Well, I'm not so sure about that one. If we consider patches synthesizer "recipes" that are not protected by the law, I don't see how it affects samples which are short audio recordings that have been consistently protected in court. In other words, patches and samples are two unrelated things.ghettosynth wrote:Note, such a case might poke a hole in the bright line sampling rule.
Sure, no problem.ghettosynth wrote: BTW: Thanks again Frantz for posting details from elsewhere.
Yes, obviously they are two different things. However, we can't forget that the existing bright line rule was, in essence, an expression of annoyance, i.e., this is not the court's problem, it's simple, get a license. That said, few cases have dealt with limited originality in samples used outside of music works. I'm not saying that there's an obvious path, I'm saying that there's potential for a similar short-sighted ruling that simplifies things for the courts.Frantz wrote:Well, I'm not so sure about that one. If we consider patches synthesizer "recipes" that are not protected by the law, I don't see how it affects samples which are short audio recordings that have been consistently protected in court. In other words, patches and samples are two unrelated things.ghettosynth wrote:Note, such a case might poke a hole in the bright line sampling rule.
It came up in another thread which was about a different topic ...dnekm wrote:Why is this even a question?
To avoid confusion, I am talking about the topic, not the post that preceded mine....
It's a reasonable question about the nature of copyright and presets. The only thing bad about it is the formulation of the question. It presumes what it's asking. The question really should be something along the lines of "To what extent are presets copyrightable?"dnekm wrote:Why is this even a question?
To avoid confusion, I am talking about the topic, not the post that preceded mine....
This is actually a pretty decent point. However, if the company built the synth, I think they should have propriety over whether or not their synth preset is copyright protected. Although, then you could say that Gibson or Fender built their guitars, then why can't they copyright the sound? It does seem to dip into some pretty grey, murky water here. Everyone is benefiting from the accumulation of knowledge built up over time. So did a synth company just build something out of thin air from pure genius? No, they relied on past knowledge and learned skills to get them where there are. So we all are "copying" someone at least to some degree. Should Bill Gates or his programmers have copyright claims to a synth built in a Windows based code? To me, however, it's about intellectual honest. Would you really feel good about tweaking a preset a little bit and selling it as your own? There are virtually infinite number of possibilities with any given synth, so just come up with something original. At least if you try, and you do happen to unintentionally copy someone here and there, then you'll probably get a pass --as opposed to tweaking a few hundred or so and claiming them as your own.cryophonik wrote:The more I think about it, the more the whole idea of copyrighting a synth preset seems odd to me. If I can copyright the settings on a synth to get a certain sound, why can't I copyright the settings on other instruments, or other plugins that aren't instruments. Can the sound of a piano, violin, or a trumpet be copyrighted? If not, then why would synth patches be any different? I just set my volume knob on my bass to 7, the pickup blend to about 60/40, and the tone knob to 6 - it sounds awesome and it's my own original creation. How does that differ from setting the knobs on a synth, aside from the potential number of knobs/settings? Why can't I copyright my bass settings? How about an EQ or a compressor? Can I create a bank of Pro-Q or Pro-C settings, sell them, and seek a legal remedy for copyright violations if I discover that somebody shared them without my consent, even if one of my presets was a flat-line EQ, or the default compressor settings, just with a different name? How are synth patches any different? The person creating the patches didn't create the synth, we just alter the settings to achieve a certain sound, just like I would do with an EQ or compressor. I'm having a difficult time seeing why synth patches have this exclusive exception, aside from the obvious fact that there is a market for selling synth presets and people want to protect what they sell in order to maximize profits. Any copyright experts here that can enlighten me?
© KVR Audio, Inc. 2000-2024
Submit: News, Plugins, Hosts & Apps | Advertise @ KVR | Developer Account | About KVR / Contact Us | Privacy Statement
