other persons sounds

[pinso]

I am a little worried. How can someone be sure not to have a sound from another person.
It's impossible to know all sounds from all people.

I mean, i develop a sound/preset started from initialize.
Then i want to sell it.

Or someone else is selling a sound which was developed by me.

I don't mean pirated/copied/...
I mean it unintentionally.

What do you do ?

[BBFG#]

I am a little worried. How can someone be sure not to have a sound from another person.
It's impossible to know all sounds from all people.
I mean, i develop a sound/preset started from initialize.
Then i want to sell it.
Or someone else is selling a sound which was developed by me.
I don't mean pirated/copied/...
I mean it unintentionally.
What do you do ?

98% of all EDM programs patches sound the same, regardless who made them or what synth they made them on.

[JC_]

^ yep

Just be true to your sound. Make what you think sounds good.

[Urs]

I mean it unintentionally.

What do you do ?

I don't think you need to worry about that. A sound itself can not be copyrighted (as opposed to, say, a preset file). So if you discover the same patch as someone else, and even if the preset file contains the same data, you have the copyright to yours and the other person has the copyright to his. All with a grain of salt, but that's pretty much the gist of what I understood when I talked to a lawyer about this.

[pinso]

Thank you for the answers.

So when the preset is different but the sound is the same, then i/someone else don't have to worry and it can selled by me or someone else?
Even if it's a complex or layered sound?

[Howard]

A closely related subject: I would complain bitterly (and possibly take other action) if someone simply changed e.g. the sustain of envelope 1 in a bunch of my sounds, then tried to sell them as their own creations.

[pinso]

But that would be a copy! That's true.

I mean it a bit different. At the moment of development i don't know your or someone elses preset/sound. (Impossible to know all sounds.)
When i/someone else develop a preset and the sound is the same but the preset data is different . Is that ok?

I mean a presetfile has maybe thousand of elements. So it should be practically impossible to have the same preset data. And there maybe several ways of developing a sound.

But your are right as you said changeing "1 in a bunch".

So this brings me to the question "what means different?"

[Howard]

When i/someone else develop a preset and the sound is the same but the preset data is different. Is that ok?

My moral compass tells me: The sound can be 100% the same, no problem - as long as you create the preset yourself i.e. the data is not too closely based on that "100%-the-same-sounding" original.

[ghettosynth]

I mean it unintentionally.

What do you do ?

I don't think you need to worry about that. A sound itself can not be copyrighted (as opposed to, say, a preset file). So if you discover the same patch as someone else, and even if the preset file contains the same data, you have the copyright to yours and the other person has the copyright to his. All with a grain of salt, but that's pretty much the gist of what I understood when I talked to a lawyer about this.

Not to be a nit, but, if two files are in the same format and contain the same data and the raw information that the data represents can't be copyrighted, then the supposed copyright on the file isn't worth much.

I think that there's no confusion about the sound proper, but, it's not so clear, as evidenced by the advice that you received from lawyers, that a patch is, itself copyrightable. Yes the file is, but if the data in the file isn't, then who cares?

One thing that people often forget when talking about copyrights, at least in the U.S., is that the super aggressive bright line rule that asserts that you must have a license to sample, only applies to recordings.

From what I've read, it's very unlikely that a particular set of numbers that represent synth settings is copyrightable and a file containing those settings is not likely to lead to a case of merit. I mean that in the same sense that I can claim a copyright of this post, and a lawyer would agree that I could do so, but wouldn't be very likely to waste time defending my claims against other people quoting me.

A collection of synth patches is probably more easily defended.

So, don't download someone else's patch collection, call it your own and try to sell it. The files being identical will cause you grief.

But, don't worry about any patch that you create. Further, I don't think that there has ever been a successful case regarding synth patches, but, in any case, I wouldn't worry at all that your patch has the exact same settings, let alone the same sound, as someone else's patch.

[ghettosynth]

Thank you for the answers.

So when the preset is different but the sound is the same, then i/someone else don't have to worry and it can selled by me or someone else?
Even if it's a complex or layered sound?

Get sound out of the conversation, that has absolutely nothing to do with this. You cannot copyright a sound AT ALL. You can trademark a sound, (see THX) but that has limited scope.

You're overly worried and it seems that you've taken the KVR-mentality too much to heart.

[pdxindy]

I wouldn't worry at all that your patch has the exact same settings, let alone the same sound, as someone else's patch.

With complex synths like Zebra and Bazille etc, I am very doubtful that if someone started from init that they would end up with a preset with the exact same settings... there are too many subtle settings for that to happen.

[ghettosynth]

I wouldn't worry at all that your patch has the exact same settings, let alone the same sound, as someone else's patch.

With complex synths like Zebra and Bazille etc, I am very doubtful that if someone started from init that they would end up with a preset with the exact same settings... there are too many subtle settings for that to happen.

That depends a LOT on the patch. Certain movements would be very common, many settings would be left as default, especially for simple patches. But, I'm not sure that's the metric that matters. Do you know of any case law on the matter? I've heard a lot of hearsay over the years, but little that's definitive.

This is one of those areas that's not so cut and dry. Suppose someone actually copies a particular file, and then changes many parameters a tiny amount. That is, by definition a derived work, but, is patch similarity going to get you anywhere in court? There can be a LOT of difference and very similar sound. You can copy an entire library, adjust many parameters by tiny amounts and the patches will sound largely the same but the files will be completely different. These kinds of cases will probably depend a lot on whether it can be shown that the file was originally copied.

On the other hand, if one starts with init, and adjusts few parameters, of course ignoring that init is still a patch so this is a derived work, it is likely that for many simple sounds numbers will be identical (to someone else's similarly derived work), but that's not copyright infringement.

[pdxindy]

I wouldn't worry at all that your patch has the exact same settings, let alone the same sound, as someone else's patch.

With complex synths like Zebra and Bazille etc, I am very doubtful that if someone started from init that they would end up with a preset with the exact same settings... there are too many subtle settings for that to happen.

That depends a LOT on the patch. Certain movements would be very common, many settings would be left as default, especially for simple patches. But, I'm not sure that's the metric that matters. Do you know of any case law on the matter? I've heard a lot of hearsay over the years, but little that's definitive.

I was not speaking about the law... just my own assessment. Except perhaps for the simplest of sounds, I would conclude a preset was copied if it was identical.

[ghettosynth]

I wouldn't worry at all that your patch has the exact same settings, let alone the same sound, as someone else's patch.

With complex synths like Zebra and Bazille etc, I am very doubtful that if someone started from init that they would end up with a preset with the exact same settings... there are too many subtle settings for that to happen.

That depends a LOT on the patch. Certain movements would be very common, many settings would be left as default, especially for simple patches. But, I'm not sure that's the metric that matters. Do you know of any case law on the matter? I've heard a lot of hearsay over the years, but little that's definitive.

I was not speaking about the law... just my own assessment. Except perhaps for the simplest of sounds, I would conclude a preset was copied if it was identical.

But we're talking about from a legal point of view, that was what the OP was asking about. He didn't ask "can I copy a file and call it my own", he's concerned about accidentally infringing. Even in complex sounds, many parameters will be the same. Flip through the Bazille patches and see how popular 50 is for EG settings. Like I said, I wouldn't worry about it, that is, I don't think that it will happen very often, even if you are duplicating someone's sound.

[pdxindy]

I wouldn't worry at all that your patch has the exact same settings, let alone the same sound, as someone else's patch.

With complex synths like Zebra and Bazille etc, I am very doubtful that if someone started from init that they would end up with a preset with the exact same settings... there are too many subtle settings for that to happen.

That depends a LOT on the patch. Certain movements would be very common, many settings would be left as default, especially for simple patches. But, I'm not sure that's the metric that matters. Do you know of any case law on the matter? I've heard a lot of hearsay over the years, but little that's definitive.

I was not speaking about the law... just my own assessment. Except perhaps for the simplest of sounds, I would conclude a preset was copied if it was identical.

But we're talking about from a legal point of view, that was what the OP was asking about. He didn't ask "can I copy a file and call it my own", he's concerned about accidentally infringing. Even in complex sounds, many parameters will be the same. Flip through the Bazille patches and see how popular 50 is for EG settings. Like I said, I wouldn't worry about it, that is, I don't think that it will happen very often, even if you are duplicating someone's sound.

I also think there is no need to be concerned... because if the person actually is starting from init, then it is exceedingly unlikely that even a single preset will end up 100% identical to an existing one.

That point and the one I first made go hand in hand. If a preset is identical, then I do think it was copied... because it is so unlikely. I would not believe that it was accidental.

Take Zebra... There are a few dozen modules, how they are wired and what position in the grid, and what effects are used and what modulations are assigned. There are the X/Y performance controllers. Even a relatively simple preset still has hundreds of choices to be made and in many cases, each of those choices has a range of possible parameter values.

Also, sound designers have their own style. I can often recognize a preset by Howard cause he does various things in particular ways. I have Zebra presets that started off as a preset by Howard and even though at this point it sounds unrecognizable from where it started, I can still tell by looking at it that it started off as one of his. I would not personally include that in a soundset... only ones started from init by me. I find that a nice clean line. But my point is, if you are starting from init, then you just aren't going to be making identical presets.