may i sample & mangle and sell?

[Caine123]

im unsure if this is legal?

e.g.
i use a sample and granulize it and layer with eg. 1-2 more mangled samples within e.g. avenger, may i then sell my new soundscape/drone containing samples from for example zero-g samples/loops?

[whyterabbyt]

No. If you derive from copyrighted work, the derivative requires the exact same permission to redistribute as the original, permission you pretty much do not have when it comes to bought samples.

Its not hard to check ... the license for your Zero-G/whatever samples will tell you that you dont get permission to redistribute the original or its derivatives.

https://zero-g.co.uk/pages/license-info

4. This license expressly forbids resale, relicensing, or other distribution of these sound samples, either as they exist on the enclosed discs, or any modification thereof.

In other words, its pretty much the exact same situation as any other set of samples...

viewtopic.php?f=42&t=328806

[thecontrolcentre]

i use a sample and granulize it and layer with eg. 1-2 more mangled samples within e.g. avenger, may i then sell my new soundscape/drone containing samples from for example zero-g samples/loops?

Nope.

[Caine123]

thanks a lot guys!

but i guess when i make e.g. with omnisphere some melodies -> render those -> then mangle i am ok with it am i?

[Guenon]

but i guess when i make e.g. with omnisphere some melodies -> render those -> then mangle i am ok with it am i?

From the Spectrasonics site: "All modification, layering, and tweaking is still legally considered a "derivative work" based on copyrighted recordings, so any type of re-use or sample distribution like this is prohibited under the standard license. Use of this type would require specific clearance or a special license arranged with Spectrasonics in advance."

If you are using it to make original music it's okay. If you're doing this in order to sell the mangled sounds as a sample product, it's not okay.

[dark water]

Caine, forget about taking other people's samples and changing them slightly, and then selling them as your own.
(Tbh, if you're still determined to do so despite the advice here, it becomes a game of luck which might prove costly to you).

Instead, buy yourself a handheld recording/sampling device and capture the world around you. Then effect those recordings and sell them as your own true samples.
Much more inspiring, original and honest.

[Caine123]

ok thanks a lot guys, it is understandable of course.
i guess making a patch with oscs is not prohibited though ;D, cause this would be like patenting waveforms...

then i would use only omnisphere with the synthstuff for sampling.

[Zombie Queen]

cause this would be like patenting waveforms...

You can't patent waveform, but any sound recording is copyrighted. So if you record a waveform, you have rights for the recording of the waveform. Hence using any synth based on samples, PCM or whatever type of recording is technically NOT OK, for what you intend.

[himalaya]

Maybe approach this topic from a different angle. Rather than seek an easy way out by ripping off sample creators, be *creative* and do it yourself. I don't mean it as a 'telling off' but rather as a way to better creative fulfilment. I can tell you in all sincerity that the process of making your own samples with legitimate audio sources, provides great pleasure and creative fulfilment. I know, sounds corny, but the creation of cool new samples can be very rewarding, artistically speaking.

There will be steps where the process of sample creation can be very difficult and may cause you to swear at every object in your studio, but it makes the final product so much more rewarding. Once you loop that seemingly un-loopable sound (try making a seamless loop, where you do not perceive any cyclic motion within the loop, out of a violin!), once you manage to remove nasty clicks and artefatcs that got in your field recording, once you manage to tune out-of-tune samples (and in the process realise that Melodyne is not all that and can't help you) once you get the right timbral balance from note-to-note on a flute multisample, once you get a multi-velocity-zone sample set to respond naturally, one you manage to loop a 3-oscillator analog sound where each oscillator's phase drifts and makes a natural loop difficult....once you get a playable preset, it really, really feels good!

[Caine123]

yes i understand it that you cannot just take a sample or sample based instruments and mangle and re-sell.

but NOT being able to init a patch and make your own sounds via osc's is plain stupid?
then how do people create SAW sounds etc.? building their own synths?

[AstroCastro]

You are not paying attention at all what people are saying.
You are not allowed to mangle samples, loops and presets from synths which are based on samples which includes romplers too. Nobody was even talking about you taking synth, creating presets, defacing them and making sound library.

To make it simple for you: you are free to open Sylenth or Diva and to sample them and sell sound library.
You can't take Kontakt sound library and use its samples, to mangle them and then to sell whatever you mangled, you can't buy loops, deface them and sell them, you can't sample for example Nexus (which uses samples too) and to sell that as your own sound library.

Your synthesis sampled = ok.
Samples, loops, whatever is based on samples and using its samples = not ok.

However, nobody is stopping you to dismantle Kontakt sound library and use it for your music however you want because you own those samples, but you can't resell them, nor to deface them and then to sell them.

[Sampleconstruct]

However, nobody is stopping you to dismantle Kontakt sound library and use it for your music however you want because you own those samples, but you can't resell them, nor to deface them and then to sell them.

No, he licenses the samples, he doesn't own them at all.

[T-CM11]

However, nobody is stopping you to dismantle Kontakt sound library and use it for your music however you want because you own those samples, but you can't resell them, nor to deface them and then to sell them.

No, he licenses the samples, he doesn't own them at all.

Depending on the context (mostly personal use), that's just semantics.
e.g. I buy an Xbox - for most intents and purposes I own it, even though I can't go mass selling the OS or hardware design like it's mine.
Only online DRM blurs the line between licensing and owning (for personal use / in case of samples: using in an original creative work and publishing that).

[dark water]

However, nobody is stopping you to dismantle Kontakt sound library and use it for your music however you want because you own those samples, but you can't resell them, nor to deface them and then to sell them.

No, he licenses the samples, he doesn't own them at all.

Depending on the context (mostly personal use), that's just semantics.
e.g. I buy an Xbox - for most intents and purposes I own it, even though I can't go mass selling the OS or hardware design like it's mine.
Only online DRM blurs the line between licensing and owning (for personal use / in case of samples: using in an original creative work and publishing that).

"Depending on the context" - the context here is that the OP is suggesting altering another person's samples and then flogging them as his own.
They are clearly not intended for his personal use.

Legally and factually speaking, Simon (Sampleconstruct) is correct and you are not, despite your mistaken attempt at 'semantics'.
The licensing restrictions apply both to the case outlined by AstroCastro, and to the desired selling of other people's samples as suggested by Caine.
It is what it is

[T-CM11]

"Depending on the context" - the context here is that the OP is suggesting altering another person's samples and then flogging them as his own.
They are clearly not intended for his personal use.

Legally and factually speaking, Simon (Stockhausen) is correct and you are not, despite your mistaken attempt at 'semantics'.

Indeed, the context of this topic is about license, not "owning".
And in the context of this topic, Simon is, legally and factually speaking, correct. But not in general - yes I was going off-topic.