Legality of distributing sampled synths

[mudpeople]

If a manufacturer copyrights the actual sound its one thing, but that seems like it would mean the instrument in question is a sampled or waveform based instru. Synthesised-by-the-end-user sounds are what everyoen uses in their studio work, so that shouldn't cause any issues; of course, many synths have end-user license agreements and licenses (usually just something like attribution, or a donation if your work gets compensated $$$$), so its best to check the readmes, manuals, or websites. Other than that, its the same sort of issue as using a Les Paul to record guitar works.

But of course the final word is (dont get me wrong, Im not saying go sample crazy with abandon); Laws and licenses only apply when they can be enforced.

[hollowsun]

Other than that, its the same sort of issue as using a Les Paul to record guitar works.

No it's not!

You can use a Les Paul to create (record) music AND you can sample each and every note and articulation individually and create a comprehensive sample library which you can sell, give away, whatever, without restriction. Several sample library developers and ROMpler manufacturers have done so.

You can sample those because the sound is electro-acoustically generated.

BUT...

If Gibson release a very ingenious and clever sample based 'Les Paul' which uses samples they have taken from the very best Les Pauls ever made, you can record performances on that to create music but you can't sample Gibson's copyrighted samples to create your own library to re-distribute/sell/give away.

In a more real-world example...

You can buy a vintage Fender Rhodes and sample the crap out of it and very legitimately create your own library from those samples and sell it, give it away, whatever. Not a problem and there will be no legal problems.

However...

Scarbee have absolutely excellent Rhodes libraries out there. You can buy and use them to create music but you cannot sample Scarbee's samples (or take their original WAV samples) and re-distribute them as your own Rhodes library.

It's really not difficult to understand - if a soundset is based on copyrighted samples (be that a major ROMpler manufacturer or small third party developer), you cannot legally sample those samples and re-distribute them. Well ... not without permission.

(*) Not the best example, perhaps...

You can sample a vintage Rhodes without restriction but beware using the 'Rhodes' trade/brand name - the authorised holder of the trade/Brand name 'Rhodes' may come down on you (it would be seen as exploiting a trade/brand name to add kudos to your product). Even using euphemisms such as 'Roads' could be considered unacceptable.

Cheers,


Stephen

[IncarnateX]

It's really not difficult to understand - if a soundset is based on copyrighted samples (be that a major ROMpler manufacturer or small third party developer), you cannot legally sample those samples and re-distribute them. Well ... not without permission.

Fair enough in principle, but according to the "derived work" rulings as quoted in this thread, it seems that I can not even process these samples to make a personal wave-table and distribute that.

Thus, if I take a sample, say a brass sound, and work with that with the synth's internal parameters, say make a filter sweep with a slow attack, a lot of res and some LFO vibrato, which would make it a quite different sound, it is considered a derived work and it would be illegal to sample and distribute this as a waveform, right?

Not even if I play and process it heavily through some hardware outboard and return it to my PC, it would be legal, because it is still derived work, right?

But if a play two notes successively with a pause between them and no audio processing, it would illegal, right? Or would this be considered an attempt of multi-sampling?

[Acid Mitch]

Fair enough in principle, but according to the "derived work" rulings as quoted in this thread, it seems that I can not even process these samples to make a personal wave-table and distribute that.

Yes, what is so hard to understand about that ?
Distributing someone elses recordings without permission is illegal no matter what you do to them.

If there really was some sort of loophole where you could legaly distribute other peoples samples (derivative or not)dont you think people would be doing it already ? It's not like sampling is a new thing.

[IncarnateX]

'
Yes, what is so hard to understand about that ?
Distributing someone elses recordings without permission is illegal no matter what you do to them.

Did you read the rest of the post? This is what is wrong:

Thus, if I take a sample, say a brass sound, and work with that with the synth's internal parameters, say make a filter sweep with a slow attack, a lot of res and some LFO vibrato, which would make it a quite different sound, it is considered a derived work and it would be illegal to sample and distribute this as a waveform, right?

Not even if I play and process it heavily through some hardware outboard and return it to my PC, it would be legal, because it is still derived work, right?

In both cases, I consider the sound to be mine, since I did all the work of changing it. So its not bloody OK with me that a weak criterion like the concept of "derived work" won't allow me to do that. Where goes the limits of "derived work" anyway? It becomes even more twisted when

1: In case the waveform of the synth had not been a sample, the sound would legally be "mine".

2: I am actually allowed to consider a synthline consisting of two successive notes with NO processing of the sound as "mine"

Bless you, if that makes sense to you, but it doesn't to me.

[Acid Mitch]

Did you read the rest of the post? .

Yes and your posts come across as "me,me ,me. I should be able to use other peoples work for free even if they doint want me to "

In both cases, I consider the sound to be mine, since I did all the work of changing it. So it's not bloody OK with me that a weak criterion like the concept of "derived work" won't allow me to do that. Where goes the limits of "derived work" anyway? It becomes even more twisted when ?

It's not twisted.The limits begin and end with the source material. Its simple. If you take something and change it - a little or alot - its a derivative.


If the sample you are modifying (say a brass sound) is so unimportant to the final result, why not just record your own similar samnple and recreate the patch in a sampler ? Then it truly would be yours to do with what you want.

[
2: I am actually allowed to consider a synthline consisting of two successive notes with NO processing of the sound as "mine"

Bless you, if that makes sense to you, but it doesn't to me.

Thats all about intent, and you know it. If you are distributing stuff intended to be sampled your in trouble.
If you've actually wrote some short pieces of music , distribute themn how ever you see fit.

[whyterabbyt]

In both cases, I consider the sound to be mine, since I did all the work of changing it.

Why do you think your 'hard work of changing it' gets to override the rights of the person who did the 'had work of creating it'.

If you were so concerned about being able to redistribute 'your' stuff, why would you start with someone else's work in the first place. Clearly if you can't reproduce your patch without it then its a lot more important to the patchy than your part of it.
And if you can, why wouldn't you?

So its not bloody OK with me that a weak criterion like the concept of "derived work" won't allow me to do that.

Without this 'weak criterion', anyone would be free to takes someone's work, change it slightly and bypass copyright entirely.
That would pretty much destroy the entirety of the protection that copyright is designed to provide.
In fact, 'derived work' is a pretty strong criteria. It has no exceptions, no 'you can only do it if you change it a lot or make it unrecognisable' clauses like some people seem to want. Its all or nothing.

What you're actually saying is that its too strong, not weak enough.

Where goes the limits of "derived work" anyway?

Permission.

It becomes even more twisted when

1: In case the waveform of the synth had not been a sample, the sound would legally be "mine".

Why is that twisted? What's yours is yours, what's someone else's isnt.

That's like saying its 'twisted' that theft laws make it illegal for you to break into someone's house and remove their stuff without permission and sell it, when you can legally sell stuff from your own house.

2: I am actually allowed to consider a synthline consisting of two successive notes with NO processing of the sound as "mine"

Yes. You're allowed that useage, if your two successive notes are part of a musical composition. Because the copyright holder allows you permission to do so in that specific case.

In other words, (to continue the previous analogy), its like if someone loaned you the keys to their house so that you could stay their for a couple fo days; you're permitted access, but it doesnt give you permission to remove and sell their stuff.

Bless you, if that makes sense to you, but it doesn't to me.

What doesnt make sense is why people think that they should be free to take, use, and redistribute anything they want just because they want to.

[IncarnateX]

Yes and your posts come across as "me,me ,me. I should be able to use other peoples work for free even if they doint want me to " .

What an idiotic remark!Is that how you feel about anyone questioning the logics of the law? My disussion with you ends with that one.

[trimph1]

I'm so glad that I started to make my own samples for my own usage...it sure beats going around arguing about my rights to do whatever with someone else's hard work and claiming rights for it....or, rather, if I am using someone else's samples in my work that I admit as such....

I just love this thread...Scarbee should not be able to protect their own stuff? What? If it still identifiable then why not?

[IncarnateX]

Why do you think your 'hard work of changing it' gets to override the rights of the person who did the 'had work of creating it'?

Because I have bought the synth and not just "rented" it. Now if the guy do not want me to distribute it sounds, he shouldn't have sold me the synth. I am not talking about copying the wavetable one-to-one but about making your own waveforms on basis on the ones I bought.

So, if none are to be "overrided", then it is OK that I can not distribute his wavetable as is, but it is not OK with me, that he can claim copyright to the waves I sound design on basis as the synth as a whole.

If you were so concerned about being able to redistribute 'your' stuff, why would you start with someone else's work in the first place. Clearly if you can't reproduce your patch without it then its a lot more important to the patchy than your part of it.
And if you can, why wouldn't you?
?

But that is exactly what I believe I do: If I design a patch from scratch with a electro mechanical waveform (e.g. a saw), I consider it mine. If I design a sound from scratch with a sampled waveform (e.g. a saw) , I still consider it mine.

And if I don't have a brass to sample but bought a samplebased synth to get one, it certainly is a bad surprise to realise, that I can not make my own waveforms from it.

What doesnt make sense is why people think that they should be free to take, use, and redistribute anything they want just because they want to.

I have not suggested that and it doesn't follow from my examples either as far as I can see. What is at stake to me is how much it takes for something to be mine.

[whyterabbyt]

Because I have bought the synth and not just "rented" it.

But you didnt buy the copyright on the original recordings, you merely obtained permission to use them.

Do you also think it should be your right to scan all the books you buy and share them with everyone you know? You know, because you 'bought the book' so the copyrighted information it contains should be yours to do what you want with?

Now if the guy do not want me to distribute it sounds, he shouldn't have sold me the synth. I am not talking about copying the wavetable one-to-one but about making your own waveforms on basis on the ones I bought.[/qu90ote]

No, if you wanted something where you could reuse the sounds you should have bought something else.

So, if none are to be "overrided", then it is OK that I can not distribute his wavetable as is, but it is not OK with me, that he can claim copyright to the waves I sound design on basis as the synth as a whole.

So?

Im sure its not OK with a lot of people that they'll get arrested for stealing from someone else's house. That doesnt mean the law needs changed to allow them to do so.

But that is exactly what I believe I do: If a design a patch from scratch with a electro mechanical waveform (e.g. a saw), I consider it mine. If I design a sound from scratch with a sampled waveform (e.g. a saw) , I still consider it mine.
And if I don't have a brass to sample but bought a samplebased synth to get one, it certainly is a bad surprise to realise, that I can not make my own waveforms from it.

Well, its only a bad surprise once. But that doesnt support an argument that you should be allowed to do what you want, just because you want to.

I have not suggested that and it doesn't follow from my examples either as far as I can see.

Really? I didnt see you put any limits on the point at which you think its okay to take, and copy or redistribute smething that isnt yours?

What is at stake to me is how much it takes for something to be mine.

Well, you've been told that. It takes 'permission' to be able to reuse something, and 'being the creator' to own the copyright'.

What seems more to be at stake, though, is a complaint that somehow there's no route by which you can make something of someone else's to (magically) 'become' yours.

Why dont you care about the rights of the original creator, when you're insisting that you should have inherent 'rights' to reuse their work however you want?
As I say, why do demand that your rights trump theirs?

[deastman]

And if I don't have a brass to sample but bought a samplebased synth to get one, it certainly is a bad surprise to realise, that I can not make my own waveforms from it.

It may be a bad surprise, but this is the law. Period.

[IncarnateX]

But you didnt buy the copyright on the original recordings, you merely obtained permission to use them.

So, does that mean that every sound which has ever been designed on a Korg M1 does not belong to the sounddesigners but actually to Korg?

Do you also think it should be your right to scan all the books you buy and share them with everyone you know? You know, because you 'bought the book' so the copyrighted information it contains should be yours to do what you want with?

What is this? Why is it so hard for you to distinguish between copying a sample one-to-one and make a whole new patch of it by virtue of synths engine?

Im sure its not OK with a lot of people that they'll get arrested for stealing from someone else's house. That doesnt mean the law needs changed to allow them to do so.

This too primitive to me. How does sound design from sampled waveforms compare to stealing from someones house? And while we are at it: Why isn't it stealing if the wave had been produced electro-mechanically?

Well, its only a bad surprise once. But that doesnt support an argument that you should be allowed to do what you want, just because you want to. .

Again , this is taken to a very low level: I am talking about sound design from samplebased synth and from my objections to the logic of the laws in this respect does not follow anything like that you should be able to do as you want. What a strawman.

I have not suggested that and it doesn't follow from my examples either as far as I can see.

Really? I didnt see you put any limits on the point at which you think its okay to take, and copy or redistribute smething that isnt yours?
.

You do really surprise me Since my premise is that what the law says is not mine (a patch designed from scratch from a sampled waveform), actually IS MINE then my message can never be that people should be allowed to restribute something that isn't theirs. And since I also said that one-to-one copying is not OK, then I actually did suggest a limit. What's up?

What seems more to be at stake, though, is a complaint that somehow there's no route by which you can make something of someone else's to (magically) 'become' yours.
.

And here you go again To me, a sound that I have designed on a samplebased synth is mine, so it all falls back to what is be defined as mine, isn't it? And that is from an artistic point of view and not from the view of the present law, which premises you seem to recognize as the truth.

As I say, why do demand that your rights trump theirs?

What I do is to claim my rights to my own sound design. If you really want to convince me otherwise, then please explain the logics in the fact that 1) a sound designed on basis on an electromechanical saw is mine but 2) the same sound based on a sampled saw is not and shouldn't be either.

[IncarnateX]

It may be a bad surprise, but this is the law. Period.

..said the nazi-commander to the jew...

[deastman]

It may be a bad surprise, but this is the law. Period.

..said the nazi-commander to the jew...

That would be a lot funnier if I wasn't Jewish.