Roland D-50 Waverom. Anyone care to donate wav samples?

[whyterabbyt]

you can't "synthesize from scratch", period.

Funny, I always thought that was what synthesisers did. Could you please explain why you cannot create a wavetable containing the data representing a specific waveform on a synthetic basis, such as an algorithm.

the way copyright is in fact defined is that for a work to qualify for copyright protection it must have some "creative" element, this being judged subjectively as it's lacking a rigorous definition itself.

In UK law, no such condition is made. With regard to sound, the law on copyright specifically refers to 'sound recordings', which includes synthesised audio tracks which were not 'recorded'. Please quote the US law which mandates a 'creative element', thanks.

Copyright applies to work that is recorded in some way; rights exist in items such as literary, artistic, musical and dramatic work as well as films, sound recordings and typographical arrangements. It gives the author specific rights in relation to the work, prohibits unauthorised actions, and allows the author to take legal action against instances of infringement or plagiarism.

in order for a work to be considered "derived", it must be made up of a substantial component of the "creative" element from the original work, or otherwise a "recognizable", "creative" element from the original work.

there is no requirement for a degree of recognisability, or minimum amount of reuse which counts as 'substantial', for a work to be considered derivative in UK law. Please quote the US law which mandates these things, thanks.

due to the way copyright is defined, copyrights as applied to very short and indistinct clips of solo instruments lacking any creative content is not really quite so simple.

Not in UK law. Please quote the US law which corroborates this, thanks.

so, back to my original point - without the samples falling under the definition of "creative" content we're stuck on that side.

Introduction

Copyright law originated in the United Kingdom from a concept of common law; the Statute of Anne 1709. It became statutory with the passing of the Copyright Act 1911. The current act is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Rights covered

The law gives the creators of literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, sound recordings, broadcasts, films and typographical arrangement of published editions, rights to control the ways in which their material may be used.

The rights cover; broadcast and public performance, copying, adapting, issuing, renting and lending copies to the public.

In many cases, the creator will also have the right to be identified as the author and to object to distortions of his work.

International conventions give protection in most countries, subject to national laws.

My emphasis.

[whyterabbyt]

From the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (which I have quoted before, in exactly the same kind of discussion. Not that some people actually want to pay attention to that kind of thing.)

1 Copyright and copyright works

(1) Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work—

(a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,

(b) sound recordings, films, broadcasts or cable programmes, and

(c) the typographical arrangement of published editions.

(2) In this Part "copyright work" means a work of any of those descriptions in which copyright subsists.

(3) Copyright does not subsist in a work unless the requirements of this Part with respect to qualification for copyright protection are met (see section 153 and the provisions referred to there).

Descriptions of work and related provisions

(other classes of work ommitted)

5. Sound recordings and films

(1) In this Part—

* "sound recording" means—

(a) a recording of sounds, from which the sounds may be reproduced, or

(b) a recording of the whole or any part of a literary, dramatic or musical work, from which sounds reproducing the work or part may be produced,

regardless of the medium on which the recording is made or the method by which the sounds are reproduced or produced; and

*

"film" means a recording on any medium from which a moving image may by any means be produced.

(2) Copyright does not subsist in a sound recording or film which is, or to the extent that it is, a copy taken from a previous sound recording or film.

my emphasis.

[Urs]

this guy is an idiot

Who?

[kavia]

Your recordings of your waveforms are copyrighted. So what? Nobody is using your copyrighted material unless they use those recordings.

Any recordings I made of from-scratch waveforms with exactly the same spectral makeup as yours would also be copyrighted. But not by you. They'd be mine.

its not about the waveform, its about the recording of the waveform.

I did a bit of lookup and you might be right, it's an important nuance, which i didn't know.

Thanks for your clarifications.

[Liquidclear]

Why not just release the VST with your reproduced waveforms and include an option to load your own wavs? Then the user could load the actual roms (from some site seperate from where the VSTi is located) at their own discetion and your hands are clean.

Supposing, this will be freeware of course...

[beej]

its not about the waveform, its about the recording of the waveform.

I did a bit of lookup and you might be right, it's an important nuance, which i didn't know.

You mean, the exact thing many of us have been stressing *many* times in this thread...?

[aciddose]

you can't synthesize a waveform "from scratch" just like you can't mimic a melody "from scratch". if you end up with the same product (as defined by the courts) you're in violation. the only way to decide on the application of copyright is to consider the creative elements of a work.

if you hum a melody which is part of a composition covered by copyright, and you sell the recording of that melody, it doesn't matter if you made the waveforms from scratch, or if you hummed the notes from scratch, or anything of that nature. if there is substantial material taken from the original work, your work is a derived work.

this isnt anything to do with us or uk, or canadian law. this is to do with the original definition of copyright which is an international treaty.

another more specific example: if you recreate the pan-flute sample from the d-50 by actually playing and recording a pan-flute and you do so in such a way as to exactly match both the timbre and dynamics of the original sample; assuming the original sample is under copyright at all in the first place your newly created sample is then a derivative work.

please do not spout out a whole lot of your bullshit argument here; offer some proof of your statements. if you believe that your view is supported by copyright law, provide some references to cases showing this is true. since when was the discussion only regarding uk law in the first place? you'd better provide multiple references to show substantially that what you're attempting to state applies in general.

[whyterabbyt]

you can't synthesize a waveform "from scratch" just like you can't mimic a melody "from scratch".

prove it.

if you end up with the same product (as defined by the courts) you're in violation.

incorrect.

the only way to decide on the application of copyright is to consider the creative elements of a work.

incorrect.

if you hum a melody which is part of a composition covered by copyright, and you sell the recording of that melody, it doesn't matter if you made the waveforms from scratch, or if you hummed the notes from scratch, or anything of that nature. if there is substantial material taken from the original work, your work is a derived work.

only if it can be proved you've heard the original.

this isnt anything to do with us or uk, or canadian law. this is to do with the original definition of copyright which is an international treaty.

wrong. the original definition of copyright is from UK law, well before there were international treaties on copyright.

another more specific example: if you recreate the pan-flute sample from the d-50 by actually playing and recording a pan-flute and you do so in such a way as to exactly match both the timbre and dynamics of the original sample; assuming the original sample is under copyright at all in the first place your newly created sample is then a derivative work.

utterly incorrect.

please do not spout out a whole lot of your bullshit argument here;

please do not spout out a whole lot of your bullshit innacuracies here;

offer some proof of your statements. if you believe that your view is supported by copyright law, provide some references to cases showing this is true. since when was the discussion only regarding uk law in the first place? you'd better provide multiple references to show substantially that what you're attempting to state applies in general.

I already quoted the laws themselves. So until you provide references which prove your claims correct, as I asked in the first place, we'll just leave it at that, shall we since you clearly cant back up your own claims.


better luck next time.

[whyterabbyt]

"Copyright law originated in the United Kingdom from a concept of common law; the Statute of Anne 1709. It became statutory with the passing of the Copyright Act 1911. The current act is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988."

[whyterabbyt]

UK Copyright Services website:

"Copyright applies to a recorded work, it cannot apply to something as intangible as an idea. Within certain fields, (such as inventions) it may be possible to apply for a patent.

Because copyright applies to the actual recorded work - documents, music, artwork, etc., if a competitor used your copyright work, (i.e. copied or adapted your promotional literature or stole content from your website to promote their own product), this would be an infringement and you could certainly take action, but there is little you can do to prevent someone else creating their own work based on a similar idea as long as they are not copying your work to do so."

[Chopper]

being in the UK, and being someone who had to deal with that situation before, +being friend and tennent with one of the lawyers responsible for the 1988 reforms, I can state that the Rabbit is right...

[whyterabbyt]

You mean, the exact thing many of us have been stressing *many* times in this thread...?

many of us, except for aciddose, it would appear, who has taken the opposite stance.

another more specific example: if you recreate the pan-flute sample from the d-50 by actually playing and recording a pan-flute and you do so in such a way as to exactly match both the timbre and dynamics of the original sample; assuming the original sample is under copyright at all in the first place your newly created sample is then a derivative work.

[whyterabbyt]

In the United States, "derivative work" is defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101:

A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".

US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative Works notes that:

A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law.

If one records ones own sample of a pan-flute, how does that contain 'previously published material', I wonder.

[aciddose]

if you were to match the dynamics and timbre exactly with the intent to reproduce the sample it would be a derivative work due to the fact you took those elements from the original work and used them in your derived work.

also, your statement about "you'd have to prove you had heard it" is complete nonsense. if your work matches an existing work it does not matter if you're heard it, nor if anyone can prove you have. it's in violation, a derivative work automatically.

[whyterabbyt]

if you were to match the dynamics and timbre exactly with the intent to reproduce the sample it would be a derivative work due to the fact you took those elements from the original work and used them in your derived work.

that is exactly the opposite of what is stated in the actual statutes of US and UK copyright law, which I have already quoted.