Sample CDs dev & copyrights, things I don't undertsand..

[androidlove]

I'm not trying to be a pain here.

" I don't believe anything I said was vague at all " " It is generally considered highly unlikely "

whyterabbyt

"In the (rare) occasion that factory presets from a currently available product are used on the site, these have usually been 'tweaked' as appropriate for the sampling process - whatever, they are presented in the spirit of 'free publicity' for the product and sincerely hope that the the few 'tasters' provided at Hollow Sun may encourage visitors to investigate (and maybe buy) the product in question"

Hollow Sun

" in my opinion "

C00kie

I appreciate the case you mentioned, whyterabbyt. I'll have to find one that deals with synth samples.

I've been downloading synth samples from around the net. I find if they are layered and run through effects, I can get some nice sounds. I can't tell if they're "legit". If I were to get a "big hit" using some, how could somebody claim a sample as "theirs" What's the criteria to sue?

I understand, "no presets". Do the effects nullify that? What about a different ADSR?
If I owned the synth, could I use sampled presets?

How much is this advice costing me?

[C00kie]

The costs are your and my time, plus of everybody reading it.

If you own a synth, ofcourse you may record it and score a hit single. Even with factory presets there is no legal issue. Even if you don't own but hired or lended the synth, then there cannot be a legal issue. You used the instrument to create music, and the music is your property.

You can go to a studio, hire a synth and record some tracks with it and take the DAT tapes home. Then at home you can process this further in any way you like. Ten years later you can get the DAT tapes from your vault and process it differently and score another hit single.

You may create a soundfont or sampleset from an instrument you own. Its yours, isn't it? You created that so you may sell it. The soundfont or sampleset is not the instrument itself, there are differences in how you use it in practice.

Edit: Different lawyers, attourneys, courts & judges have different criteria for sueing. The copyright laws were designed to prevent stealing melodies & lyrics without referring to the original composers / text writers. That makes it a slippery subject in these digital ages.

If you mangle a sound beyond recognition, it is still best (morally) to have a sample cleared by its owner, even if nobody will ever notice. If you recreate a sound yourself and going to use it, then save the half-products so you can prove in court you recreated it yourself. If it contains a recognisable piece of melody or lyrics, then you should have cleared the usage.

[SampleScience]

In reply to Bassballjg:

If I understand correctly, you're saying that Hollow Sun claim copyrights over the editing of the samples they will sell?

I thought that the sample based (PCM & ROM based) instruments such has:

¤ Akai XR10
¤ Yamaha RX11
¤ Korg DDM110 & DDM220
¤ Roland TR-707 & TR-727
¤ Akai XE8
¤ Korg DDD-1
¤ Kawai R50
¤ Linn LM-1
¤ Linn 9000
¤ Alesis SR16 (still available for sale on the Alesis website)

couldn't be sampled because they're already sample based.

So if it's not illegal to do that I could take Korg S3's 110 sounds & waveforms, create one-shots & loops with these samples & sell the result?
I could make drum loops with my Yamaha RX21, passed the drum loops trough effects & sell the finished processed loops?

From what I had understand from a previous topic on the subject it is illegal to:

¤ Sell samples from copyrighted records, even if the original sources was modified (processed, effected, edited, etc...).
¤ Sell samples from sample base (read ROM or PCM based) instruments, even if the source is modified or processed.
¤ Sell samples someoneelse recorded without permission.
¤ Sell samples from ROM or PCM based synthetizers, even if it's just the waveform that is sample based.

Eric Persing even said (on the same topic) that it was illegal to use presets on hardware synths from Roland that he created!

[Funkybot]

I believe it's illegal to sample presets or waveforms from sample based synths, but you MAY be able to sample the sounds you create with them. For instance if you make a really cool pad sound on any of the synths you mention, you'd be able to sample it. But sampling the waveforms that the pad sound is made from is a no no.

[SampleScience]

Here's an interesting read about sampling from an attorney:

http://www.music-law.com/sampling.html

Base on that I don't understand how someone can legally sell samples without asking the original owner of the original sound recording permission. In the case of Hollow Sun I don't think you can copyrights the editing of the samples. Steve Howell should ask Roland, Akai, Alesis & Linn for the permission to re-sell their original sound recordings.

[SampleScience]

I believe it's illegal to sample presets or waveforms from sample based synths, but you MAY be able to sample the sounds you create with them. For instance if you make a really cool pad sound on any of the synths you mention, you'd be able to sample it. But sampling the waveforms that the pad sound is made from is a no no.

Agree.

[Steven West]

As Everlast so eloquently said with House Of Pain...

"It ain't 'a crime' if you don't get caught'.

I fully accept the challenges of making music, and as a artist - the world shall be my inspiration and canvas... Forever.

[Bassballjg]

In reply to Bassballjg:

If I understand correctly, you're saying that Hollow Sun claim copyrights over the editing of the samples they will sell?

I thought that the sample based (PCM & ROM based) instruments such has:

¤ Akai XR10
¤ Yamaha RX11
¤ Korg DDM110 & DDM220
¤ Roland TR-707 & TR-727
¤ Akai XE8
¤ Korg DDD-1
¤ Kawai R50
¤ Linn LM-1
¤ Linn 9000
¤ Alesis SR16 (still available for sale on the Alesis website)

couldn't be sampled because they're already sample based.

So if it's not illegal to do that I could take Korg S3's 110 sounds & waveforms, create one-shots & loops with these samples & sell the result?
I could make drum loops with my Yamaha RX21, passed the drum loops trough effects & sell the finished processed loops?

From what I had understand from a previous topic on the subject it is illegal to:

¤ Sell samples from copyrighted records, even if the original sources was modified (processed, effected, edited, etc...).
¤ Sell samples from sample base (read ROM or PCM based) instruments, even if the source is modified or processed.
¤ Sell samples someoneelse recorded without permission.
¤ Sell samples from ROM or PCM based synthetizers, even if it's just the waveform that is sample based.

Eric Persing even said (on the same topic) that it was illegal to use presets on hardware synths from Roland that he created!

Loops, absolutely, unequivocally yes. They are your work product and your copyright.

It is somewhat more complicated with synth patches from sample playing synths. But if one were to take it too literally that one may not make a digital recording of someone else's digital recording, then you can't play the instrument on a record even of your own music at all. Clearly absurd. The sale of the instrument is a clear prima facia grant of licence to use that instrument to do your musical projects. I know of no instance in which any rom-based synth manufacturer has sued or demanded clearence for the use of their instrument in someone's song. I know of no instance in which a rompler manufacturer has taken any action against someone for writing their own presets and reselling them as violating copyright as a derivative work. It would follow then that this constitutes tacit permission to sample one's own presets. If your presets are your copyrighted work product then so are the factory presets the manufacturer's copyrighted work product and ought not be sampled for redistribution(sampling for personal use is probably fair use, AFIK). Mr. Persing cannot use his Roland presets probably because he must have assigned the rights to them to Roland as part of his contract for working with them.

As to Hollow Sun, I am reasonably satisfied that the rompler samples from there meet the test of being the original work product of the samplist, whether Steve himself or his donors.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, and there is this brand new decision of which it remains to be seen the full consequences of. But this is my opinion based on my lay understanding of what I've read on the subject.

The problem comes, in my opinion, from the whole issue of instrument samples meant to be played back from a keyboard, pads or other performance controller being covered by the same statute on recordings as are samples taken from records to be used as loops. Only the latter has ever been litigated to my knowledge, and that practice is also the source of the common lay understanding of the term "sample". So that is what the law and the culture and the industry are focused on and is driving everything. Soundware developers certanly need and deserve robust copyright protection, and protection from piracy. But reasonable usage terms in licensing instruments must be based on a different set of criteria than the sampling of actual music from a record because the context and technical aspects of useage are different. The new technologies require new law, and new understanding of extant law. I am advocating that common sense be emplyed to be fair to everyone's legitimate interests.

[SampleScience]

But the law clearly states: you cannot use a recording from someone else without asking permission. Steve Howell should ask Alesis if he can sell the SR16 samples in Akai & wav format because the original recordings on the devices are own by Alesis. I'm sure Alesis would prefer that people ask for permission before selling their sounds the way Steve will sell them. You can still buy the SR16 on the Alesis website, it's not like the device was obscure, lost or unavailable.

[tee boy]

SampleScience,

You need to realise that 'the law' and common practice are quite different things. Sample CDs are made by sampling, so dont think of it as a dirty word. Question is, have you used the samples as source material for you own original sounds, or have you just ripped them off records and synth blatently?

It is illegal to sample anything without permission, but it has become accepted to do so under these circumstances. I actually contacted so many people in the industry trying to clear this up, but when i comes down to it, its all about common sense

Whether you have a moral issue with this or not is another story!

[SampleScience]

I don't have a moral issue with using samples, I have one with selling samples you don't own.

Right now I'm preparing a sample cd with drum loops I have created 100%. I'm trying to do my best with what I have & I feel that some people make products in a non-ethical way.
If I would do my drum loops cd without respecting the law I could use all the drum machines drum kits I have downloaded from the net (And I have lots of them, around 80 from drum machines to sound modules to workstations). I could use my Korg S3 also.

From Eric Persing (Spectrasonics):

What most people not in the soundware or sample clearance business are unaware of, is that there have been and continue to be many, MANY lawsuits and legal actions that have occurred over sample CDs with uncleared material. Some of them have been for millions of dollars when major artists unknowingly used those samples from a soundware product on hit records. That's why its such a big deal. Uncleared samples can cost you dearly, even if you are a very small shop (you as the producer are ultimately liable). There are a whole bunch of companies in the business that have gone under or had to change identities because of illegal sample usage. It can be an enormously costly mistake.

I can guarantee you that it will catch up with almost everyone eventually. That's why we are so careful about this at Spectrasonics, and we were the first company to guarantee its customers that our products were "100% Copyright Clean"....it can be quite tricky to do it, but it's super important to the customers...and it's only fair. "Dirty" samples are by far the exception to the rule these days....mainly because so many people have gotten busted over it.

The other thing a lot of folks mistake is that there are some kinds of acceptable "limits", and this is still quite unclear at this stage (even though there are some recent cases that may affect precedence on length in the future). I actually have been involved in cases where the sound in question WAS a single short scratch -less than half a second in duration-, or a horn hit, and even a short noise sweep! What you'll find is that if the original copyright holder recognizes their sound (even mistakenly), they WILL come after you....they don't really care about the length. The length and the usage only determine how much the damages will be...it doesn't keep you out of court, or settlement negotiations.....and it comes down to who has the best attorneys.

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... highlight=

When you're into the sampling business you're better not taking any chance & ask for permissions. Roland for examples still distribute their drum machines sounds in new products (the V-Drums for example, some groovebox too), so I'm not sure that they would appreciate the fact that someone else is making money on their sounds.
I heard they sued DashSignature from cloning their Juno because their clone contained a waveforms in .wav from the original synth. I wouldn't take a chance personnaly to release something not 100% clear.

[learjeff]

Forget about presets. They're not significant.

The basic tenet are pretty simple, and holds in most countries.

If someone records something, they have copyright on that recording. (It might be a recording of a song whose composition they don't own, but let's ignore the Performing Arts copyright issues, because one note can't have a PA copyright.)

If you want to distribute a sound produced by playing that recording, you need a license, or you're liable. If you profit from distribution, it's criminal (in the US, that is -- this may differ from country to country).

So, technically, any time I use my digital piano to record music and distribute it, I'm violating the rights of the manufacturer. Of course, instrument manufacturers aren't stupid enough to sue people for recording their instruments! Frankly, they'd have a hard time suing if they wanted to, because it's obviously an intended purpose of the product.

However, they CAN go after you if you sample their instrument. It doesn't matter one bit whether there is subsequent processing or enhancement. (If you did that, you own the modifications, but you still need to license it the original samples.)

Hollowsun's copyright notice is confusing. I can't tell whether I'm free to use the samples in my music or not (assuming I plan to publish).

Distributing samples of the Keytek is a violation of someone's rights -- probably Roland's, if they assumed the original manufacturer's intellectual property. I'd be surprised if Roland cares, though.

[learjeff]

SampleScience, I didn't read every word of every post carefully, but I believe you have a good understanding of the situation.

If you're using someone else's recordings, you need either their permission, or else you need to pay them for a "compulsory licence". However, a compulsory licence on samples would be cost prohibitive, because it's set up with songs in mind, not samples.

So, stick with sounds you create using anything but sample-based equipment. Also, in loops, etc., avoid melodies and chord progressions of copyrighted material. Of course, you can use things that are common enough that nobody could claim copyright on them, like the 3-chord, 12-bar blues format, or classical music that's now in the public domain. And you can make up your own. As long as you're not copying, it's OK.

And good luck to you!

PS: do you use soundfonts when creating your stuff?

[learjeff]

Hey, I have to revise what I said a bit.

When you say "samples", are you talking about samples as in a soundfont, or snippets of music like loops and such?

This isn't a legal distinction here, but it's a practical one that I believe matters (and I think would be arguable in court).

If you're creating samples for the purposes of making an "instrument", like soundfonts, then you shouldn't sample another sample-based instrument and make a copy (even an altered one, using some effect). That's what I was thinking about above when I said not to use sample-based instruments.

But if you're playing little grooves or loops or "paints for sound canvasses", more complex than single-note samples, then IMHO it would be fine to include sounds from sample based instruments.

Like I said, the technical legal issue of copyrights is the same. But in the latter case, you're just using the instrument to make musical snippets, and the purpose of the instrument is to make music. Yamah can't reasonably object if your samples include piano glissandos or a short segment of Beethoven's 5th, using a Yamaha digital piano.

They can quite reasonably object if you make lots of single-note samples and build a soundfont from it! In this case, you're not using their piano to make music -- you're using their piano to copy it. Fortunately for us soundfont builders, we CAN do this with a Rhodes or Hammond organ, because those instruments aren't based on recordings.

Capisce?

[hollowsun]

Hi SampleScience,

Your post here has just been brought to my attention. If I can explain......

Hollow Sun has been in existence now for over three and a half years. In that time, it has become one of the most respected internet resources not only as a source of quality vintage samples but also of information about the instruments I feature at the site.

At Hollow Sun, I normally only feature instruments that have long been out of production (with any copyright that might have existed likely to have elapsed). In the few cases where I have featured current instruments, I have not received one representation from any of the companies asking me to desist - in fact, the only contact I have had with them is when they have written to me thanking me for either the feature, the choice of sounds or the well-written 'review' of their product(s).

Furthermore, the vast majority of the sounds at Hollow Sun are actually my creation - or at least, the source sound has been appropriately modified for optimum sampling purposes. After that, each sound typically goes through an extensive raft of editing processes to make the sound(s) usable in a professional musical context (in many cases, the sounds are improved beyond the limitations of the original instruments).

I think everybody (including the various manufacturers of the original instruments) appreciates the spirit of the site - that is, preserving the legacy of these instruments and honouring their contribution to the evolution of the technology you and I use today.

It should also be pointed out that I do not make a penny from the distribution of these sounds and they have been free for you to download for over three years (and will continue in that way).

I have some CDs coming out any day now that feature sounds from other classic synths. With one or two exceptions, none of them are 'current' models but whatever... all the sounds have either been created or modified especially for optimum use in a sampler and have then been extensively processed so that whilst they might bear a resemblance to the original, they have my own stamp of individuality on them (in just the same way as they would have if I used them is a recorded work and sold that on an audio CD). In many cases, they improve on the original (IMHO!).

Your reference to the Dangerous Bear Refill is also somewhat specious - this (with my permission) uses the sounds I have at Hollow Sun but then adds some, using Reason's synth facilities to take them to another level - six months or more of seriously creative work has gone into the creation of these sounds.

By your argument, all those Steinway piano, Gibson Les Paul, Fender bass, etc., libraries are also illegal as they use samples of someone's intellectual copyright.

I can only speak for my activities at Hollow Sun and I have no problem with what I do there - I believe that I am working within the bounds of reasonable copyright usage given that 95% (or more) of the instruments available there are out of production, many of them for over a quarter of a decade or more. Those that are still current are presented as an homage to the originals and have proven to be useful as free publicity for the manufacturers involved.

As BaseBall pointed out, Hollow Sun's copyright terms are clear - I don't claim to own copyright on the sounds themselves, only the work involved in making these (largely) extinct instruments available.

I should also point out that I get many offers of donations of samples from currently available equipment and these are immediately rejected.

And as I will re-iterate....

Hollow Sun has been in existence for over three years now and gets close to 30,000 unique visitors (and millions of page hits) a month. In that time, I have not received ONE representation from any of those involved in the development or manufacture of the instruments featured other than to say "thank you" and I prize amongst my emails warm and heart-felt appreciation from some of the pioneers in this industry, enterprising people who strived to innovate and whose work inspired the development of the next generation of technology and so on to the point we find ourselves now.

It is also worth bearing in mind that I have been developing sound library for almost 20 years - mostly for Akai but for others as well... I know what is acceptable usage (abusage) of a sound for inclusion in a library. In all that time, nothing I have created has been a problem.

I hope this helps clear things up a little (at least from my perspective).

Best regards,


Steve