Legality of distributing sampled synths

[Whizz_Bomb]

A few people have mentioned about the lack of actual legal guidance on the topic of samples, ie solid case law.

There is US case law on the issue of copying of samples, and the case is Roland Corp v Atmel Corp. In this case Roland successfully sued Atmel because they copied the samples in Roland's Sound Canvas product and re-distributed them on sound cards for use in karaoke machines. The US courts held that the Roland samples were sound recordings stored in a digital storage medium, and copyright subsisted within them. It can also be argued that a certain amount of skill and judgment is required to create useable samples, as I am sure many of you will testify to.

This case says it all really! If what you are taking, or re-recording, originates from any sample-based instrument, or software sample library, or sample library on CD Rom, or sampled waveform, then you are infringing copyright. You can sample your own synths that are not based upon sample waveforms or hybrid systems. Pure synthesis is not an issue because there is no "recording" that you are copying.

As per my previous posting, there is usually a license which states how you can use the sample library, like in the M08 manual. Even if there is not, the samples still have copyright and any unauthorised copying or re-distribution is illegal. There is no legal assumption that you can do what you want with them just because they have not said it anywhere.

I cannot find any specific UK (English and Welsh) case law, but samples do seem to fall within the definition of "sound recordings" under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, and copyright does subsist in sound recording. US case law is not binding precedent in the UK courts; however, it can still be influential, and visa versa. I think that the UK law is clear enough so that an infringer would lose in court. Also, certainly under UK law, if you adapt them, even if you think that you have added something to them artistically, then you are still likely to be infringing.

Hope this clarifies slightly, and also demonstrates that the big companies will take legal action, and that they will win. Stick to what your license allows you to do, or ask permission!

[Rock Hardbuns]

A few people have mentioned about the lack of actual legal guidance on the topic of samples, ie solid case law.

There is US case law on the issue of copying of samples, and the case is Roland Corp v Atmel Corp. In this case Roland successfully sued Atmel because they copied the samples in Roland's Sound Canvas product and re-distributed them on sound cards for use in karaoke machines.

Thanks for the reference. There's stuff written on the case here: http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/ ... ticeID=898

Something I'd like to know is if the ROM was copied wholesale as in the case with the emulator, or if it's just a subset.(I.e where copyright was applied to the collection of sound recordings, or as individual sound recordings.)

But I think we all agree that copyright applies to the ROM. It's this assumed distinction between re-sampling and music making I object to. If you violate copyright when you re-sample, you violate them when you make music as far as the law is concerned.

Licenses (which are often printed on the last page in the manual) are of questionable validity, and really nothing more than a promise from the manufacturer not to sue you if you violate their copyright in certain ways.

[fmr]

If you design on a synth or rompler OWN sounds, which are defintiv programmed by you, than you can sell them as soundset or sample-bank.

So you're saying that you think it's ok to make some program variation of the strings in, say, Garritan or VSL and re-sample them to re-distribute as your own.

A ROMpler is no different. You can argue all you like that the filter/env/LFO/FX settings are your creation but the fact remains that your program(s) wouldn't sound as they do without the quality of the source samples the manufacturer spent $squillions in developing which you have included and are re-distrubuting!

Taken to a logical extreme, it's not that far removed/different from taking, say, an Elvis Presley record, EQ'ing it, maybe slowing it down or or speeding it up, adding some flanging and reverb and selling/giving it away as your own. Undisputably, what you have done to the track could be considered 'creative' but without permission from the Presley estate and/or the record company who owns the masters, the writers of the song, etc., you cannot re-distribute it. Fine if you want to listen to it yourself at home but you're not allowed to 'share' it with others ... even if it's not for commercial gain.

Stephen

You are touching what is, IMO, the grey area here. You said: "...your program(s) wouldn't sound as they do without the quality of the source samples the manufacturer spent $squillions in developing which you have included and are re-distrubuting.". Yes it would be illegal is I redistribute the samples, but what if I RECORD the final result, and make it the source? Grey area.

Also, this is not to be compared with taking a record, and use it. But even this, I think will depends on which extent you do the processing. If you do the processing beyond reasonable recognition, as if you are just taking a breath, or something, I don't think that will fall under the copyright infringement (this assumiong someone would start a legal action upon something it's not recognizable, which is something I don't think is possible, of course).

Mt 2 cents on something I think deserves to be discussed

[whyterabbyt]

Yes it would be illegal is I redistribute the samples, but what if I RECORD the final result, and make it the source? Grey area.

No, not a grey area. Legally, that's called a derived work. And derived work is covered by the same copyright as the original material.

Also, this is not to be compared with taking a record, and use it.

Yes it is.

But even this, I think will depends on which extent you do the processing.

Utterly wrong. Legally, it doesnt matter how much processing you do.

From the UK copyright service's 'ten myths about copyright' :

If I change someone else's work I can claim it as my own?

The act of copying or adapting someone else's work is a breach of copyright. Also any adaptation will be legally regarded as a derived work; so if you simply adapt the work of others, it will still be their work, and they have every right to object, (and are also entitled to any money you make from their work).

The only safe option is to create something that is not copied or adapted from the work of others.

There is nothing to stop you being inspired by the work of others, but when it comes to your own work, start with a blank sheet and do not try to copy what others have done.

Mt 2 cents on something I think deserves to be discussed

It has been discussed. Its been said time and time again, every time sampling law comes up.

Its like people repeat what they want to be true, not what actually is.

[ghettosynth]

...

[izonin]

It has been discussed. Its been said time and time again, every time sampling law comes up.

And everyone feels they're right, mainly because law differs from country to country. Here is a quote from Access Music:

"the wavetables as much as everything we design and create is copyrighted."

So are sample libraries with Virus sounds legal? What about samples of M1's copyrighted sounds?

If a company rips Roland's ROMs and uses them in a product, yes, Roland will sue them. But to think that if you sample your synth and share the nki's with friends will have a negative effect on you is pure paranoia. Is it illegal? Technically, yes. Is it ok? Yep.

[Rock Hardbuns]

If a company rips Roland's ROMs and uses them in a product, yes, Roland will sue them. But to think that if you sample your synth and share the nki's with friends will have a negative effect on you is pure paranoia. Is it illegal? Technically, yes. Is it ok? Yep.

Yes. There's actually 3 levels to these discussions and they tend to get confused:

* What copyright law actually says you can do. (Nothing)
* What the maker wants.(Music is OK, but nothing else)
* What you can get away with (A lot I suspect)

And yes. Local law will vary, sometimes greatly, with the US being significantly more restrictive than everyone else.

[IncarnateX]

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

What if I took any of the illegals and sampled and distributed a selfmade synthline that I played? Is it still illegal? I guess it shouldn't be, but with this list, I am (almost) no longer certain.

[bbaggins]

This has turned into a surprisingly interesting discussion. It takes so little to cross from a clearly illegal act to a clearly legal one, and vice versa.

It would appear that if I record two or more notes in sequence using copyrighted samples, I suddenly have an original work that's mine to do with as I please. (Assuming the originator of the samples has given permission to use them to make music.)

It would appear that if I record the output of a Minimoog, I can do as I like with it. But that digital recording I just made is now my property and no one else can legally copy it.

It would appear that knowingly crossing the line may depend on my ability to obtain (and understand) a schematic diagram of the synth in question. It's OK to sample a TR-909's oscillator-generated bass drum and toms, but not its sample-driven cymbals.

[mauseoleum]

Hey, it's illegal but everybody does it.

Now what?

[sauli]

So, I guess majority of virtual trons are illegal then.

[fmr]

Yes it would be illegal is I redistribute the samples, but what if I RECORD the final result, and make it the source? Grey area.

No, not a grey area. Legally, that's called a derived work. And derived work is covered by the same copyright as the original material.

Also, this is not to be compared with taking a record, and use it.

Yes it is.

But even this, I think will depends on which extent you do the processing.

Utterly wrong. Legally, it doesnt matter how much processing you do.

From the UK copyright service's 'ten myths about copyright' :

If I change someone else's work I can claim it as my own?

The act of copying or adapting someone else's work is a breach of copyright. Also any adaptation will be legally regarded as a derived work; so if you simply adapt the work of others, it will still be their work, and they have every right to object, (and are also entitled to any money you make from their work).

The only safe option is to create something that is not copied or adapted from the work of others.

There is nothing to stop you being inspired by the work of others, but when it comes to your own work, start with a blank sheet and do not try to copy what others have done.

Mt 2 cents on something I think deserves to be discussed

It has been discussed. Its been said time and time again, every time sampling law comes up.

Its like people repeat what they want to be true, not what actually is.

Calm down. Your reply seems to assume I support law infringement, which I do not. However, what I exposed is, IMO (and it is JUST IMO, which worths nothing in face of the law) a grey area that, if I had the money to expend in a legal battle, I think has basis for a discussion. But I haven't the money, nor I am interested in one, even if I had it. I just use anything I have for my personal use, and do not distribute anything, even to friends, therefore, I am completely safe in this matter. But I still think that copyright protection of sounds made with ROMplers is an abuse of dominant position, and doesn't protect the consumer (user) rights.

[fmr]

So, I guess majority of virtual trons are illegal then.

In face of what has been said, they are, except if the copyright owners gave permission to use the samples. And these are mure straight copies than recording the output of a ROMpler playing a patch I created.

[whyterabbyt]

Calm down. Your reply seems to assume I support law infringement, which I do not.

That's two incorrect assumptions in as many sentences.

But I still think that copyright protection of sounds made with ROMplers is an abuse of dominant position, and doesn't protect the consumer (user) rights.

Why do you think the user should deserve rights that trump those of the creator of the original work?

[hollowsun]

But I still think that copyright protection of sounds made with ROMplers is an abuse of dominant position, and doesn't protect the consumer (user) rights.

It's pretty much exactly the same as any sample library EULA which is, basically...

You can use the sounds to create music but you can't use them to create your own sound library for the purposes re-distribution in any form or format.

You can quite happily use the sounds to record a lead line or sequence them for a pounding bass and you can do what you like with those pieces of music you created.

What you CAN'T do is present C, C#, D, E, F, F#, etc., each recorded in isolation for a certain duration across the instruments range and distribute those for others to sample. Neither can you sample those notes yourself, edit, loop them and make them into a Kontakt (whatever) instrument and distribute that program and its samples.

And even if you have changed the settings and sample that to make your own program, you cannot distribute that (a derivative work using copyrighted samples). However, you CAN make your own programs and distribute those freely to other users of the same ROMpler.

I have no idea where this notion came from that these ROMplers can't be used to make music - that's either sophistry or pedantry in the extreme. The ROMpler manufacturers positively WANT you to make music with their products and they provide generous functionality to make your own sounds which you can also use to create music. And they want you to buy their instruments to make music. That's why they manufacturer them - to make music with.

What they DON'T allow is for your to make and distribute your own sample library using their copyrighted samples.

Put it this way, if Roland got to hear a piece of music you created on a Fantom, they'd be delighted - hell, they may even ask you if they can feature it on their website. If they liked the programs you created for the piece, they may ask if they can use them to share with their customers. They may even pay you! It has happened, you know.

But if Roland got to hear that you'd made and were distributing a sound library created by sampling their copyrighted samples in a Fantom, they'd have their legal rottweillers slap a C&D order on you immediately with no exception and no room for negotiation. That has also happened.

Cheers


Stephen