Legality of distributing sampled synths

[hollowsun]

For distribution purposes (i.e. giving away, 'sharing', selling, donorware, whatever)...

- You CAN sample an acoustic grand piano - no problem. LEGAL. The sound is produced/generated acoustically and not, in itself, copyrightable.

- You CAN sample a physically modeled grand piano - LEGAL. The sound is produced/generated electronically and not, in itself, copyrightable.

- You CAN sample a Yamaha CP70 electric grand - the sound is produced electro-acoustically and not, in itself, copyrightable.

- You CANNOT sample a Yamaha Clavinova digital piano - ILLEGAL. The sound is produced by replaying copyrighted recordings.

- You CANNOT sample the Yamaha MO8 grand piano - ILLEGAL. The sound is produced by replaying copyrighted recordings.


- You CAN sample a Rhodes - LEGAL (*). Electro-mechanical.

- You CAN sample a DX7 'Rhodes' - LEGAL (*). Electronic.

- You CANNOT sample the Rhodes (or the DX Rhodes) in the Yamaha MO8 - ILLEGAL. Generated by replaying copyrighted recordings.


- You CAN sample a Tama drum kit with Zildjian cymbals - LEGAL. Acoustic.

- You CAN sample a Simmons SDV5 electronic drum kit - LEGAL. Generated electronically.

- You CANNOT sample an Alesis DM10 electronic drum kit - ILLEGAL. Generated by replaying recordings.

- You CANNOT sample the MO8's drums - ILLEGAL. Generated by playing back recordings.


- You CAN sample a Gibson Les Paul - LEGAL

- You CANNOT sample the MO8's electric guitars - ILLEGAL


- You CAN sample a TR808 - LEGAL. Electronic.

- You CANNOT sample a TR707 - ILLEGAL. Copyrighted recordings.

- You CANNOT sample Goldbaby's TR808 library - ILLEGAL. Copyrighted recordings.

- You CAN sample the kick and snare of a TR909 (electronic) but you CANNOT sample the other sounds (toms, cymbals, hats, etc. - recordings).


- You CAN sample a Solina String Ensemble string synth - LEGAL. Electronic.

- You CANNOT sample the Hollow Sun Solina String Ensemble library - ILLEGAL. Copyrighted recordings.


- You CAN sample a Roland Jupiter 8 (*) - LEGAL. Electronic.

- You CANNOT sample a Roland Jupiter 80 - ILLEGAL. Copyrighted recordings.


- You CAN sample a MiniMoog square wave - LEGAL. Electronic

- You CANNOT sample a Yamaha MO8 square wave - ILLEGAL. A multi-sample made up of copyrighted recordings

(*) But beware using the brand names for the product - although it is legal to sample the instrument, you could be prosecuted for exploitation of the company/product copyrighted brand name/reputation.

Etc.. Sorry to labour the point but it's fairly simple.

All this (i.e. the 'CANNOTs') only applies to re-distribution - you can do what the hell you like with them for your own, private purposes.

And all the 'CANNOT' examples carry a caveat - WITHOUT PERMISSION

And for the 'CANs', if you sample them, the samples/recordings are your copyright and no-one can legally sample and re-distribute them ... WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION.

Forget the red herring of using the 'CANNOTs' in a musical work - when you buy the products, you enter into a EULA (either explicitly stated - as with software sound library - or implied - with hardware ROMplers ... though they are now including explicit EULAs) that you are licensed to use the sounds in your own musical creations up to and including releasing commercial recordings but you cannot (and the EULA may stipulate this) present the sounds in isolation except within a valid musical context (i.e. you can use the MO8's - or whatever - grand piano or strings, whatever, in isolation for a song intro ... but you cannot present each note across the sound's range in isolation in such a way that people could sample it).

And yes! To answer something raised earlier...

If the OP has sampled his MO8 for his own purposes/convenience, technically, he should delete those samples if he chooses to sell his MO8 according to the EULA (either explicitly stated or implied) ... in much the same way that if you sell on some software sound library you've bought, you shouldn't keep a copy for yourself. But that's a murky area and unlikely to be pursued.

It's all fairly straightforward and common sense for the most part....

If the sound is generated acoustically or electronically or electro-mechanically or electro-acoustically, you can sample it and do what you want with it; if the sound is generated by replaying copyrighted recordings, you cannot except for private use.... without permission.

Cheers,


Stephen

[bbaggins]

What a bizarre world we live in.

Legality is based on the mechanism by which sounds are created. If it comes from an oscillator, it's legal. If it comes from a wavetable that accurately emulates that oscillator, it's not legal.

If I press a key and thereby transfer a sample into my DAW, I can sell that copy legally. For example, a single taiko hit for dramatic emphasis in a film score. I can get paid for that and the copyright owner of the taiko sample will not come after me. I could even use every variation in the taiko library, sequentially, and remain completely legal. But wrap it up into an NKI and I'm a criminal.

[hollowsun]

The manual for this synth clearly states that the samples can only be used for personal use. You effectively have a license to use them for your own non-commercial activities. You cannot distribute them whether for financial gain, or not.

The samples are owned by Yamaha, or they may have licensed them from someone else (but if they did they would have paid for a commercial license where they can distribute them). Consequently, you do not own them, and have no right to take them and sell them.

Whenever you buy any commercial sample library, or synth with samples in it, there will be terms and conditions or a license somewhere that specifically spells out what you can and cannot do with the samples. Look for it to find out what your rights are. The chances are you will not be allowed to distribute the samples themselves, whether for financial gain or not. It will possibly point out that you may create musical works with the samples, which you may be able to sell commercially. Some require you to purchase a separate commercial license to even do this.

These large companies do search for people selling their samples, and will take some form of legal action against you. It is not worth it. These companies spend a fortune developing these products, and will protect their copyright material.

In many jurisdictions there are also issues in criminal law regarding the selling of other people's copyright material on a commercial scale, whether that be dvds, music files, or samples (which are digital recordings). You could be arrested and prosecuted, because the law actually considers this to be not far off of theft.

Most people find the law on this area rather confusing, and find it far too strict; however, this is what it is. I make music in my spare time, but have a law degree, and have worked for a law firm. I have been involved in some IP disputes, so have an idea of what I am talking about. If you want to take a risk, at least let it be an informed decision.

Excellent post! Pretty much says it all. And solidly backed up with a law degree and experience!

Cheers,


Stephen

[hollowsun]

(BTW, I have no intention of selling these samples. However, it would be nice to be able to install them on some friends' DAWs (friends who have previously paid me to play said synthesizer on their records) to save dragging a 50-lb box around. That was what inspired this thread.)

But now you're talking about "some friends". My understanding from your original post was that you intended to make them available - for free - to "others" ... i.e. the wider world by (for example) uploading them to RapidShare and other pirates' paradises for the whole world to grab. That would clearly be in breach of Yamaha's IP/copyright. Your OP could/should have been more explicit. I doubt we'd be having this discussion!

As it is, if you are simply leaving these samples with your chums simply to save you lugging your MO8 around, it could fall under 'private use'.

That said, it's still 'illegal' and potentially actionable ... but probably not really worth pursuing. However, 'technically', Yamaha could have a case - after all, if you had bought some of my library and given copies to your friends (to save you lugging your hard drive to their place), it would be in breach of my (fairly relaxed) EULA and I mightn't be too pleased. There's no real difference just because my library is 'etherware' and Yamaha's is embedded in silicon. If your friends want to use these sounds regularly in their productions, they should pay for them.

If you look at it another way...

You've bought a new CD album which you and your friends are liking a lot. Whenever you pop over to your friends, they ask you to bring that CD with you. But to save you having to take the CD to your friends every time you visit, you run off a copy to leave at their place. You have 'technically' broken the law. And for 'CD album', substitute 'movie DVD' or 'Kontakt sound library' or 'samples from a hardware ROMpler', whatever, etc..

It's all the same thing ... all kind of 'private use' and for your convenience, etc., but still a copyright contravention... technically.

Cheers,


Stephen

[Meffy]

criminal

Not "a criminal," just in violation of copyright law -- at the level you're talking about I'm pretty sure* that's a civil, not criminal, matter. Sell thousands of copies and it might be another matter.

What a bizarre world we live in.

When the question concerns business law, specifically intellectual property rights, things can get surreal. Still and all, is this more bizarre than The Case of the Marks & Spencer Tea Cakes?
________________________
* Those of you with real legal knowledge, feel free to correct me if this is wrong.

[Genetic_Junk]

criminal

Not "a criminal," just in violation of copyright law -- at the level you're talking about I'm pretty sure* that's a civil, not criminal, matter. Sell thousands of copies and it might be another matter.

What a bizarre world we live in.

When the question concerns business law, specifically intellectual property rights, things can get surreal. Still and all, is this more bizarre than The Case of the Marks & Spencer Tea Cakes?
________________________
* Those of you with real legal knowledge, feel free to correct me if this is wrong.

Here's the U.S. law:

§ 506. Criminal offenses

(a) Criminal Infringement. —

(1) In general. — Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed —

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

[Meffy]

Interesting. I was going by this page:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-infringement.html

Enforcement
What Do I Do If My Copyright Has Been Infringed?

Serving primarily as an office of record, the Copyright Office is not charged with enforcing the law it administers. Copyright infringement is generally a civil matter, which the copyright owner must pursue in federal court. Under certain circumstances, the infringement may also constitute a criminal misdemeanor or felony, which would be prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice.

I'm thinking that here as in all things legal, mileage may vary -- even two sources from the same government Website. Surreal indeed.

[Genetic_Junk]

The faq is a summary of how the law works by the Copyright Office. As always, with summaries details are lost. I quoted the actual statute which a prosecutor for the DoJ would bring an action under.

That's not to say the faq isn't helpful. As it says most copyright law is civil in nature. I suppose if the government wanted to spend a much of money investigating criminal violations it could, but it is mostly enforced by copyright holders bring civil claims.

[bobbybland]

It would be easier if Yamaha and Korg would just start producing soft synths again.

There's gotta be a demand for it though.The sample libraries that I've heard eg: guy samples a motif, normally sound off in a bad way.

I would love a Yamaha XS softsynth (a true one without the need for the hardware), okay maybe a dongle..

The sound programmers who develop patches inside these workstations spend YEARS and YEARS developing and refining those patches,not just some random guy making patches every now and again. And that's why they sound the way they do.

It's about time they get in the game again.They know that the shift (virtual instruments) plus lack of hardware sales is upon them and as more users get away from hardware,the demand will be more of a reality.


p.s. remember when you could go into a music store and find rack'd romplers..? exactly

[bbaggins]

But now you're talking about "some friends". My understanding from your original post was that you intended to make them available - for free - to "others" ... i.e. the wider world by (for example) uploading them to RapidShare and other pirates' paradises for the whole world to grab.

I suppose that's a natural assumption, given the business you're in. A little paranoia is probably only prudent.

What I actually said was "I'm wondering, though, if I can legally share those libraries with others". I was trying to keep the question broad and non-specific, as I am looking for a non-specific answer. I assumed it made no difference whether I was giving it to one person or a hundred, as far as legality is concerned.

And I did start with the presumption that it was at least unethical, even if not criminal. But what prompted me to raise the topic here was the obvious next question: what IS the difference between copying a sample and recording a sample? I still don't know.

[bbaggins]

It would be easier if Yamaha and Korg would just start producing soft synths again.

I agree. I'd pay for that, as it would save me a lot of work!

The reason I've gone to the trouble of converting the Yamaha (and some Kurzweil PC2R) patches is that they sound really good - and I have no equivalent for them on disk.

Makes you wonder why Yamaha, Korg, Roland et al don't package their own rompler libraries for computer-based sample players. Could it be that if that were the case, consumers would realize that they've been spending thousands of dollars on a sample library plus a MIDI controller?

[bobbybland]

It would be easier if Yamaha and Korg would just start producing soft synths again.

I agree. I'd pay for that, as it would save me a lot of work!

The reason I've gone to the trouble of converting the Yamaha (and some Kurzweil PC2R) patches is that they sound really good - and I have no equivalent for them on disk.

Makes you wonder why Yamaha, Korg, Roland et al don't package their own rompler libraries for computer-based sample players. Could it be that if that were the case, consumers would realize that they've been spending thousands of dollars on a sample library plus a MIDI controller?

I can relate,I've sampled some patches from the XS and use them in my samplers.I just wish one of them would budge.

[izonin]

- You CAN sample a physically modeled grand piano - LEGAL. The sound is produced/generated electronically and not, in itself, copyrightable.


- You CANNOT sample a Yamaha Clavinova digital piano - ILLEGAL. The sound is produced by replaying copyrighted recordings.

Now that is some law! You can freely sample Pianoteq's instruments and AAS's Lounge Lizard, distribute the libraries, even sell them. But if you do it with Truepianos, which uses hybrid modeling, it's a crime.

What about PCM synths? Are those AKAI samples of JD800 illegal?

And what about the customer? You pay for a box with a keyboard. You press a key, it makes a sound... that should be all that matters.

[hollowsun]

What about PCM synths? Are those AKAI samples of JD800 illegal?

Technically, yes!

[hollowsun]

I suppose that's a natural assumption, given the business you're in. A little paranoia is probably only prudent.

In fairness, others came to that conclusion before I did!

I assumed it made no difference whether I was giving it to one person or a hundred, as far as legality is concerned.

It doesn't. Technically, no difference.

what IS the difference between copying a sample and recording a sample? I still don't know.

You can 'play'/record the sounds within a musical context but you can't (*), for example, 'play'/record C, D, E, F, G, etc., across the octaves in isolation for ten seconds each such that someone could use those samples/recordings to recreate the sampled instrument (however poor that recreation might be).

(*) Well... you CAN but it's a potential breach of copyright

Cheers,


Stephen