Is it okay to use this soundpack copyright free?!

[r4ndom]

Hi all, here is the soundpack link:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=67uUpBHSODM

It’s a pack filled with rave stabs from the 90’s. I want to buy it so bad!!!

Since a lot of these sounds I know are from CLASSIC OLD SCHOOL SYNTHS (even if the presets were used in hit tracks) I can still use the sounds in original songs right?? I mean if they are a preset than any artist is free to use them right??

[BertKoor]

Go ahead. Sampling a synth patch never was an issue.

(unless the synth patch was a sample to begin with, but from a song it cannot be determined)

[JeffLearman]

Right: sounds aren't copyrightable, by themselves. Compositions are, and recordings are. So, any sound that isn't a composition and isn't a recording (and doesn't have a meaning such as speech) isn't copyrightable. That means it can be sampled and used without permission. Most digital keyboards use recordings (samples) so those are implicitly covered by copyright, so you can't sample them and use them without permission. But analog and FM-synthesis keyboards don't use recordings (samples) so you can sample them (or buy and use samples of them, created by others.)

In the pinned thread about copyright, one manufacturer claims rights for the sounds of analog synths, thinking that the patch programs are covered (as they are) and that therefore coverage extends to the emitted sound (but it doesn't.) So, that pinned thread is incorrect about the law. However, it is reasonable policy for KVRAudio to follow -- they're allowed to have a higher standard than the law requires. That doesn't mean we can't talk about them, but it does probably mean they shouldn't be listed as KVR products. (And if they are, it's up to KVR to police its policy, or not.)

[GRUMP]

European CR is different than what was stated before so be careful with peoples questionable generalizations and simplifications.

But the demands for regress would concern the generator of the pack anyway - and the legal rights holder will always have the problem of proving his ownership. Subjectively felt similarity/ownership is irrelevant and todays sales driven companys won't waste a thought about such issues.

[kingozrecords]

The law of interpolation. Whether or not the sound is derived from a recording is the factor which decides its relevance. Which, is why selling samplers seems good. And furthermore, the more popular they are, the more that the curated collections of hidden away public domain samples are worth. Then, driving the audio community towards interpolation and ultimately making the "choice" sounds harder to mimic; and to resell.

Diminishing gains and the realization of greed.

[JeffLearman]

European CR is different than what was stated before so be careful with peoples questionable generalizations and simplifications.

I'd be interested in learning if anything I said above doesn't apply to EU. Unfortunately, there isn't a "global copyright agreement" between countries. However, back in the 80's and 90's, the US and other countries went through a big thing to enact bilateral agreements between most countries to harmonize copyright and trademark laws, as much as possible.

The big difference I'm aware of is that in some European countries, authors have some control of their work even if they've sold their copyrights. But I believe it's still true that:
A) a copyright is granted implicitly and automatically whenever a copyrightable work is rendered in a fixed medium
B) You have to render a work in a fixed medium to copyright it -- this is what gets analog synths off the hook.

Do European countries have the similar classifications of the US's SR and PA copyrights? (SR applies to sound recordings, which is what covers keyboards that use recordings. PA is for performing arts, and isn't applicable here; it applies to compositions.)

If I've oversimplified anything to the point of being misleading, or said anything that isn't strictly true, please let us know.

Thanks!

[GRUMP]

European CR is different than what was stated before so be careful with peoples questionable generalizations and simplifications.

I'd be interested in learning if anything I said above doesn't apply to EU. Unfortunately, there isn't a "global copyright agreement" between countries. However, back in the 80's and 90's, the US and other countries went through a big thing to enact bilateral agreements between most countries to harmonize copyright and trademark laws, as much as possible.

The big difference I'm aware of is that in some European countries, authors have some control of their work even if they've sold their copyrights. But I believe it's still true that:
A) a copyright is granted implicitly and automatically whenever a copyrightable work is rendered in a fixed medium
B) You have to render a work in a fixed medium to copyright it -- this is what gets analog synths off the hook.

Do European countries have the similar classifications of the US's SR and PA copyrights? (SR applies to sound recordings, which is what covers keyboards that use recordings. PA is for performing arts, and isn't applicable here; it applies to compositions.)

If I've oversimplified anything to the point of being misleading, or said anything that isn't strictly true, please let us know.

Thanks!

Hey Jeff,

I´m really sorry, but I can´t give you a clearly answer on that question, especially concerning the similarities to the US legislation.

The problem that we all face here (in nearly every aspect of life, esp. business life) is, that you can never be sure resp. exclude risks. There are simply too many uncertain norms and there´s always a door opened for a legal dispute (for comprehensible reasons).

The contractors may especially arrange different agreements (terms of use) - and that is for sure the most crucial problem here. The sounddesigner or company can just exclude the rights for sampling, or even reverse engineering or further development of his products. And technically - analog synths that have presets also have a ROM that incudes a kind of data sheet.

But to have mentioned that - all that is what is written on paper and relevant if you want to work compliant. It is absolutely not easy and safe to push rights through. Trade sectrets, proofs, efforts ... those rights are mainly relevant for bigger companys here (and an affair for the lawyers, such cases will seldomly see a judge). But I´d advise not to touch them, some of them would quickly send you a costly letter.

But as said already - all that should be no problem for musicians as long as they don´t mention the origin of their materials. But it can quickly become relevant if you (re) publish soundware. The "wild west times" of digital robbery have left deep and aching traces insides the european "culture landscape" (?)

[JeffLearman]

OK thanks.

I stand by my original post. The sounds of an analog synth are not copyrightable. The patches are, but not the resulting sounds. (So, don't copy patch files without permission.) In any case, the OP was asking about whether to use samples in his or her music. Provided that the distributors of the soundware have their legal ducks in a row (i.e., that they say you can use these sounds in your music, and that they didn't cheat) you can.

Of course, IANAL, and even lawyers can give advice that turns out to be mistaken. Courts sometimes do funny things even in what seem to be cut-and-dried applications of settled law.

Practically speaking, though, the only real risk of legal issues is if you turn out to be successful! So, ... good luck?