Hello, I’m just checking on the deal with sampling your own patches for resale. My understanding is for oscillator-based synths then that’s fine but the area is greyer when it comes to a digital waveform based oscillator such as a sample. Is it the case, no matter what you program, it counts as a derivative work? And therefore cannot be sold by you as an original work?
I ask as the Korg statement in the pinned subject muddies that a bit, but also sample libraries have those sounds that clearly have samples elements in all the time. Granted they could have their own choir samples or have paid a licence for them, but it’s more likely they programmed it in a synth. Banning raw samples of their sampled waveforms would be understandable but is that also the case where it only forms a part of the sound that’s produced, and can’t, for example, be stripped out and reused?
Also to what does this extend? Can I sample a sound that uses a wavetable? A digital waveform in a DW8000?
Lastly, how about loops to sell? There’s no way companies are paying Roland a licence for their 909 hats in a loop, but presumably that should apply, or is that more of a case of it being applied if someone sold “909” samples as individual hits? Do the From Mars guys pay a licence to Roland, for example?
Sampling your own ROMpler patches for resale question
-
- KVRist
- 261 posts since 1 Sep, 2003 from Studio Telex
-
- KVRist
- 247 posts since 5 May, 2020
In the US and most countries, recordings are all automatically copyrighted. You can't redistribute (whether for free or for a price) copyrighted material without the copyright owner's consent (or paying mechanical license fees, which don't apply here.) If you do, you're subject to civil lawsuit. If you override copy protection mechanisms (which they might try to claim, though I think it's not the case here) then it's a criminal matter.
Now, if your patch changes the character of the recording (sample) to the point that it becomes something completely new, you might be off the hook. But you'd have to argue that in court, and burden would be on you to prove it.
You do raise a good point about wavetables, though. Nobody can copyright a sine wave, even though someone's recording of a sine wave has an implicit "soundrecording" copyright. My guess is, if you could demonstrate that the underlying recording is just a recording of a simple mathematical formula, you might win in court. Of course, "win" means, you don't lose the lawsuit, but you do lose your time and the cost to defend yourself.
More practically speaking, you could weigh the risk of being sued, and consider it negligible. But it's your derriere on the line.
Loops are a different matter. All musical instrument manufacturers allow you to create music using their instruments and not owe copyright royalties to the instrument manufacturer. Loops amount to that: you're making music using their instrument, not creating an instrument. Yeah, the line there can be fuzzy. But they'd be very unlikely to sue for loops that have musical content, rather than just a sound to be used as an instument. Can you imagine the headlines? "Korg Sues Musician for Using Their Digital Piano!"
Now, if your patch changes the character of the recording (sample) to the point that it becomes something completely new, you might be off the hook. But you'd have to argue that in court, and burden would be on you to prove it.
You do raise a good point about wavetables, though. Nobody can copyright a sine wave, even though someone's recording of a sine wave has an implicit "soundrecording" copyright. My guess is, if you could demonstrate that the underlying recording is just a recording of a simple mathematical formula, you might win in court. Of course, "win" means, you don't lose the lawsuit, but you do lose your time and the cost to defend yourself.
More practically speaking, you could weigh the risk of being sued, and consider it negligible. But it's your derriere on the line.
Loops are a different matter. All musical instrument manufacturers allow you to create music using their instruments and not owe copyright royalties to the instrument manufacturer. Loops amount to that: you're making music using their instrument, not creating an instrument. Yeah, the line there can be fuzzy. But they'd be very unlikely to sue for loops that have musical content, rather than just a sound to be used as an instument. Can you imagine the headlines? "Korg Sues Musician for Using Their Digital Piano!"