves one purpose: generating profit. You can't do that before at least asking (Whether or not there is a legal obligation. However, I think in these cases there is.)

Anyway, these are just assumptions and I don't have an expert knowledge, so I'd be interested to see actual examples...

If you buy a trained dog for protection, does the trainer retain rights to its growl?

I'd just like to express my frustration with the "laws" in the realm of music creation.
Laws in quotes, because in the vast majority of cases, there is no written law that plainly states a certain position. Every ruling in the world of audio creation (at least in america) is dealt with via interpretations and precedence.

This makes it incredibly hard for someone who is not a lawyer nor a legal consultant understand the current standing legal environment. It's also impossible to write a book or something similar explaining the laws and precedence because interpretations change from case to case depending on the judge and circumstance.


Is there really any foreseeable solution? Or will sampling and synths forever be shrouded in legal mystery.

Thanks for getting the discussion rolling guys!

Just to reiterate, I am intending on building libraries of my own presets and sampling/resampling them, not sampling the presets which came with the instruments...

Unique oscillators, wavetables and filters were the main things which I thought some companies may not wish to have sampled... I'm yet to hear of any, just curious =)