Legality of distributing sampled synths

[Meffy]

bbaggins asked about legality. Not evadability of laws.

[whyterabbyt]

Well I got in a little fight with the 'robocops', whose main goal seems to be spreading paranoia.

This kind of paranoia, for example?

No manufacturer will ever give you permission, because if they do, other companies might see it as a precedent and go 'ok, they let that guy use the sounds, we can use them too'. So, no, don't contact the manufacturer.

Like I say, it sounds more and more like you're trying to justify yourself instead of establish legality.

[thecontrolcentre]

I got in a little fight with the 'robocops'

... bad move

[hollowsun]

OK, first a statement. Stephen, I respect and admire your work, and I am even a client.
Now, back to the subject. You and others are always implying that our hard laured patches worht nothing when they are created ona ROMpler...

I don't think I have said anything of the sort. Apolgies if I have (or implied that)

Make as many 'patches' as you like on your ROMpler. Now set up a little website somewhere (a free Wordpress thing would do) and make those 'patches' available to users of that ROMpler. Hell... even charge money. And while you're at it, contact the ROMpler's manufacturer and ask them if they would like to buy them and/or use/pay you in future for factory presets. That is all fine and legal and your creative efforts are yours to do as you want with them.

However...

YOU CANNOT SAMPLE THAT SOUND, MAP IT OUT IN, SAY, KONTAKT AND RE-DISTRIBUTE THAT FOR SALE OR GIVE AWAY ... for one simple reason - THOSE PROGRAMS WOULD CONTAIN (A COPY OF) THE ROMPLER'S MANUFACTURER'S COPYRIGHT... i.e. the 'samples'. Which is illegal.

Ok ... you're a customer of mine (thank you). By all means, make as many NKI variation patches as you like and share them with all other customers of mine who have that library. Send them to me - I'll host them. We could possibly come to some arrangement to sell them at the HS site and earn you some dosh.

But don't convert them or re-sample them with my copyright samples and give those away as Soundfonts, whatever. If you do that, I might have to get cross with you!

Can you see the difference?

The NKI patches/programs are YOUR creation (and your copyright); the samples those NKIs use are MINE. I respect your NKI creations, you should respect my sampled creations (as I am sure you do). You can do what you want with your NKI variations AS LONG AS THEY DON'T INCLUDE MY (copyrighted) SAMPLES OR COPIES OF THEM.

But what if I use the very common and not so hard recorded simple saw that is also present in the ROM. If that saw res from a Jupiter-8, it's OK if the fantastic pad I created is sampled and distributed. But if the same saw happened to be in a Jupiter-80, sampling and distributing the very same pad is violating the copyright law.

Yes.

If I can give an example of how that distinction is valid...

I have a product called 'Oscillosine' (you may have it - part of the Music Laboratory Machines series)...

It uses sine waves I sampled. "Sine waves - how are they copyrightable?" I hear you ask. Fair enough but...

I worked with someone in the US who has vintage valve test oscillators from the 40s and 50s. He and I worked hard sampling those crusty old buggers with all their foibles and deformities, sampling them in tune across the keyboatd range, etc., and I paid him for the privilege of using up a lot of his valuable time and the equipment he had spent money on and his expertise with it.

Then I spent a fair bit of time trimming and editing those and seamlessly looping them (using, arguably, 20+ years of expertise in this field). Then I mapped them out, etc..

Should someone be 'entitled' to just take those samples of mine, samples I worked hard on and paid for and just use them for free in their own 'product' (for that is what it is if they re-distribute it in whatever way).

The same applies to your JP 8 example - you've just snagged one on eBay and paid £8,000 for it. You then spent a further £2,000 having it serviced and brought up to spec. Then you spend a few weeks sampling that saw res wave, trimming, looping, optimising, mapping, making up your terrific pad sound, etc.. It's all YOUR copyright. And you're trying to make a living by selling the fruits of that labour.

How would you feel if someone just took that and gave it away? Not best pleased I imagine.

Here's another scenario...

I am in the process of arranging the logistics with the Berlin Museum of Technology to sample an extremely rare East German synthesiser from the 50s/60s. A HELL of a lot of money is going to be involved in that!

And frankly, a lot of the raw waveforms will be sines and saws, etc.. BUT, they will be sines and saws from a unique piece of electronic music history with their own unique character and a huge amount of time, money, skill and expertise will go into making and presenting those samples.

Is it acceptable that some kid in his bedroom take all that and give it away? I think not. I'd like to think you agree.

And how is my and the BMOT's investment protected?

With copyright. It prevents people from 'stealing' my and others' work and investment that went into the creation of these unique samples using long established statutes in law that date back centuries and which are, even in this digital age, unlikely to change. If anything, they have become more robust as it becomes ever easier for people to copy 0s and 1s around.

And all this wishful thinking about 'entitlement' to circumvent copyright law with specious claims of 'creativity', etc., is just that - wishful thinking.

Not having a pop at you, fmr ... just trying to explain things from the other side of the fence because it really isn't as cut and dried as some would believe and I am, actually, trying to help people understand the wider implications of the situation.

Cheers,


Stephen

[Genetic_Junk]

That people should know what they are buying. How much of the instrument they own. What the hidden limitations are.

Yes, they should. And these days, that research is easier than its ever been.

Ok, tell me if it's legal to distribute samples of Access Music's Virus TI, which wavetables are copyrighted. Some people say it is, some it's not.

As Meffy says, for best results, consult a lawyer who specializes in copyright for copyright questions.

In a perfect world the manufacturer should be providing this information, so that the buyer knows before the purchase. You can't consult a lawer every time you go shopping for a new synth.

If you believe the manufacturer will truthfully inform you of your legal rights, just take five minutes to email them.

[izonin]

bbaggins asked about legality. Not evadability of laws.

Yes, he wanted to know if it's legal to share some nki's with his friend, so that he doesn't have to take his heavy synth with him every time they work together. Excuse me if I didn't act like a layer or an angry developer.

[Meffy]

You have repeatedly advised the OP to ignore the law and do as he or she pleases. That's contrary to KVR's forum rule "Members are asked to respect the copyright of other users, sites, media, etc." You'll want to steer well clear of that rule.

[thecontrolcentre]

he wanted to know if it's legal to share some nki's with his friend, so that he doesn't have to take his heavy synth with him every time they work together.

Where did he say that?

I have made NKIs for several of my favorite Yamaha MO8 patches for my own convenience. No legal issues there. I'm wondering, though, if I can legally share those libraries with others. After all, the original Yamaha samples are surely proprietary.

[trimph1]

The law considers that it's harmful to that company to sample one of its instruments, but not the other, despite the resulting soundsets being identical. Ludicrous.

Sure enough, right after my post, another one. It's not ludicrous, there are very good legal reasons for it.

What is it with you people?

Would you rather have people going after your own work and sample them then turn around and claim it as their own? Really? This is insane!!!

Look..if I put my MONEY into a product that ends up being a ROMpler of some kind I really would be annoyed if someone goes and then samples MY WORK...for it is THAT...then re-distributes the lot as if it was their own....

There is..on a train forum ..a discussion of just this sort decrying a "Cease and Desist" order handed to a website that was redistributing operating manuals from locomotives quite a few years old...of course, there was an outcry about it..but as usual the idea was that ALL the guy had to do was to ASK for permission to redistribute those manuals on his site..as was stated in the original letter...

I work for a CAT owned company , so I am quite familiar with CAT and the use of their logo's and other material . What no one here understands is that CAT will let you use their logos and other items if you ask for permission . They are actually pretty easy to get along with as long as you ask them and explain what you are doing with the copyrighted stuff

Taken from....http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/194 ... ageIndex=1

[fmr]

I have a product called 'Oscillosine' (you may have it - part of the Music Laboratory Machines series)...

It uses sine waves I sampled. "Sine waves - how are they copyrightable?" I hear you ask. Fair enough but...

I worked with someone in the US who has vintage valve test oscillators from the 40s and 50s. He and I worked hard sampling those crusty old buggers with all their foibles and deformities, sampling them in tune across the keyboatd range, etc., and I paid him for the privilege of using up a lot of his valuable time and the equipment he had spent money on and his expertise with it.

Then I spent a fair bit of time trimming and editing those and seamlessly looping them (using, arguably, 20+ years of expertise in this field). Then I mapped them out, etc..

Should someone be 'entitled' to just take those samples of mine, samples I worked hard on and paid for and just use them for free in their own 'product' (for that is what it is if they re-distribute it in whatever way).

The same applies to your JP 8 example - you've just snagged one on eBay and paid £8,000 for it. You then spent a further £2,000 having it serviced and brought up to spec. Then you spend a few weeks sampling that saw res wave, trimming, looping, optimising, mapping, making up your terrific pad sound, etc.. It's all YOUR copyright. And you're trying to make a living by selling the fruits of that labour.

How would you feel if someone just took that and gave it away? Not best pleased I imagine.

Here's another scenario...

I am in the process of arranging the logistics with the Berlin Museum of Technology to sample an extremely rare East German synthesiser from the 50s/60s. A HELL of a lot of money is going to be involved in that!

And frankly, a lot of the raw waveforms will be sines and saws, etc.. BUT, they will be sines and saws from a unique piece of electronic music history with their own unique character and a huge amount of time, money, skill and expertise will go into making and presenting those samples.

Is it acceptable that some kid in his bedroom take all that and give it away? I think not. I'd like to think you agree.

And how is my and the BMOT's investment protected?

With copyright. It prevents people from 'stealing' my and others' work and investment that went into the creation of these unique samples using long established statutes in law that date back centuries and which are, even in this digital age, unlikely to change. If anything, they have become more robust as it becomes ever easier for people to copy 0s and 1s around.

And all this wishful thinking about 'entitlement' to circumvent copyright law with specious claims of 'creativity', etc., is just that - wishful thinking.

Not having a pop at you, fmr ... just trying to explain things from the other side of the fence because it really isn't as cut and dried as some would believe and I am, actually, trying to help people understand the wider implications of the situation.

Cheers,

Stephen

Well, I have several of the Music Laboratoy Machines, and it never crossed my mind to use those samples. I think your work is worthing as a whole, And I already created several variations of the patches on the NKI, but if I was going to use Kontakt for creating new sounds for distribution, I would use my own samples, as I do. However, some of the samples are soundbites taken from recordings, and that would be illegal too (anyway, since they are for my personal use and I never planned to distribute them, it doesn't hurt). But I am aware that, if I want to create music with those sample based instruments, I would have to request permission to the original composers.

Regarding the Jupiter-8 example, and risking to appear biased, I have an MKS-80, and if I ever sample it's internal waves, I would not consider those to be copyrighted, or I would simply release them under a free license. HOWEVER, if I was going to sample my patches and recreate them in Kontakt, or use them as raw material for sampled instruments, THAT I would consider copyrighted and protected work.

whiterabbyt asked me to say where I would draw the line - I would say that common sense should be called on the arena here. Taking your examples - I would respect your sines, as well as the new samples for the new instrumetn coming out of the BMOT (looking forward to see it), since you state them as special (anyway, for me, a sine is a sine, and any sine will suit my purpose - if I want special sines, I would take Sound Forge, create a sine from scratch with it and process it using all kinds of creative DSP processors, and that will give me plenty of special sines. Pardon me if I am looking arrogant with this statement). But you are selling a sampled instrument, priced very modestly, and valuable as a whole. A Motif costs several hundreds, even thousands of dollars, and is marketed as a complex synth workstation, not a sample store media.

Nevertheles, I am aware I can use my own samples on a Motif, and if I ever wanted to distribute a sampleset tooked out of a Motif (I don't even have one), it would be as simple as getting a collection of my own waves, and use those with the synth engine, which is what's more important, IMO. The same goes for any ROMpler that has a synth engine worthing the effort and also has the ability to load samples. But I still think it's time for people that pays the huge prices Yamaha, Roland and Korg ask for their worksations to request a EULA that allows them to work in a less restrictive way. Again, common sense and fair play, please.

Anyway, everything I said is IMO, and doesn't entitle anyone to sample a ROMpler. In the current state of the law, it's forbidden and illegal in almost any country, and I think that's clear to anyone by now. Also, I am not defending that anyone should break the law just because they paid a huge amount of money for a synth - they got what they paid for.

[bbaggins]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that you can sample an oscillator but as soon as you do, that sample becomes a protected work of art.

I've tried comparing it to taking a photograph of public art - the photograph is something new, and is the property of the photographer. But that's a poor analogy because the photograph is not a copy of the original but rather an interpretation of it.

And what's with this talk of copyrighting a sine wave? OK, so that oscillator is a rare vintage piece of lab gear and great effort was involved in capturing it - it's still a frickin' sine wave!

[Genetic_Junk]

The recording of a sine wave isn't an exact copy either. And that's sort of irrelevant anyway because a copyright for an original work doesn't depend upon the fidelity of the medium or the theoretical complexity of the phenomena recorded.

[deastman]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that you can sample an oscillator but as soon as you do, that sample becomes a protected work of art.

I've tried comparing it to taking a photograph of public art - the photograph is something new, and is the property of the photographer. But that's a poor analogy because the photograph is not a copy of the original but rather an interpretation of it.

And what's with this talk of copyrighting a sine wave? OK, so that oscillator is a rare vintage piece of lab gear and great effort was involved in capturing it - it's still a frickin' sine wave!

A "sample" is a sound recording. You can copyright a sound recording. End of story.

Re: Photographing a work of art on display in public, it isn't as cut and dry as you think. The original creator of the work of art (lets say a sculpture) owns the copyright to that work. The photograph is a derivative work. The photographer may own the photograph, but their rights are limited because they have created a derivative work.

A case in point: it is legal to take and distribute pictures of the Eiffel Tower shot during the day. It is not legal to take and distribute a picture of the Eiffel Tower when it is lit up at night, because the lighting is a work of art, and the artist who created that work holds the copyright.

[ghettosynth]

...

[ghettosynth]

...