SFX Re-Designs in Commercial Libraries

[_tweak_]

What do you think of re-designed sound effects in commercial libraries? I have seen more and more sound effects that seem to be recreations iconic sounds that are heard in films and games.

I'm sure that these sound effects are not ripped but actually re-designed, however I don't understand how these effects can be used commercially without violating copyright law.

Where is the ethical line to be drawn here? On one hand there is the right of intellectual property when a sound designer creates a sound. On the other hand these re-designs seem to be created from different sources than the original material. But does it even matter if the final result of the design sounds almost identical to the original?

So can I commercially use a purchased library that contains sounds that are obviously re-designs of Star Wars?

After all R2D2 was ultimately created with a synthesizer, so the designer of the library can easily recreate that sound effect and offer it to me for sale. Apart from the fact that as a sound editor it would feel like cheating and in my opinion it is considered lazy sound design practice.

Please share your opinion, I'm not sure how I should feel about this

[BertKoor]

> can I commercially use a purchased library that contains sounds that are obviously re-designs of Star Wars?

That should be stated in the small print of that library. Technically it's ok. The copyright is on musical ideas and recordings. Copyright is not created to make certain knob combinations illegal to use.

But if you do put such sounds in your tracks, it's not only LucasFilm (now Disney) that will feel them being familiar. Is that what you want?

[_tweak_]

Nah, of course not. That's why I am asking how it can be justified for people to sell these sounds in libraries.

Right, the small print of the library states that they can be used, and you are right in saying that copyright serves to protect musical ideas and recordings. I just don't get why sound designers bother to recreate these sounds for libraries that ultimately no one would use in commercial products because they'd seem too familiar and might sound like rip-offs.

Sorry, I might have misrepresented the Star Wars example. It's not that I personally want to use them per se, it's more about understanding how it can be legal to sell them for use in commercial projects and what the consequences might be.

[BertKoor]

I don't understand how these effects can be used commercially without violating copyright law.

Simply because it does not violate any (copyright) law. Morally it's a grey area.

does it even matter if the final result of the design sounds almost identical to the original?

To put it in other words, in a more practical perspective: are you afraid to get sued by the original copyright owner if you put a reconstruction of a sound effect in one of your works?

If you keep intermediate products, you probably can prove in court it is not a copy but your own recording. But will it ever see court? i don't recall such a case, but then I'm not a lawyer.

Also important to ask yourself: what circumstances do influence the chance of this going to court? Because if there ain't no case in court and no precedent for reference, then the whole discussion is rather academic.

Oh, come to think of it, there's the case of Marvin Gaye's estate vs Robin Thicke & Pharrell Williams "Blurred Lines". That got nasty and judges & juries made some weird decisions.
Then another case: the Windows'95 startup sound was said to have infringed on the Dolby Surround "logo" used in cinemas.

Important factor before it goes to court: =$= =$= =$=

[JeffLearman]

Actually, the claim could be made that it violates a copyright. Consider a painting. You don't have to literally Xerox a painting to copy it. If you painted a copy yourself, it would be a copyright violation.

Regardless, it's not a crime; it's a civil matter. If you infringe, the cops won't come after you. It's up to the copyright holder to police their rights, and sue you (or at least send you a cease & desist letter.) Legally, that is. Furthermore, if you infringe and they sue you and it's a registered copyright, in addition to collecting "actual damages" (the value of what they lost or you gained) they can get "statutory damages" which include attorneys' fees. If the copyright isn't registered before the violation, no statutory damages. I think that also includes punitive damages for egregious acts, which can be up to three times actual damages (lawyers use the term "treble damages" for this, probably to sound smart. As if we need to be reminded.)

Ethics? They may not care if people copy the sounds of Star Wars. Who knows? I wouldn't worry about it unless I were to consider using the sounds in a major motion picture, TV show, or perhaps a chart topper hit record. So, I'm off the hook!

What is criminal is violating certain provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which makes it a felony to try to circumvent copy protection, or even to tell people how to do it. For example, a crypto researcher and published author got in trouble because he publicly criticized a CD copy protection scheme because it was easy to thwart simply by holding down the shift key when inserting the disk in Windows. The DMCA goes too far because the text was written by the industry (mostly RIAA) and ... well ... politics.