# Using your samples for commercial work for others - legal?



## Jaap (Mar 1, 2017)

I got curious by this topic here - http://vi-control.net/community/threads/piano-midi-to-audio-service.59903/ and I don't want to clutter his topic with it, but the questions was raised if it was legal that he used his piano sample libraries to produce the audio for what others have composed.

I read through some EULA's and it seems a bit a vague topic, but I think it's actually good to know if this kind of services is legal or not.
Btw this is NOT an attack to the poster or a way to discredit him. Far from it, but I am more curious how this legally works and if such services can be used for our commercial works.

For example, what if I compose a full orchestral piece but I want to have it rendered with only with Spitfire or Orchestral Tools samples which I don't own, but another composer I know has them and wants to do it and I want to use that composition for a commercial project.

Just stating this as example to showcase the question.


----------



## Lotias (Mar 1, 2017)

Jaap said:


> I got curious by this topic here - http://vi-control.net/community/threads/piano-midi-to-audio-service.59903/ and I don't want to clutter his topic with it, but the questions was raised if it was legal that he used his piano sample libraries to produce the audio for what others have composed.
> 
> I read through some EULA's and it seems a bit a vague topic, but I think it's actually good to know if this kind of services is legal or not.
> Btw this is NOT an attack to the poster or a way to discredit him. Far from it, but I am more curious how this legally works and if such services can be used for our commercial works.
> ...


why would someone else composing it, instead of him composing the music himself and selling it, in any way breach the EULA


----------



## Jaap (Mar 1, 2017)

Lotias said:


> why would someone else composing it, instead of him composing the music himself and selling it, in any way breach the EULA



Well the East West EULA states this for example (this is not just about PLAY, but the header of the EULA also states that this about their sounds and audio content): "

D. You may use the EASTWEST SOFTWARE to compose original music compositions or soundtracks; or for a Production Music Library, also known as stock music or library music (original compositions or soundtracks created entirely by you using the EASTWEST SOFTWARE that you, in turn, license as an original composition or soundtrack to third parties for use in film, television, radio, or other media), provided the completed composition or soundtrack is created solely by you. "
Which basically is saying that the samples can only be used for original compositions created by yourself. So no covers or using it for this kind of things as stated in the opening post. Maybe I am seeing and reading it all wrong, but it was raised as well by others.


----------



## Lotias (Mar 1, 2017)

Jaap said:


> Well the East West EULA states this for example (this is not just about PLAY, but the header of the EULA also states that this about their sounds and audio content): "
> 
> D. You may use the EASTWEST SOFTWARE to compose original music compositions or soundtracks; or for a Production Music Library, also known as stock music or library music (original compositions or soundtracks created entirely by you using the EASTWEST SOFTWARE that you, in turn, license as an original composition or soundtrack to third parties for use in film, television, radio, or other media), provided the completed composition or soundtrack is created solely by you. "


then they'd better start rounding up all the people that ever made mockups of existing works or remixes of other soundtracks with their products


----------



## Jaap (Mar 1, 2017)

Lotias said:


> then they'd better start rounding up all the people that ever made mockups of existing works or remixes of other soundtracks with their products



Yeah that's also what's confusing the hell out of me atm


----------



## Lotias (Mar 1, 2017)

Jaap said:


> Yeah that's also what's confusing the hell out of me atm


honestly it just sounds like a case of poorly thought out legalese


----------



## Jaap (Mar 1, 2017)

Maybe the tricky part here is also if somebody is selling that audio rendering commercially and if you want to use it yourself also again for a commercial project it gets legally messy in my opinion.


----------



## Polkasound (Mar 1, 2017)

Imagine going into a music store, buying a guitar, and then being told you're not allow to use it in any recording studios unless you're recording your own, original material, and no one else picks up your guitar and plays it. To try to impose a restriction like that on a guitar would be insane. Well, what makes a virtual guitar any different from a real guitar? They may exist in different domains, but they both do the same exact thing... they generate audio to be used in musical performances. A musical performance and the samples used to create the performance are two entirely different things.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 1, 2017)

i think the essence is more about someone selling the service of getting their piano recorded with samples libraries instead of the composer just buying the sample library. not a mockup per say but more of renting their sample library which iwoudlnt be cool under eula agreements or the nature of licensing software.


----------



## Tyll (Mar 1, 2017)

I'm not aware of any law forbidding this practice. However as you usually agree to a EULA you are accepting an offer for a contract with the company. In the case of that East West EULA except it's pretty clear that this is not allowed.
However, there are many sides to this: Just because it's not allowed doesn't mean that companies would go to court with every case even if they knew. To get a better perspective imagine some company creating a program that would allow anybody who payed a certain amount to log onto the companies servers, which host a program similar to VEP with virtually all sample libraries on those servers. If this service worked fine (and latency issues aside) suddenly all kind of sample library creation would struggle to be any lucrative - there would only be one company buying them. Maybe they'd have to buy a few licences if you could only "rent" to one person at a time, but still.

The same thing, in a smaller perspective is a studio with 5 composers sharing licences. Is that still ok? What about two independent studios sharing?

The point is: Sample library makers got to make a cut somewhere. Also, they can usually write whatever they want in a EULA - who even reads it?! So they rather keep as many rights as possible and give you just enough for you to not complain.

Let me repeat: If companies ACTUALLY make the cut here or there is written on a different page. I have yet to hear of any company going to court because someone offers doing a MIDI-mockup. However, that involves quite some work aside from just copying the MIDI file and rendering it.

By the way: I don't see why a music store couldn't sell guitars that are for personal use only. Renting a flat is a similar example by the way: At least in Germany your landlord can very much forbid you to sublet the flat. The reason is similar: They want to keep their property (in this case material property=the flat) as safe as possible. Still, many people do sublet and unless something bad happens to the flat or the landlord gets knowledge of the sublet rent being twice the actual rent, they don't do nothing.


----------



## Tysmall (Mar 1, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> Imagine going into a music store, buying a guitar, and then being told you're not allow to use it in any recording studios unless you're recording your own, original material, and no one else picks up your guitar and plays it. To try to impose a restriction like that on a guitar would be insane. Well, what makes a virtual guitar any different from a real guitar? They may exist in different domains, but they both do the same exact thing... they generate audio to be used in musical performances. A musical performance and the samples used to create the performance are two entirely different things.



the difference is hitting ctrl c && ctrl v in real life doesn't duplicate the guitar. software devs have to have a little different rules than a guitar shop. But I get your point. 

I really don't know the answer, because with any software under fair use, you are agreeing nobody uses it but you. If you were to use your friends even though you don't own them .. I assume that would be breaking tos. If it were rendered to stems I don't know if it would be different. Copyright laws are like discrete mathematical proofs, nobody knows what is going on except the guy who wrote the rules.


----------



## Tyll (Mar 1, 2017)

This is not copyright law by the way. This is civil law. It's agreeing to the EULA that creates a relation (contract) between the user and the company. The company creating the EULA can request pretty much everything in this contract. You don't have to accept. But if you do (usually done by buying and/or using the product), you have accepted the deal as it was suggested.

As stated above: The reality of what will be (and was meant to be) forced by going to court or revoking a licence - that can be a different story. I'm not saying you should break all EULAs, but I'm saying that companies usually ask their lawyers to make the EULAs as strict as possible so they have the chance later on. Many times there isn't even an intention to sue every second user even though they could - it's about the unforeseen risks they want to avoid.


----------



## Tyll (Mar 1, 2017)

douggibson said:


> If I hire studio XYZ (wether it is 1 or 5 people etc) to mock-up my piece that could violate a EULA ?



Sure, if the EULA says you are only allowed to use the library for mock ups of your own compositions, than doing a mock up of someone else's composition would break the EULA.
I'd even go further and say that probably this THEN creates a copyright issue as you are using samples you are not allowed to use in your song.

Hell, they could even restrict you (or the studio or whoever agrees to the EULA) to only use a library to write pieces in C major. 
Maaaaaybe you'd have a chance at court saying that this is absurd, noone reads the EULA and you couldn't possibly know something like that would be in the EULA, it's without any reason at all and only harming you without them gaining anything - so you might be able to keep selling your piece in A-Minor. However, technically you agreed to only using the library for pieces written in C-major, so... yeah...


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 1, 2017)

douggibson said:


> Hmm.... well I am certainly no lawyer so I have no expert way of knowing the ins- and outs of this. This just sounds like it can be a confusing rabbit hole real quick.
> 
> I mean what is it that defines "a mockup per say" ? How is a piano any different than a string orchestra ?
> If I was doing a film cue, and they wanted a big string orchestra sound. I then hired someone
> ...




maybe i am not understanding too well the service. if i send my piano midi file and he just runs it though the expensive sample library then thats what i am talking about not being cool with EULA. 
if i send you the same piano file and you do a mockup or a musical work then thats a music service you are providing and ok under the EULA. 
so basically if you are using it as part of a composition then its cool but ifs just running the same midi file - unmodified then thats where it gets iffy. and software companies would want to just have the composer buy the software instrument. 
If i am developer, and i sell my sell expensive piano library online and then find out that someone just selling a service to basically not have composers own the library and instead do a midi to audio conversion with it then i wouldnt be too happy. if they are selling a service of doing an arragement and sending back a audio file then thats ok as thats the orignal intent of producing and selling the software. 

then again, they dont really care about this stuff and me either, except that i think people be ablet o sell their software or use it as they please. but in terms of this perticular deal, it really is not an issue but wanted to chime in as to the OP was trying to understand the eula.


----------



## Polkasound (Mar 1, 2017)

My guitar analogy wasn't about renting. It was more about buying a Martin guitar, but Martin telling you that you can't use it to record a guitar track on another artist's CD, nor can you let any of your friends come to your studio to play it. Such a restriction on the sale of a physical instrument would be absurd. Obviously you can't clone a Martin guitar like you can clone a virtual instrument, but whether an instrument is real or digital, producing audio with one is completely different than cloning one.



gsilbers said:


> If i am developer, and i sell my sell expensive piano library online and then find out that someone just selling a service to basically not have composers own the library and instead do a midi to audio conversion with it then i wouldnt be too happy.



I respect that, but as a developer, I personally would not mind. The use of my virtual instruments, for example, requires owning the full version of Kontakt, a computer, and having the knowledge to operate both. There are musicians out there who possess neither those tools nor skills, so when it comes to making a CD, what options do they have? Either they buy a computer, buy Kontakt, and learn how to use both... or they simply find a friend or commercial recording service that owns my virtual instruments. As long as my instruments are not being illegally copied or the samples being distributed, I don't care how a musician or commercial studio uses them.


----------



## CGR (Mar 1, 2017)

Given this thread sprang from my pianoproducer announcement, I thought it appropriate I comment. This license issue has been raised on Vi Control in the past:
Is it legal to use libraries to "convert" midi-files ?

With all the conflicting opinions, it was interesting to read post #20 from non other than Cinesamples. To quote an extract from that post:

_"It's called Synthestration, and it is a growing field that is becoming more and more in demand. We have nothing against what the OP is doing, so long as the only person who owns the library is the one 'converting' the midi file."_

My piano producer service functions in the same way: I own licenses for all the libraries, which I use together with MIDI file adjustment/optimisation and my custom settings and FX chains to produce a final audio file for a client. The process is not automated, and at no stage do I share or lend the software or samples to a third party.

For the record, given EastWest's strict conditions in their EULA, none of the sample pianos I work with for the pianoproducer service are from that company.


----------



## Jaap (Mar 2, 2017)

I knew I had seen a sort like discussion in the past, but could not find it. Thanks for linking it CGR. 
Stil seems like a vague subject and looks like it depends per company what you are allowed to do and what not. For the record I think it should be possible to offer and use such services, but if you want to do that I guess the best thing to do is have contact with every dev you are using its products from and get clearance on that you can use it for such services to avoid for every party a possible legal mambo jambo afterwards.
Anyhow an interesting topic to discuss in my opinion.


----------



## Lode_Runner (Mar 2, 2017)

I've considered the possibility of collaborating with another composer, where they are composing for a film or television client, and subcontracting me to contribute parts to their composition (eg getting me to compose some orchestral arrangements as backing for a guitar part they've written). I thought about that as a possibility to recoup what I've spent on sample libraries, and trial whether or not I could make it as a composer, without necessarily having to become a professional in my own right. But EULAs like the East West cited earlier mean that an arrangement like this may be forbidden. I shelved the idea to be on the safe side, even though the developers would probably not care at all, so long as I am composing my parts rather than performing someone elses composition. 

I've also considered the question of a keyboardist in a band who uses lots of Sample Libraries. The overall composition is a band effort, and the keyboardist is only composing and playing the keyboard parts. That's more or less the same thing as what I've described above (ie the overall composition isn't the work of the sample library licensee, just the parts that use the sample libraries). It seems that might also be technically forbidden under the terms of some EULAs, even though it wouldn't be ripping off the sample library developer.


----------



## procreative (Mar 2, 2017)

Most of the issues revolve around the fact that Sample developers base their licenses on the products being Sound Recordings rather than instruments or software. The copyright in Sound Recordings is very different and more far reaching and permits them to apply rules that to many seem unfair or dare I say hypocritical.

For instance a sample library developer can sample an instrument, then the recording becomes copyrighted. However there are many libraries where the developer samples a vintage synthesizer. In my opinion, unlike an acoustic instrument this relies on taking someone else's sound design/circuit design and reselling it.

In the case of a PCM based synth such as say a Korg Triton, technically they are reselling recordings of recordings.

So personally I feel Sample Developers have an unfair advantage over hardware instrument developers in that they can reuse their work, but not the other way round.

To which a Sample Developer will say "you cannot copyright an instrument, its the performance that is copyrighted". But unlike a real "performance" most samples are a collection of individual recordings of notes.

Trouble is most EULAS seem to limit users so much and its all very well to say "they will never take it to court" but the possibility of it can have an impact on selling on works. So much so that Big Fish Audio recently amended their EULAS as it expressly prevented use in Library music (many Libraries would not touch them as there was the complexity of dealing with future licensing issues).


----------



## lux (Mar 2, 2017)

Given the reasonable cost of most pianos out there I think if someone goes for such type of service is a non-target customer for sample libraries, perhaps someone who finds working with modern daws hard to manage. I think to people who only write in Sibelius or Finale, are not happy with the internal rendering and would like to see their staff played by a better piano. I think also to people with sight issues that write with special softwares which only output midi. And so on.

All in all I don't picture them as someone who's skipping the purchase of a sample library. They are, as a matter of fact, already paying money, and probably could (and would) afford purchasing their own piano libraries if they were able to use it. So, at the end, they're non-target. That's my perception of this whole thing.


----------



## paoling (Mar 2, 2017)

I'd avoid selling our pianos to that guy. Sorry but a single guy with all the piano libraries could "hypotetically" totally screw the market.

The idea of sample libraries is that users support the developer with money that helps the developer to continue creating libraries. If we sell just one piano to this guy and he produces all the midi exports for our eventual users we are basically screwed.

This is a particular case, because loading a midi and exporting is something that doesn't require any skill or time.

Sorry for being a bit harsh, but there should be no easy way for easy money.


----------



## procreative (Mar 2, 2017)

I cannot see much of a market for this anyway. There are plenty of Piano services where you send Midi and they record it using one of those midi controlled acoustic Pianos. Thats a different beast alltogether.

Cannot see that much point in sending Midi to have it played by a VI Piano.

And I do think this is maybe infringing license agreements, as like with royalty free images, you cannot resell samples exactly as is with no intervention and as the license owner is simply re-rendering them, its not their composition.

Thats not what most sample developers licenses cover.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 2, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> My guitar analogy wasn't about renting. It was more about buying a Martin guitar, but Martin telling you that you can't use it to record a guitar track on another artist's CD, nor can you let any of your friends come to your studio to play it. Such a restriction on the sale of a physical instrument would be absurd. Obviously you can't clone a Martin guitar like you can clone a virtual instrument, but whether an instrument is real or digital, producing audio with one is completely different than cloning one.
> 
> 
> 
> I respect that, but as a developer, I personally would not mind. The use of my virtual instruments, for example, requires owning the full version of Kontakt, a computer, and having the knowledge to operate both. There are musicians out there who possess neither those tools nor skills, so when it comes to making a CD, what options do they have? Either they buy a computer, buy Kontakt, and learn how to use both... or they simply find a friend or commercial recording service that owns my virtual instruments. As long as my instruments are not being illegally copied or the samples being distributed, I don't care how a musician or commercial studio uses them.



i agree.


----------



## Polkasound (Mar 2, 2017)

paoling said:


> Sorry but a single guy with all the piano libraries could "hypotetically" totally screw the market.



Even though you are 100% correct from a hypothetical standpoint, I believe the chance of that actually happening is 0%. CGR's piano service is going to serve a very, very, very small niche of musicians. No piano developer is going to lose a sale to CGR, because, as lux alluded to above, the musicians hiring CGR are not in the market for virtual instruments. Neither you nor I are ever going to sell a virtual instrument to someone who is still making music with a MIDI sequencer and a Tascam DA-88. That's where CGR comes in.

For everyone else out there currently using DAWs and virtual instruments, with respect to CGR, I don't believe they're going to hire him. They're not going to spend $25 for a single piano track outsourced to another engineer, not knowing if the piano they chose might be one they could download on sale for $50. The musician who is serious about his work is going to shop for and spend $100-$200 on a beautiful piano that they can use over and over. The musician who is less-serious about his work is not going to invest either way, and will simply use the piano that came free with the DAW.


----------



## procreative (Mar 2, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> The musician who is less-serious about his work is not going to invest either way, and will simply use the piano that came free with the DAW.



Which to be honest these days is probably not as inferior as it might have been especially if not used "naked" in a track and especially if the actual performance is good enough...


----------



## Jaap (Mar 2, 2017)

I used CGR topic as an example to raise a question, but I would actually like to see that we stick on the topic of discussing the legal side of this question instead of questioning his service. I think it's a fair service and this topic is totally not ment to put that up for question or make his business harder.


----------



## paoling (Mar 2, 2017)

One question: imagine that there's a website which allows you to upload a MIDI, set some parameters in the chosen VST and get back a wav? Would it be legal using the current EULAs? Maybe.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 2, 2017)

In the past the answer is that you're allowed to use the sample libraries on your projects. You don't have to be the composer, and in fact it would make no sense for that to be the requirement.


----------



## mc_deli (Mar 2, 2017)

No offence meant but I think the Piano Producer service is just daft - the idea of "customising the settings" on a virtual piano for midi playback as a paid service - but people buy French cars - so there will always be a market!

And if was a sample library developer I would be tweaking my EULA to make sure it was clear that this wasn't allowed... surely the intent of the EULA for devs is to discourage a resale like this. 

Anyway, isn't it that when previously discussed people have highlighted how a "composition" in terms of the legal description in a EULA needs to have more than one element/instrument to not fall foul of the EULA...?


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 3, 2017)

Anyone who deals with music/entertainment lawyers on a regular basis quickly realizes most of them know very little about the actual nuts and bolts of what music software does. I had a deliverables list draft the other day asking to ensure I delivered in "Pro Tools 5" format on CD-R (!). For a 5.1 stem session running to 15gb!

They'd been using the same form language for years, and numerous composers had signed deal with this paragraph with not a peep from their lawyers. Most EULA's are similarly badly written from the technological standpoint...it is a big problem.


----------



## CGR (Mar 3, 2017)

I'd like to clarify some of the incorrect assumptions and inaccurate perceptions of my pianoproducer service. As I have stated in previous posts, I am not offering an automated service of pushing in a MIDI file and pumping out an audio file at the other end. I am *producing *audio tracks, and applying considerable knowledge of MIDI and audio and production skills in the process. At no stage does a client have access to my licensed sample libraries, nor do I share or distribute the samples in those libraries. I'd refer you to the post by noted New York based Composer and Orchestrator Douglas Gibson in posts #25 and #32 in this thread:

http://vi-control.net/community/threads/piano-midi-to-audio-service.59903/page-2#post-4060426

I liken the pianoproducer service to some of the work I do on a regular basis as a Graphic Artist. This week I received some product photography from a client, which I opened in Photoshop, improved the images with colour and contrast correction tools, and sent back finished press ready images. I used my licensed copy of Adobe Photoshop to do this work, which my client doesn't own, would not be in the market to purchase, and possibly wouldn't have the skill and knowledge to use properly for print/magazine reproduction. At no stage in this process did my client have access to my Photoshop software.

As Lux suggested about in post #24, the people interested in my pianoproducer service are generally not the target market for Sampled Piano developers, so I don't see I could be affecting potential sales for these developers. On the contrary, the pianoproducer service may in fact switch people onto exploring the purchase of their own sampled pianos, when they hear the difference they can make compared to built in sounds from Notation software such as Sibelius, or some hardware based piano sounds.


----------



## Lode_Runner (Mar 3, 2017)

CGR said:


> On the contrary, the pianoproducer service may in fact switch people onto exploring the purchase of their own sampled pianos, when they hear the difference they can make compared to built in sounds from Notation software such as Sibelius, or some hardware based piano sounds.



On this point I'd love to know, if you're willing to share, what Bosendorfer library you used to do the track for DougGibson. It sounds amazing, so much power on those low notes (I know it's not out of the box sound, but still I know a lot of the libraries I do have could never be made to sound like that not matter how much processing is applied). PM me if you prefer, or ignore my question if it's your trade secret. If it's the big VSL Imperial, I probably can't afford it anyway.


----------



## CGR (Mar 3, 2017)

Lode_Runner said:


> On this point I'd love to know, if you're willing to share, what Bosendorfer library you used to do the track for DougGibson. It sounds amazing, so much power on those low notes (I know it's not out of the box sound, but still I know a lot of the libraries I do have could never be made to sound like that not matter how much processing is applied). PM me if you prefer, or ignore my question if it's your trade secret. If it's the big VSL Imperial, I probably can't afford it anyway.


Glad to hear you enjoyed the sound I achieved for Douglas. I'll PM you soon.


----------



## eddiemellencamp (Mar 3, 2017)

Even if enforcing the rules of a EULA was possible, both economically and logistically, I think you can always throw in the "I'm producing this midi track" argument to get around whatever ridiculous statements are found in that never-read waste of legal fees.

From my outsider understanding, EULA are used mostly as a deterrent against somebody using a product and weasling their way into a frivolous lawsuit against the creator. Like a warning label, is that correct? Either way, good luck with using a EULA to limit what the end user actually does with your product.


----------



## Heinigoldstein (Mar 4, 2017)

Honastly, this discussion feels pretty weird to me. 

If I buy a virtual instrument, it is still a musical instrument. And besides of that I'm not aloud to copy it or use it for building another VI, which should be matter of course, I should able to do what I want with it. 

If I buy a Steinway piano, everybody would go nuts, if Steinway would prescripe me, what I'm aloud to do with it. If I want to use it as a stand for a vase of flowers, it is fine. I bought it ! If I rent it, it's fine too, even if it might prvent others from buying one. 

As a pro, I buy VIs to make my living from music. If I compose my music, play somebody else' music, arrange it or just record it, it's not the business of the developer. As long as I paid for it, I should be allowed to use their products for what ever I want to use them. It's already a twilight zone, not beeing able to re- sale a lot of them.


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 4, 2017)

Heinigoldstein said:


> Honastly, this discussion feels pretty weird to me.
> 
> If I buy a virtual instrument, it is still a musical instrument. And besides of that I'm not aloud to copy it or use it for building another VI, which should be matter of course, I should able to do what I want with it.



Not quite. Software and recordings aren't pianos. Just because you assemble a bunch of recordings into what we define as an "instrument" doesn't alter the fact that it is not, in fact "an instrument" in the same way that a piano is. Provided of course it is you that it is doing the 'doing', of course, in practice, you can do what you like with it, except that this is a contractual situation. The developer very much CAN dictate what you do with their product, since you are being licensed it on a limited basis, not "sold" it. If a licenser wanted to say you could only use their piano in the key of D major, they could put that in the contract, and you would _technically_ have to abide by it. They are contracts that you enter into within the developer, but their only remedy should you breach it is to sue you. The damages they could recoup (actual, statutory and punitive) would be tiny in the above examples, even if it were against the EULA of a particular sample developer, which it is probably not in many cases. But this doesn't address the actual question here, which is could a successful contract be written in which a developer could actually do this? To which the answer is no.

Using samples you've licensed to produce a recording for someone else should be entirely legal because it's just like producing music for any other client on a work for hire basis, and we all do work for hire with samples all the time. A developer could not hope to write a successful/lawful contract that legally distinguished between another composer say, hiring you to create a recording on a work for hire basis, and a movie studio hiring you to create a recording on a work for hire basis, because the authorship transfers in exactly the same way. There is no distinction.

So to answer the original poster's question - yes, it's legal. Undoubtedly.


----------



## Heinigoldstein (Mar 4, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> Not quite. Software and recordings aren't pianos. Just because you assemble a bunch of recordings into what we define as an "instrument" doesn't alter the fact that it is not, in fact "an instrument" in the same way that a piano is. Provided of course it is you that it is doing the 'doing', of course, in practice, you can do what you like with it, except that this is a contractual situation. The developer very much CAN dictate what you do with their product, since you are being licensed it on a limited basis, not "sold" it. If a licenser wanted to say you could only use their piano in the key of D major, they could put that in the contract, and you would _technically_ have to abide by it. They are contracts that you enter into within the developer, but their only remedy should you breach it is to sue you. The damages they could recoup (actual, statutory and punitive) would be tiny in the above examples, even if it were against the EULA of a particular sample developer, which it is probably not in many cases. But this doesn't address the actual question here, which is could a successful contract be written in which a developer could actually do this? To which the answer is no.
> 
> Using samples you've licensed to produce a recording for someone else should be entirely legal because it's just like producing music for any other client on a work for hire basis, and we all do work for hire with samples all the time. A developer could not hope to write a successful/lawful contract that legally distinguished between another composer say, hiring you to create a recording on a work for hire basis, and a movie studio hiring you to create a recording on a work for hire basis, because the authorship transfers in exactly the same way. There is no distinction.
> 
> So to answer the original poster's question - yes, it's legal. Undoubtedly.


Maybe I'm too naive. Maybe they could - although I'm not sure, at least in Europe the EULA has to follow rules too and consumer rules are quite strong here - but even more important maybe, why should a developer restrict their customers that way? Would you buy a library that asks for being used only for Siberian Polka, otherwise it's illegal ?


----------



## procreative (Mar 4, 2017)

Actually Ive been rethinking this, its quite common for clients of studios large and small to make use of their synths, instruments and sample libraries to "produce" their tracks. And most clients will play in their own midi or even bring their midi to the session.

So if its okay for this, its okay for an online service too.

BUT, it depends on 1. What the developers EULA says and 2. What local laws say about a EULA's legal correctness in their jurisdiction (I reckon the EU would fall on the side of the consumer here).


----------



## paoling (Mar 4, 2017)

Ok, I'm fine with the piano producer job. I don't like it but who am I to stop the progress.

But if another guy pops up with a cloud computing service where you can use his DAW fully packaged with all the newest and shinest releases, which you can use it remotely by paying a kind of subscription service, would it be legal anyway? Or imagine the same thing with any other kind of software.

I ask because these things are probably going to happen someday, when the internet infrastructure will be fast enough.

The current EULAs aren't thought for future scenarios like this and it's probably useful that we reflect about it.


----------



## Polkasound (Mar 4, 2017)

Fluffy Audio makes an introspective point with that hypothetical scenario. It may happen someday where some entrepreneur creates a service where a musician uploads a MIDI file, and it is automatically run through Spitfire Symphony Orchestra and sent back as a WAV, all for $4.95. Yesterday, I literally placed one restriction on the use of my instruments, stating that they cannot be used for any future automated, web-based synthestration services, even though no such services yet exist.


----------



## Astronaut FX (Mar 4, 2017)

Developers deserve as much protection as consumers. I'm always amazed at 1) short term focused thinking that ignores the domino effect of seeing developers pushed out of business if they aren't afforded some protection, and 2) people who are willing to enter into an agreement, and then try to shit all over it after the fact. Don't like the EULA? Don't enter into it.

Sample libraries are *not* purely instruments, they are *not* purely software, and they are *not* purely recordings. They are a hybrid of all of the above, and thus need to be treated a bit differently from something that is purely one or the other. Analogies using guitars and physical pianos don't work. Analogies from the world of software don't work. Trying to treat them as purely one or the other for the purposes of curtailing a EULA that you voluntarily entered into just isn't right.

Selling out the use of your time to process someone's MIDI through sample libraries for which you are licensed and they are not, in my mind, has worse implications than torrenting. When someone uses torrented sample libraries, they are using the products for free, and cutting out the developer. In the other situation, the developers are cut out, and someone else makes the profit. Same negative impact to the developer. 

Legal or otherwise, it just seems a little crappy to me. Especially since musicians have been so abused by consumers and their devaluation of music in general, I'm always astounded by what I see is cannibalization within the community. You'd think we'd have more respect for ourselves.


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 4, 2017)

Astronaut FX said:


> Selling out the use of your time to process someone's MIDI through sample libraries for which you are licensed and they are not, in my mind, has worse implications than torrenting. When someone uses torrented sample libraries, they are using the products for free, and cutting out the developer. In the other situation, the developers are cut out, and someone else makes the profit. Same negative impact to the developer.



There are plenty of people who have master ownership and work-for-hire authorship of recordings using samples that they do not own a license for. I'm currently working for Universal. Should Universal have to buy a copy of every sample library I use?

You simply cannot legally make the distinction between them as a client, and another composer as a client. And it logically cannot cut into the clientele of a sample developer, because the pricing is such that as soon as you do it a few times with a producer, you exceed the value of the actual sample library. Anybody who is serious about producing content and produces a decent amount of it would quickly find it prohibitive and just buy the sample library themselves. You really think this is worse than torrenting, where the entire library is made available, unrestricted and for free, to anybody who wishes to download it? Hardly.

Now if someone created an automated system which effectively was having the library loaded in the cloud, that'd be different, because it'd arguably change the equation into one where the unlicensed person was "using" the sample, but processing midi into audio. There are plenty of programmers working in the film industry alone, and the record industry, using libraries, producing elements for other producers. In the record world it's incredibly prevalent, lots of drums are done by one guy and passed to another producer...in film, loads of composers have programmers using their own studios. It's not damaging at all, even if you could come up with a legal structure to say it wasn't possible, which no developer could (either you offer your product as something able to be used by a licensee in a work made for hire situation or you don't, because the crucial legal portion - authorship - transfers irrespective of whether it is another composer or a movie studio, say).


----------



## Jaap (Mar 4, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> Should Universal have to buy a copy of every sample library I use?



True and this is what got me thinking to raise the question here because as a library and often work for hire composer I get quite often that I need to make sure that my samples are cleared for being used in my production. Hence the comment you are making that this is to avoid that they have to do it themselves.
Therefore the question raised at my side if there is again another party involved how this all works out legally.

Well some great and interesting answers here and I think for myself it's quite clear that the best way is to check with the sample developper self first to see if this is legal and get clearance (to offer as service or to use)


----------



## Whatisvalis (Mar 4, 2017)

CGR said:


> I liken the pianoproducer service to some of the work I do on a regular basis as a Graphic Artist. This week I received some product photography from a client, which I opened in Photoshop, improved the images with colour and contrast correction tools, and sent back finished press ready images. I used my licensed copy of Adobe Photoshop to do this work, which my client doesn't own, would not be in the market to purchase, and possibly wouldn't have the skill and knowledge to use properly for print/magazine reproduction. At no stage in this process did my client have access to my Photoshop software.



Surely this is a single versus multi user license issue.

Your example above doesn't work. You are receiving the intellectual property (photographs) already licensed by the 3rd party. Your service gives the 3rd party samples only you are licensed to use.

If a studio with multiple composers only has 1 copy of a sample library, only the composer the library is licensed to can use it.


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 4, 2017)

Jaap said:


> True and this is what got me thinking to raise the question here because as a library and often work for hire composer I get quite often that I need to make sure that my samples are cleared for being used in my production. Hence the comment you are making that this is to avoid that they have to do it themselves.
> Therefore the question raised at my side if there is again another party involved how this all works out legally.
> 
> Well some great and interesting answers here and I think for myself it's quite clear that the best way is to check with the sample developper self first to see if this is legal and get clearance (to offer as service or to use)



Well, it's a standard clause in every composer contract; it's buried down within the legalese that you warrant that the recordings you give them are free and clear and you indemnify them of any legal responsibility if they are not. But short of an explicit term in the EULA forbidding producing material for other composers (and I cannot think of a successful way to write this that would be legally enforceable, I suspect there isn't, because there is no way to distinguish between classes), you have the right to do it as a licensee of the software. And many, many, many other people do it daily.

One can always check with the sample developer though, as you say!


----------



## paoling (Mar 4, 2017)

About us we don't forbid such use. I would maybe prevent the guy who makes this business to be able to buy our instruments, though. Have you wondered why he doesn't clearly write on his site the names of the libraries he uses? He doesn't have to, it would be good for his business though. But he clearly hides the names to avoid a potential direct conflict with the developers.


----------



## robgb (Mar 4, 2017)

I'd be interested to see some of these ideas challenged in a court of law. We might be surprised by the outcome.


----------



## Whatisvalis (Mar 4, 2017)

paoling said:


> About us we don't forbid such use. I would maybe prevent the guy who makes this business to be able to buy our instruments, though. Have you wondered why he doesn't clearly write on his site the names of the libraries he uses? He doesn't have to, it would be good for his business though. But he clearly hides the names to avoid a potential direct conflict with the developers.



Exactly - if you have one of your scores produced in this manner and then place it - and the samples are watermarked - it's your ass.


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 4, 2017)

Whatisvalis said:


> Exactly - if you have one of your scores produced in this manner and then place it - and the samples are watermarked - it's your ass.



No, not really. If all applicable permissions are sought (i.e. the person who creates the audio file of the piano performance has a license to use the sound), the law treats the new work, the audio file, as an independent "fixation", an independent copyright, which can be transferred, free and clear of the original copyright on the sample itself.

Let's say a composer wants to use this service. So, what happens here is the person with the sample library creates an audio file (and what they create it from, midi, or whatever, is irrelevant). Provided they had the legal license to use the sample and create a derivative work from it in which the sample developer holds no interest, that audio file itself becomes copyrighted - separately - to them, and the sample developer has no legal claim to it, watermark or no watermark. That person then assigns for the valuable consideration of their payment, the copyright interest and all other rights in that audio file to the composer (who commissioned them to make the audio file).

The sample developer doesn't hold a copyright interest to the new work when the sample within it is legally used under the terms of the EULA to create a derivative audio file which is then sold to another. It ceases to "be" that sample, legally, for purposes of copyright - the copyright is in the new entity.

Unless explicitly spelled out in the EULA, sections 107-122 of the US Copyright Act apply. Since any sample library EULA has to license the user to create derivative works which are by definition free and clear of the original copyright ( sample library being otherwise useless), they cannot possibly hope to sue when that is done. The EULA will usually specifically forbid incorporation in certain situations, e.g. other sample libraries, standalone usage of a single sample etc. - e.g. the 8dio agreement: https://8dio.com/licensing-agreement/

Of course, the cause of action against either party is incredibly weak because actual and statutory damages would be so low/non-existent, and the American Rule provides that the suing party would almost certainly have to pay its own legal costs, so unless we're talking something like a vocal sample that is pivotal to a record that sells in the millions, this is all just a theoretical flight of fancy. Won't actually ever happen. The reason the piano performance guy should not use the names of the libraries involved is more to do with trademark infringement.


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 4, 2017)

CGR said:


> For the record, given EastWest's strict conditions in their EULA, none of the sample pianos I work with for the pianoproducer service are from that company.



Not seeing anything within the EW EULA that would prohibit this. The "created solely by you" clause only applies to Production Music thanks to a (erroneous?) comma; and they'd have an impossible job arguing to a Court that you creating an audio file from midi, even if inspired by another person's midi file, didn't fall under the definition of "your own original music compositions or soundtracks" for an "audio project". 

IMHO not a brilliantly written EULA; manages to not even mention the word copyright with respect to a work that is created utilizing the samples. _Ergo_, US Copyright Act supersedes.


----------



## Whatisvalis (Mar 4, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> No, not really. If all applicable permissions are sought (i.e. the person who creates the audio file of the piano performance has a license to use the sound), the law treats the new work, the audio file, as an independent "fixation", an independent copyright, which can be transferred, free and clear of the original copyright on the sample itself.
> 
> Let's say a composer wants to use this service. So, what happens here is the person with the sample library creates an audio file (and what they create it from, midi, or whatever, is irrelevant). Provided they had the legal license to use the sample and create a derivative work from it in which the sample developer holds no interest, that audio file itself becomes copyrighted - separately - to them, and the sample developer has no legal claim to it, watermark or no watermark. That person then assigns for the valuable consideration of their payment, the copyright interest and all other rights in that audio file to the composer (who commissioned them to make the audio file).
> 
> ...



I understand the point you're making but it seems like a grey area to take a 3rd parties original composition and fix it into a recording, then basically lease/sell it back.


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 4, 2017)

Whatisvalis said:


> I understand the point you're making but it seems like a grey area to take a 3rd parties original composition and fix it into a recording, then basically lease/sell it back.



It's all part of "work for hire" contracts. There are really three "works" here, all with separate copyrights - 1) the sample; 2) the audio file that uses (1); (3) the finished composition that incorporates the work for hire that is (2).

(1) is owned and authored by the sample library through their contract with the musician recording the sample

(2) is legally created by the licensee of (1), using (1), created on a work for hire basis, authorship of it _initially_ being in that licensee, but then being then transferred on delivery and acceptance to the creator of (3).

(3) is owned solely by the creator of 3) incorporating 2) which was created on a work for hire basis and thus becomes an integral part of 3) with no separate copyright. Full authorship of 3) is therefore vested in the creator of 3) regardless of 1) and 2).

It's not really a grey area, it's just complicated. 

In the example of the East West EULA, the only way EW could claim a copyright or other interest in (3) is to claim that the creator of (2) breached the EULA; in which case their cause of action would be against the licensee, unless they were to try and claim a conspiracy to breach the EULA and infringe upon the copyright of (1). That case would revolve around the definition of the words "your original music composition" and whether (2) fell into that category, but since authorship of (2) is in the creator of (2) initially, and only transfers after the fixation of the copyright of (2), their case would fail.

Also, any litigator actually in Court on this would point out that lots of people create compositions and arrangements of existing music using their samples (wouldn't be hard to find); lots of people transfer authorship; and the use of the word "your" wouldn't preclude the licensee from entering into a creative partnership with the composer of (3), said authorship rights later being transferred away voluntarily. Lots of people co-write - if I co-write a song am I forbidden from using EW samples? What about using a lyricist? Long story short, it wouldn't make it past a summary judgement motion, if even such a case ever got brought to court, which it wouldn't be because the expense would vastly outweigh the benefit.

[P.S. This is why most legal contracts avoid using words like "your"...and instead use legalese like "licensor" and "licensee"...the grey area is usually the EULA, but there's nothing in any sample library developer's EULA I've ever seen that would actually prohibit what OP is doing, because there's really no way to write such a restriction that wouldn't completely kill the sample library from being useful to anybody else, since we all work on a "work for hire" basis when writing film music, for example...the audio recording there being incorporated into a larger copyright]


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 4, 2017)

None of that speaks to whether it's morally or ethically 'right', mind you; it's just not illegal nor a breach of any EULA I've seen or can conceive of...


----------



## Astronaut FX (Mar 4, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> There are plenty of people who have master ownership and work-for-hire authorship of recordings using samples that they do not own a license for. I'm currently working for Universal. Should Universal have to buy a copy of every sample library I use?
> 
> You simply cannot legally make the distinction between them as a client, and another composer as a client. And it logically cannot cut into the clientele of a sample developer, because the pricing is such that as soon as you do it a few times with a producer, you exceed the value of the actual sample library. Anybody who is serious about producing content and produces a decent amount of it would quickly find it prohibitive and just buy the sample library themselves. You really think this is worse than torrenting, where the entire library is made available, unrestricted and for free, to anybody who wishes to download it? Hardly.
> 
> Now if someone created an automated system which effectively was having the library loaded in the cloud, that'd be different, because it'd arguably change the equation into one where the unlicensed person was "using" the sample, but processing midi into audio. There are plenty of programmers working in the film industry alone, and the record industry, using libraries, producing elements for other producers. In the record world it's incredibly prevalent, lots of drums are done by one guy and passed to another producer...in film, loads of composers have programmers using their own studios. It's not damaging at all, even if you could come up with a legal structure to say it wasn't possible, which no developer could (either you offer your product as something able to be used by a licensee in a work made for hire situation or you don't, because the crucial legal portion - authorship - transfers irrespective of whether it is another composer or a movie studio, say).




I see a world of difference between the two different scenarios we are discussing.


If Universal, or some other client, pays me to write and record a finished piece of music, and they are to become the legal owner of that finished piece of music, and I use whatever sample libraries for which I am licensed to use in composing and recording that piece of music, I would not expect Universal, or some other client to be required to purchase licenses for the sample libraries that I utilized. They are taking ownership of the finished product, not the tools I used to create the finished product. In this scenario, I have already compensated the developer.

In the other scenario being discussed, composer A has written a piece of music, but doesn't want to spend the cash for a particular sample library, but wants to use it anyway. He pays composer B to run the MIDI tracks through the sample library that may legitimately be licensed to composer B, and return the tracks to him, assumedly for use in some finished product. I have a much bigger problem with this scenario, because in this scenario, composer A is reaping the benefits of the sample library without compensating the developer, and composer B is not only allowing and encouraging this, but is profiting from it. Again, this seems like a case of musicians cannibalizing their fellow musicians.


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 4, 2017)

Astronaut FX said:


> composer A is reaping the benefits of the sample library without compensating the developer



So in what way is Universal, for example, not doing the same in your former example? They haven't paid the sample library developer either...and they are reaping the benefits...


----------



## Whatisvalis (Mar 4, 2017)

Astronaut FX said:


> I see a world of difference between the two different scenarios we are discussing.
> 
> 
> If Universal, or some other client, pays me to write and record a finished piece of music, and they are to become the legal owner of that finished piece of music, and I use whatever sample libraries for which I am licensed to use in composing and recording that piece of music, I would not expect Universal, or some other client to be required to purchase licenses for the sample libraries that I utilized. They are taking ownership of the finished product, not the tools I used to create the finished product. In this scenario, I have already compensated the developer.
> ...



I'm sure you could ague that this falls under leasing the library to a 3rd party.


----------



## Astronaut FX (Mar 4, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> So in what way is Universal, for example, not doing the same in your former example? They haven't paid the sample library developer either...and they are reaping the benefits...



In the first scenario, the samples are being used exactly as the developer intended, to create finished pieces of work. Universal pays the composer for a finished piece of music. The composer pays the developer for the tool. 

In the second scenario, composer A is paying composer B for the use of a tool that composer B does not "own" but is only licensed to use under a prior agreement with the developer, and that usage seems very much outside of the scope of that agreement. 


Think of it this way, if ten different composers sell work to Universal, and all ten have paid for licenses for the same sample library, the developer has been compensated by ten composers.

If those same ten composers, instead of paying for their own license, pay someone else who has a license to process their MIDI files, then the developer has only been compensated once. Isn't that pretty much the same end result as torrenting?


----------



## Astronaut FX (Mar 4, 2017)

Whatisvalis said:


> I'm sure you could ague that this falls under leasing the library to a 3rd party.



Which seems very clearly prohibited in mist EULAs.


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 4, 2017)

Astronaut FX said:


> In the first scenario, the samples are being used exactly as the developer intended, to create finished pieces of work. Universal pays the composer for a finished piece of music. The composer pays the developer for the tool.
> 
> In the second scenario, composer A is paying composer B for the use of a tool that composer B does not "own" but is only licensed to use under a prior agreement with the developer, and that usage seems very much outside of the scope of that agreement.
> 
> ...



True - except that, at its core, is a moral/ethical argument - if ten recordings exist should a developer be compensated 10 times?

In your second example there, only one person has the unfettered ability to use the samples; in your former example, ten people do. From a legal standpoint, both situations are perfectly legal and breach no aspect of the contract. Whereas torrenting is very different, because it involves ten people having the unfettered (but not legal) ability to use the samples, with only one paying; but there the uploader is in material breach of contract.

To put it another way, a number of producers in the hip hop world use a few very in-demand drum programmers. If there are 10 songs out there in the world, by different producers, with the work of just one drum programmer on all of them, is it right that the sample developer of the libraries that programmer uses only gets compensated once?


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 4, 2017)

Also consider the reverse argument from the standpoint of the programmer - if I have 10 individual clients for whom I do programming work, do I have to buy 10 copies of the sample library? Or if as a composer I have 10 studios hiring me, do I need to buy 10 copies, because if those 10 studios all hire me, instead of going out to 10 composers, that sample developer is unfairly treated despite the existence of the same number of finished recordings as if they hired 10 different composers?


----------



## Astronaut FX (Mar 4, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> True - except that, at its core, is a moral/ethical argument - if ten recordings exist should a developer be compensated 10 times?
> 
> In your second example there, only one person has the unfettered ability to use the samples; in your former example, ten people do. From a legal standpoint, both situations are perfectly legal and breach no aspect of the contract. Whereas torrenting is very different, because it involves ten people having the unfettered (but not legal) ability to use the samples, with only one paying; but there the uploader is in material breach of contract.
> 
> To put it another way, a number of producers in the hip hop world use a few very in-demand drum programmers. If there are 10 songs out there in the world, by different producers, with the work of just one drum programmer on all of them, is it right that the sample developer of the libraries that programmer uses only gets compensated once?



From the EULAs that I've read, most to do not suggest that end clients need to pay for licenses, they do state outright that they are not to be shared as in the second sample. I won't drag the details of any developers' EULAs into the thread, as that may not be appropriate, but there is one in particular that is accompanied with some very specific FAQs, and both scenarios being discussed here are addressed very clearly. They specifically state that no additional compensation or licenses are required for compensation for compositions, and they state that only the licensee may use the library, no leasing.


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 4, 2017)

Astronaut FX said:


> From the EULAs that I've read, most to do not suggest that end clients need to pay for licenses, they do state outright that they are not to be shared as in the second sample. I won't drag the details of any developers' EULAs into the thread, as that may not be appropriate, but there is one in particular that is accompanied with some very specific FAQs, and both scenarios being discussed here are addressed very clearly. They specifically state that no additional compensation or licenses are required for compensation, and they state that only the licensee may use the library, no leasing.



I'd have to read that to understand how they're thinking that would be legal or enforceable.


----------



## Astronaut FX (Mar 4, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> I'd have to read that to understand how they're thinking that would be legal or enforceable.




Maybe they simply expect people to read and agree to the terms of the EULA prior to paying for a license, and then to adhere to it after doing so. I don't mean to come across as combative or personal with you. This is just something I feel pretty strongly about. Hopefully it's coming across as conversation and nothing more.


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 4, 2017)

Astronaut FX said:


> Maybe they simply expect people to read and agree to the terms of the EULA prior to paying for a license, and then to adhere to it after doing so. I don't mean to come across as combative or personal with you. This is just something I feel pretty strongly about. Hopefully it's coming across as conversation and nothing more.



Of course!  It's really a hypothetical question too, but it does have ramifications. I've programmed for other composers in the past. I've never provided them with a list of sample libraries they should buy just to be able to use the stems I gave them.

I just really don't think it'd be enforceable - a "you may produce finished audio files for the following people but not the other people"...I don't see how you could write enforceable language that would distinguish between two work made for hire clients in this instance.


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 4, 2017)

I've also had to go to bat against attorneys earning $600 an hour and studio GC's who didn't understand the basics of digital audio (and why would they?)....but expected me to sign contracts with ludicrous delivery requirements and language that dealt specifically with digital audio requirements - including a gem where the draft contract clause suggested asked for_ free _c_opies_ of every sample library I had used and the midi files used to create the music such that it could be recreated; the truth is the pace of technology vastly outstrips the music business/legal world and most of the legalese is out of date.

And these kind of things are hypothetical discussions until some wet behind the ears general counsel demands that you create "lead sheets" of 90 minutes of purely electronic compositions for deliverables on a tv show, for example, because it was buried in the form contract and nobody complained. As the number of small production companies increases I can foresee a situation where I might need to provide a list of sample libraries I used, and this particular discussion might cease to be theoretical!! So better that it is had now, here...


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 4, 2017)

In fact, I know of a few library companies that ask for such a list, come to think of it...not too much of a stretch to think of composers getting asked for such a list for regular film work, plus copies of all your licenses, but indemnification seems to be enough for now...


----------



## storyteller (Mar 4, 2017)

I had an interesting chain of emails with PianoTeq/Modartt on this very question a few weeks ago. I was trying to identify which of their plugins "transferred settings" seamlessly to other engineers rigs. For example, if someone recorded with PianoTeq Stage and sent a session to an engineer with PianoTeq standard, would the settings transfer? As I came to discover, PianoTeq Stage and PianoTeq Standard/Pro are treated as two separate VSTs (not one, and not three for each of the versions). This means that a session recorded using PianoTeq Stage left unfrozen would need to have the settings file also sent to the mix engineer if the engineer owned Standard or Pro. If the mix engineer tweaks midi, this opens up the scenario of not having all of the required info from a client.

And while they were very thorough and exceedingly helpful throughout the chain of emails, I perhaps led with an off-putting question because I was also asking based on the demo VSTs of their software... e.g. "If a client recorded a piano with another VSTi and knew the engineer preferred the sound of PianoTeq, could they pre-setup a session with the demo/free PianoTeq plugin so that it auto-loaded on the engineer's rig?" I didn't think much about it at the time, but this set off a chain of Q&As from PianoTeq on who owned the licenses. Their response was based on this exact conversation taking place. 

I had never considered a particular sound being licensed specifically to the performer and not everyone in the engineering chain. After all, if you send a session to a mix engineer, they are going to use the plugins they want to use to produce the results. I assumed VSTis were the same. Turns out they aren't. I get it, though it is a baffling situation. I applaud the guys at PianoTeq for the way they handled my questions and the way they walked through the responses. But I wanted to add this example here because it is a real scenario. I suppose sample developers are trying to prevent "render houses" from existing versus the way I asked the question. Maybe those are two different things. But I could argue both sides on an engineer using a piano sound they prefer...

*EDIT:* In theory, a rendered piano file could be disassembled into midi with Melodyne and then popped back into a VSTi. Just another scenario....


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 4, 2017)

Yup. It's not just samples too...say you don't own a copy of Serato Pitch n' Time but your music editor pitches a stem for you on the stage....legal? Of course 99.9999% of the time these things are just hypothetical, but if undiscussed when the 0.00001% chance bites you in the ass.

Case in point, I had a TV client years ago, wrote all the music for the series. They came back six months after radio silence and happy sign off at last meeting - and after it aired - claiming I hadn't "finished" - and that because the main title was the same in each episode, and a few cues were re-used in each episode, I hadn't written the requisite music per the contract, which they owned the publishing on. Turns out they had chucked it all into a library and thought they could get more minutes out of the deal. They argued that the word "original" as in "will score original music for 10 episodes of XYX show"...meant that in _each_ episode I had to write all new music, including for the main title, and they had totted up the total number of re-uses and demanded I write that amount of music in addition to having finished and scored the show, despite the fact that the re-uses were obvious (main titles!!) and the producer's call.

Needless to say lawyers got involved. But that's the thing - it's really a minefield that you don't know you're walking through. You probably won't step on a mine - almost certainly won't - but well, you just might.


----------



## Polkasound (Mar 4, 2017)

storyteller said:


> I had never considered a particular sound being licensed specifically to the performer and not everyone in the engineering chain.



Me neither. I certainly understand VI software being licensed to a single person, but I always regarded any audio created by the VI software to be used at the discretion of the licensee, not the license issuer.

I've amassed thousands of dollars worth of VIs over the years, and I advertise my collection as a selling point for my studio's recording services. My clients are mainly older people who don't even own computers, which makes my studio far from a rendering house. Sometimes a client will bring in his 1990's-era sound module to record with, and will ask if I have any better sounds to use. And, of course, I do.

The idea that I could be violating a EULA never occurred to me until this topic came up, since I own the VIs outright and am the only person with access to them. It seems I may need to go around to all the VI developers and start reading their EULAs with a magnifying glass.


----------



## Whatisvalis (Mar 4, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> Me neither. I certainly understand VI software being licensed to a single person, but I always regarded any audio created by the VI software to be used at the discretion of the licensee, not the license issuer.



Within the limitations of the EULA. Anyway, we are basically discussing rendering services.


----------



## Heinigoldstein (Mar 4, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> Me neither. I certainly understand VI software being licensed to a single person, but I always regarded any audio created by the VI software to be used at the discretion of the licensee, not the license issuer.
> 
> I've amassed thousands of dollars worth of VIs over the years, and I advertise my collection as a selling point for my studio's recording services. My clients are mainly older people who don't even own computers, which makes my studio far from a rendering house. Sometimes a client will bring in his 1990's-era sound module to record with, and will ask if I have any better sounds to use. And, of course, I do.
> 
> The idea that I could be violating a EULA never occurred to me until this topic came up, since I own the VIs outright and am the only person with access to them. It seems I may need to go around to all the VI developers and start reading their EULAs with a magnifying glass.



Exactly and this has nothing to do with a lack of respect to developers or canibalism. I just don't want to contact my lawyer every time I open a VI on my computer. 
And again, it's about music. If a certain studio has great piano or a bunch of expansive hardware synths, it's a reason for a customer to pick this studio for his recording. This has to be able with virtual instruments too, otherwise it's kind of unworldly within the business. 

And come on, a streaming service with complex libraries for $ 4.95, $ 10,-, $ 20,- or what ever. How would that sound ? Who would use this ? You can't really think that this would be a danger for developers.
Maybe it's a little different with piano, but it could be also a chance here to find out, what piano fits your playing style. And the one , that sounds good with his midi file,the client might buy. 
So maybe even developers should think about such a service with VI to give us a chance to audition their products in a new way.


----------



## eddiemellencamp (Mar 4, 2017)

paoling said:


> About us we don't forbid such use. I would maybe prevent the guy who makes this business to be able to buy our instruments, though. Have you wondered why he doesn't clearly write on his site the names of the libraries he uses? He doesn't have to, it would be good for his business though. But he clearly hides the names to avoid a potential direct conflict with the developers.


I don't see you getting anywhere with a restrictive EULA or being this discriminatory with your customers. Friends can buy for them, they could pirate, or at the very worst they could live without.

You are totally ignoring the part where you don't have a monopoly on pianos and microphones. If someone can make this sortof service attractive, they can certainly make their own piano sounds and bypass you altogether.

For the sake of it, ignore that.

This whole thing seems to me like a backwards use of a EULA. Isn’t it there to protect YOU from being sued by the user, not as some kind of gotcha! device for things you can’t stop people from doing, even if you wanted to?

In this potential make-believe, you would be paying someone to vomit legalese for the privilege of having to pay them (or another of their ilk) a lot more money later on. This is all assuming that the microscopically small chance arises that you want to sue your own customer, because you think they aren’t using your tools the way you intended.

First of all you would have to have a customer with enough money to steal from. Then they have to be in a place you can actually get to them. On top of all that, you have to win or have a nice settlement. You would probably end up waiting through negotiations and various stallings. Many years and many dollars later, you might shutdown ONE instance of a hypothetical robocloud-composer-9000.com

Negative PR, wasted time, and stress from this action aside, what are you gaining? If any of this were a realistic threat to you, there aint gonna be just one of them.

All this lawyering up has infected pretty much every aspect of our lives. A bunch of hall monitors inventing problems for “the good ones” to solve later. Total joke.


----------



## Heinigoldstein (Mar 5, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> It doesn't yet exist, but it could someday. And if it did, it could become a major threat to developers, especially ones who create high-end, expensive instruments. Imagine a musician sending a MIDI file to a site that has a custom-designed interface which interacts with a VI, allowing the musician to pick a $500 VI, preview the performance, make desired changes, and get a WAV file in return for $5.00. It would be like hiring a studio to help you produce your song, except it would be completely automated and web-based. An entrepreneur could buy a huge arsenal of high-end VIs and make a killing by making them available to scores of "clients" all over the world for dirt cheap. "_Can't afford Spitfire Symphony Strings? No problem! Send your file to Joe Schmoe's Rendering Studio..._" Obviously with many VIs being so complex today, there's no way to speculate how it could be done or how it would sound, which is why this scenario is strictly hypothetical.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Understandable and I think, nobody would complain about, if developers would state it in their EULAs, that this is forbidden. This is as natural as not being allowed to copy a library. But I agree 100% with Paoling, there is too much lawyer influence in most parts of daily life already. So keep it as simple as possible for the sake of developer AND customer.


----------



## eddiemellencamp (Mar 5, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> No EULA or copyright law is ever going to stop piracy. They're just tools to help deter it. I'm sure all developers know that.


I’m not talking about stopping piracy, I brought it up as one of a couple reasons why customer discrimination and draconian EULA wouldn’t keep plugin devs safe from a possible future where trailersounndz-and-robotfartz-for-a-dollar-a-song.org exists.

More hassle and less freedom is obviously not going to go over well, and it only affects the people already supporting the business. If someone is going to make this cloud stuff happen, they wont need other peoples' sample libraries to do it. They can just make their own, and whoever does potentially do this will in all likelihood already be a developer. The major barrier in this situation would be making the cloud stuff work, not acquiring and programming the sounds.

To expect that this could be stopped by a EULA or reverse-boycotting a buyer? I dunno. I’m pretty sure that staying relevant in the eyes of the already peaked wave of, whatever you want to call us, is way more likely to be an issue. And to turn these people off, just to try (and fail) at warding off a future boogeyman, would be quite ironic.


----------



## procreative (Mar 5, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> It doesn't yet exist, but it could someday. And if it did, it could become a major threat to developers, especially ones who create high-end, expensive instruments. Imagine a musician sending a MIDI file to a site that has a custom-designed interface which interacts with a VI, allowing the musician to pick a $500 VI, preview the performance, make desired changes, and get a WAV file in return for $5.00.



Imagine a studio buying expensive mastering equipment and then offering an online service to small studios to master their recordings using this equipment some of which is software based? Maybe like a Jake Jackson?

Oh wait that already exists and you could argue affects sales of said mastering equipment?

I find the double standards in the sampling world a bit galling, its okay to resample everything including instruments that have had a lot of work put into them and resell them?

I am sure makers of even acoustic instruments have seen their sales hit by sampling.

What surprises me further is that many devs dont even include their EULA in the downloads, so how they could enforce them is interesting.


----------



## Astronaut FX (Mar 5, 2017)

douggibson said:


> Hi. I am honestly trying to understand what you are stating, but isn't the scenario you are suggesting above already here ?
> 
> http://www.soundsonline.com/composercloud
> 
> ...




The difference is, that in the case of ComposerCloud, it's the developer who has created that model, and is receiving a monthly fee. In the case of just some individual who happens to have several licenses, coming up with a way to open that up to use by others without licenses, cuts out the developer.

So yes, you could sign up for one month, and work your little fingers to the bone during that month, and use as much of that service as you want, and then cancel your subscription. The developer created that model, so clearly they are ok with it. Not all developers have created such a model.

But if you or I were to create a cloud type of service, making sample libraries licensed to us available to others without a license, and collecting a fee from them, again, we've cut out the developers from being compensated.


----------



## paoling (Mar 5, 2017)

Dismissing an argument as "come on, who's gonna do that silly subscription use-my-DAW service?" risks to leave us unprepared for a Napster-like scenario. Who was going to think that music could be shared that way on the internet?
Since I'm not a fan of retro-active EULAs (and "reverse boycotting" a buyer), it's better for us that we think about this now.

By the way have you ever wondered about using those 99 orchestra service to sample your own strings and make a usable 10$ string library? It would be a cool idea, but ultimately it's the 99$ orchestra people who have the rights to decide if this is allowed to do or not.


----------



## Astronaut FX (Mar 5, 2017)

Maybe the answer is that the developers themselves begin to consider offering this sort of service. So for example, I have a piece that I've written and don't have a license for a library that fits, instead of purchasing a license, I pay a smaller fee to the developer to run my MIDI file through their library.

Taking a cue from Paolo's comments, learning from the Napster situation, perhaps the best way to combat the devaluation of a product is to get ahead of it, and find a creative way to earn money for the same product, except in smaller chunks.


----------



## paoling (Mar 5, 2017)

This is a very nice idea.


----------



## storyteller (Mar 5, 2017)

Semantics and legalese drive me bonkers.  The truth is that most people are good people and rules have been created for the handful of bad eggs who are seeking to further an agenda. *Rule #1 - if you have an agenda, you need to visit Remedial Earth 100 before returning to present day. *

I would wager to guess that everyone is just trying to make it and survive on this planet by hopefully doing what they love. Not to rationalize those that steal in a digital world, but most of those people can't afford those products... or are just stuck down a pirate rabbit hole because "they can." A portion of people buy products because of their "worth" in this world. But then there are the group of people that don't see paying for a product as a transaction, but rather a way to support the others in this world doing what they love (this is the boat in which I sail). If everyone could see it like the latter, then we'd all be better off... and money wouldn't be seen as a master with each person a slave to it. Rather, it'd be seen as something that everyone should experience in abundance rather than viewed as a limited resource and prized for finding more of it...

I'm sure that developers are protecting their interests so they can continue doing what they love. But in a way, all of the digital-rights madness is kind of like the overkill use of "political correctness" that causes so much trepidation and fear when speaking in public. Everyone is trained to listen for proper speech rather than the intention underlying... which is what it is really all about. Just my $0.02


----------



## paoling (Mar 5, 2017)

I agree with you StoryTeller, that's why we don't plan to make anything to protect us that would complicate the life of our customers (like forcing them to give us the details, ID scans, ILoks or whatever). 

But in general we face the a similar situation when working with real musicians. We pay for their time and their art and we carefully need to be sure that they understand how the recording is going to be used and what will be the ending product. We also credit them to give them some visibility, when they agree. Someone has refused to work with us because he hates the concept of samples and we're perfectly fine with that.

So in the end we are all in a customer-client relationship and the customer has to be sure about what he's legally entitled to do with the things that he pays for.


----------



## Whatisvalis (Mar 5, 2017)

Heinigoldstein said:


> If a certain studio has great piano or a bunch of expansive hardware synths, it's a reason for a customer to pick this studio for his recording. This has to be able with virtual instruments too, otherwise it's kind of unworldly within the business.



Read most EULAs for software instruments / sample libraries. They are Single User licenses, so I'm afraid they are that way with VI. If the license owner is working on the project that's fine, but you can't have someone come into a studio and rent time to use sounds licensed to someone else.


----------



## mat1 (Mar 5, 2017)

Astronaut FX said:


> Maybe the answer is that the developers themselves begin to consider offering this sort of service. So for example, I have a piece that I've written and don't have a license for a library that fits, instead of purchasing a license, I pay a smaller fee to the developer to run my MIDI file through their library.
> 
> Taking a cue from Paolo's comments, learning from the Napster situation, perhaps the best way to combat the devaluation of a product is to get ahead of it, and find a creative way to earn money for the same product, except in smaller chunks.



Roland are launching a similar cloud rendering service for their synth recreations but it's a paid addition to their VI subscription.

I think it'll be a long time until internet connections are fast enough for something like that to catch on. I think cheap ($15) subscription type plans will get more and more popular.


----------



## mc_deli (Mar 5, 2017)

(Sorry, wrote something similar earlier but no replies)
I think that many EULAs include something about using samples in a composition - meaning that there have to be other elements to the composition i.e. not just one instrument. My understanding is that license agreements are specifically written to stop license holders "recreating" and "reselling" the samples on their own. 

(I don't have anything against CGR and the Piano Producer idea... but I think that tweaking a few VI settings and some dynamics doesn't make it a composition, so I think this "kind of service" would fall foul of many EULAs. Would be very interesting to hear from some devs...)

OK let's try @Spitfire Team and @OrchestralTools ...I want to set up a service where my clients send me midi and I render it with a first violins performance multi from Berlin Strings/SSS (delete as appropriate). All I am going to do is tweak the CCs a bit and make sure the right articulations are triggered. Nothing else will be in the audio that I deliver to my client apart from the first violins from BS/SSS (delete as appropriate)- is this allowed by the terms of your EULA?


----------



## kurtvanzo (Mar 5, 2017)

Astronaut FX said:


> Maybe the answer is that the developers themselves begin to consider offering this sort of service. So for example, I have a piece that I've written and don't have a license for a library that fits, instead of purchasing a license, I pay a smaller fee to the developer to run my MIDI file through their library.
> 
> Taking a cue from Paolo's comments, learning from the Napster situation, perhaps the best way to combat the devaluation of a product is to get ahead of it, and find a creative way to earn money for the same product, except in smaller chunks.



I honestly expect Spitfire to be the next developer to offer a cloud service (like EW). Although I personally don't like paying monthly for samples, developers will prefer this over a "one time" idea because 1) like gym memberships, many will sign up then not cancel even if they don't use it much so they can have access anytime, making the developer much more money over time (perhaps even exceeding the retail price over a many years) and 2) developing this entire system to get $10 here and $20 there (or less) would probably not be cost effective. The reason EW can offer this service is they calculate most people would use it at least a year or more, thus outweighing the loss of retail sales.

But clearly to work this system would need many libraries to attract customers, therefore Spitfire is probably the next developer to try this. The only way I can see smaller developers taking this route is if they banded together- 5 to 10 well-liked developers creating one service together then splitting the profits. But I suppose most developers wouldn't like the idea of getting 10% of the pie. Perhaps a service could be developed for them that pays them based on how much each library is used, but that could also become a legal nightmare.

IMO Napster is not a great example, have you seen the docu? They lost it all and then some (stating they would have been better off if they had never started it). In today's information age a site for samples like this would not last 2 days. And smaller developers wouldn't even have legal fees- EW, Spitfire, OT, etc would take care of it quickly.


----------



## paoling (Mar 5, 2017)

A subscription service means having a custom player, you can't do this in Kontakt. Moreover, if a company is very active with big releases, as Spitfire is, I doubt that a subscription service is a very good idea. They will lose a potential revenue on the newest releases.


----------



## paoling (Mar 6, 2017)

Hello Doug!
This seems as a perfect reasonable use-case to me. And a very common user case, I've been producing MIDI mockups for composers in the past myself.
Impressive piece by the way, congrats.

The reason I expressed my opinion on this topic is not to criticize the piano producer idea, but to understand amongst all the possible use-cases where things start to get really weird.

Now in a list of things we have:
Use-My-DAW remote subscription service.
Upload your MIDI and download the sampled WAV.
Come to my studio and work with my things.
Send me the score and give you MIDI mockup.
Collaboration pieces: I make the strings, you play the piano on top.
My son is playing with my stuff: is it legal?

Are all these things right? Maybe not, but at least a half of them are perfectly reasonable: how to precisely define what is right and what's not?


----------



## Heinigoldstein (Mar 6, 2017)

paoling said:


> This is a very nice idea.


And, as I stated a view pages ealier, it would be great possibility to demo a library with you own music !


----------



## Tyll (Mar 6, 2017)

I just found a service called "TrySound" hosted by bestservice. It's a plugin that you can use in your DAW to send MIDI via the internet to a server farm that hosts VST instruments and get the audio back. This is basically a more advanced way of the same concept. It's what I already imagined in an earlier post.
Anyways, this service is meant as a testing service only (try the sound of a vst) and claims to use nature sounds in low volume to prevent abuse.
I have not tried it, I don't know if its legal or not (even with the background noises it could possibly be not), I just thought it was worth to share what is happening there.


----------



## Jaap (Mar 6, 2017)

Tyll said:


> I just found a service called "TrySound" hosted by bestservice. It's a plugin that you can use in your DAW to send MIDI via the internet to a server farm that hosts VST instruments and get the audio back. This is basically a more advanced way of the same concept. It's what I already imagined in an earlier post.
> Anyways, this service is meant as a testing service only (try the sound of a vst) and claims to use nature sounds in low volume to prevent abuse.
> I have not tried it, I don't know if its legal or not (even with the background noises it could possibly be not), I just thought it was worth to share what is happening there.



Trysound is already here for a few years and the developpers can submit their libraries. It is legal and as you mentioned already setup by Bestservice which is a very respectable (re)seller. Not every developper uses it but some have put their libraries out there for testing.


----------



## Heinigoldstein (Mar 6, 2017)

Jaap said:


> Trysound is already here for a few years and the developpers can submit their libraries. It is legal and as you mentioned already setup by Bestservice which is a very respectable (re)seller. Not every developper uses it but some have put their libraries out there for testing.


And it's a good way to deal with the possibilities. If you react hysterically or only with bans in EULAs, developers could end the way the record industry did, with the crowing internet in the late 90th. 
Find a way to use it for your benefit , ban the obvious and make it usable without a lawyer degree.


----------



## Whatisvalis (Mar 6, 2017)

Heinigoldstein said:


> And it's a good way to deal with the possibilities. If you react hysterically or only with bans in EULAs, developers could end the way the record industry did, with the crowing internet in the late 90th.
> Find a way to use it for your benefit , ban the obvious and make it usable without a lawyer degree.



I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say. Trysound is a demo resource and the results are not to be used commercially, unlike the concept of render farms / multi users that we were discussing early.


----------



## Heinigoldstein (Mar 6, 2017)

What I'm trying to say is:

1) Discussions like "may I use my samples in a commercial recording studio or may wife use it to play a happy birthday song for me" are weird in my eyes. Of course they may, otherwise it is useless. And if this should be restricted in an EULA in some way it doesn't make sense at all. 

2) Instead of complaining about future possibilities that might pop up somewhen, developers should think about smart ways, to use them for their own benefits, instead of complaining and banning only. The best way for developer and customer seems to me, to keep EULAs a simple and understandable as possible. If it should say " not for use within automated, commercial rendering service", ok. No copying, of course. But don't try to include every small and weird possibility. It doesn't help anybody (except lawyers of course).


----------



## Whatisvalis (Mar 7, 2017)

Heinigoldstein said:


> What I'm trying to say is:
> 
> 1) Discussions like *"may I use my samples in a commercial recording studio or may wife use it to play a happy birthday song for me"* are weird in my eyes. Of course they may, otherwise it is useless. And if this should be restricted in an EULA in some way it doesn't make sense at all.



That's not what we are talking about. 

When you buy a music / SFX library you purchase a SINGLE USER license to use those recordings on works *you work on.
*
Also the developers chiming in here have been very open to some of the situations discussed.


----------



## Polkasound (Mar 7, 2017)

Whatisvalis said:


> That's not what we are talking about.



It's what several others are talking about, though. In my opinion, a single-user license should mean that one person owns, installs, and operates the software, and does not make copies of it. What he does with the software, however, should be entirely up to him and not be restricted by the developer. (The one exception being any way the software can be abused en masse, such as an automated, web-based rendering service.)

As a developer, as long as my instrument is paid for and remains in the sole possession of the purchaser, I don't care what the purchaser does with it. If his musician friends and fellow producers come over to his studio to collaborate on projects and record with my VIs, that's perfectly fine with me, because the VIs are still solely in his possession. If his studio can make a little profit off my VIs, that's even better.


----------



## Heinigoldstein (Mar 7, 2017)

Yes, the developers in this thread are very open (and most others too), but, if I get you right (I'm not native english), you still insist upon, that commercial studios aren't allowed to give their clients access to their software, which would make it useless for this kind of studio business.

"Yes we have this great 600+ track huge Pro Tools system, but sorry, it's only for me. Here is our nice vintage 24 track tape machine you can use" !?!?

99% of them injure the EULA if it should state this and that's why it should make clear, that this kind of usage is legal. 

Musical software should be treated like musical hardware . Only the software relevant parts like copying, usage on multiple computers ........should be ruled with the EULA. 

I have a lot of respect for developers like Fluffy and Polkasound. All I wanted to do is take the discussion a step further. Don't be narrow to minded and think about ways to maybe use it for your benefit instead of banning only.


----------



## erica-grace (Mar 7, 2017)

Software should not and can not be treated more like hardware. Two different animals. With hw you own the unit outright. With sw, you do not own the content outright.


----------



## Heinigoldstein (Mar 7, 2017)

erica-grace said:


> Software should not and can not be treated more like hardware. Two different animals. With hw you own the unit outright. With sw, you do not own the content outright.



Well, I actually wanted to leave that thread, after said what I wanted to say, but I'm curious about your solution. What do you think, should all the commercial recording studios, mastering studios ......do ? Stop using software ? It would be ridiculous, you could shut down their business. 
It wouldn't even make sense to become a sound engineer anymore if you finish your chain of thought.


----------



## NYC Composer (Mar 7, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> In fact, I know of a few library companies that ask for such a list, come to think of it...not too much of a stretch to think of composers getting asked for such a list for regular film work, plus copies of all your licenses, but indemnification seems to be enough for now...


After signing indemnification clauses demanded by the advertising agencies who hired me for years and years, the word itself fills me with horror and dread.


----------



## Whatisvalis (Mar 8, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> It's what several others are talking about, though. In my opinion, a single-user license should mean that one person owns, installs, and operates the software, and does not make copies of it. What he does with the software, however, should be entirely up to him and not be restricted by the developer. (The one exception being any way the software can be abused en masse, such as an automated, web-based rendering service.)
> 
> As a developer, as long as my instrument is paid for and remains in the sole possession of the purchaser, I don't care what the purchaser does with it. If his musician friends and fellow producers come over to his studio to *collaborate* on projects and record with my VIs, that's perfectly fine with me, because the VIs are still solely in his possession. If his studio can make a little profit off my VIs, that's even better.



Collaborate is the key - different than renting your studio and libraries out by the hour and not being involved in the projects.


----------



## Heinigoldstein (Mar 8, 2017)

Whatisvalis said:


> Collaborate is the key - different than renting your studio and libraries out by the hour and not being involved in the projects.


With all respect, this is unworldly !


----------



## procreative (Mar 8, 2017)

Fact is that most developers are using legislation designed for sound recordings to protect their IP. Because sample libraries are made up of tiny recordings they can exploit this. For the majority of licensees this will never be an issue as generally most are running their own studio to produce their own work.

But there are many commercial studios that have instruments both real and virtual, its another nail in their coffin if they cannot allow customers to use these libraries unless they bring their own iLok or whatever.

I think there needs to be more refinement of what a EULA is and it needs to adapt. Its one thing a developer saying "thats okay I am fine with that" but if their EULA states the opposite the possibility remains of copyright issues later.

Maybe a "Fair Use" policy that becomes and industry standard. Or a commercial license for studios?


----------



## Heinigoldstein (Mar 8, 2017)

That's why I start to get more and more angry with this thread. Most of us here ( me included ) seem to have their own little or even big studios, work on own projects as pros or not pros and might collaborate with one or another in the same situation. 

But, thank god, there is still another world out there. Young musicians forming bands, traditional , old fashion composers want to have their works performed or maybe someone just wants to have a selfmade happy birthday song for his mom. Most of these people need a recording studio and there are a lot of studios that offer these services. They don't get rich, but a lot do survive. 

If this whole part of the business is ment to be illegal, when they use software and libraries they bought for a fair amount of money, the worst thing that could happen is, they stop buying at all and use the copied versions. Because they are illegal anyhow. 

So please don't be foolish and docmatic but realistic. Pay for what you use, but use it for what you want. ( with a little EULA like don't copy etc. of course 

I like what Polksound said, a tuba is a tuba !


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 8, 2017)

NYC Composer said:


> After signing indemnification clauses demanded by the advertising agencies who hired me for years and years, the word itself fills me with horror and dread.



At least one can often get reciprocal/reverse indemnity added in (it's never in the first draft!)...but yeah.


----------



## Whatisvalis (Mar 8, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> Thank you for explaining that, because it puts things into perspective and clears up some confusion.
> 
> Personally, I find that kind of protection for a virtual instrument to be needlessly stifling. A virtual instrument should be regarded as a music production tool, not an audio recording. If an 82-year-old accordion player hiring my studio wants me to add a virtual horn to his recording, I'm supposed to tell him, "_Sorry, I can only add the horn to my own recordings. If you want the horn on your recording, the developer mandates that you buy a computer and recording gear, buy Kontakt, buy the virtual instrument, learn how to use all of it, and produce the CD yourself. Have a nice day._"
> 
> Any EULA that enforces a scenario like the one above borders on sheer idiocy and is a bane to the recording industry. It should be taken into account by all developers that not every musician in the world has the knowledge and resources to own and operate their own recording setups. Why compound their situation by denying them the use of virtual instruments that are legally purchased and owned by those who DO have the knowledge and resources to own and operate their own recording setups?



I fail to see how this scenario would fall foul of a EULA. You are acting as a producer/engineer and contributing to the project.


----------



## procreative (Mar 8, 2017)

An example from Spitfire (chosen at random):

_Spitfire Audio Holdings Ltd grants to you and only you, subject to the following terms and conditions, a single non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, non-transferable right to use the Audio Sample Recordings on the following terms. The product and enclosed recordings are the property of Spitfire Audio Holdings Ltd and are licensed to you only for use as part of a musical performance, live or recorded._

So it does not say you can't (but does not say you can) use them if a client visits a studio and wants to add say strings to their piece. From the above it would seem that unless you are the performer you cannot let them be used.

Having scanned East West's EULA it seems to say the same thing.

So studio owners beware, you may be infringing the EULAs if you let your clients use your sample libraries...


----------



## 667 (Mar 8, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> Thank you for explaining that, because it puts things into perspective and clears up some confusion.
> 
> Personally, I find that kind of protection for a virtual instrument to be needlessly stifling. A virtual instrument should be regarded as a music production tool, not an audio recording. If an 82-year-old accordion player hiring my studio wants me to add a virtual horn to his recording, I'm supposed to tell him, "_Sorry, I can only add the horn to my own recordings. If you want the horn on your recording, the developer mandates that you buy a computer and recording gear, buy Kontakt, buy the virtual instrument, learn how to use all of it, and produce the CD yourself. Have a nice day._"
> 
> Any EULA that enforces a scenario like the one above borders on sheer idiocy and is a bane to the recording industry. It should be taken into account by all developers that not every musician in the world has the knowledge and resources to own and operate their own recording setups. Why compound their situation by denying them the use of virtual instruments that are legally purchased and owned by those who DO have the knowledge and resources to own and operate their own recording setups?



No, because again you need to license samples for use in musical works. It's the same as if YOU licensed some snippet of a Beatles song for your own track. Then a client comes in and wants to use that same sample in their own song. That's very obviously not going to fly. Why are samples licensed to you as part of a VI so different?

In this case your 82-year-old accordian player needs to purchase a license to use the samples. Not a computer, not Kontakt, not any hardware, and doesn't have to do anything. They buy Chris Hein Horns for $250, or something else cheaper (Chapman Trumpet is $30 from Embertone) and if you already have it setup in your own Kontakt you just do it. 

I think devs should just have a small royalty for their samples, per/song, $20 or something, 5% of MSRP, whatever. New revenue stream for them, new services (revenues) for you. But as we all know hollywood/copyright law hates win-win so this would never happen. Would be awesome if a compulsory license like with cover tunes was created for this though.

edit:

Some EULA's are ok with this type of thing because they do consider it 'commercial use' covered by your license. I do recall CineSamples posting once about how doing MIDI mockups etc. was totally standard practice and allowed.

Would be nice if we had a consistent landscape/framework on this.


----------



## procreative (Mar 8, 2017)

In the end its probably likely its cheaper to hire a chamber orchestra or use one of those remote services. 

Reminds me of a job I worked on for Apple years ago, they wanted to use images from a publisher I worked for on a product poster so asked the publisher for the license cost.

Based on the print run, they wanted over £10,000 for one picture of a violin!


----------



## Mundano (Mar 8, 2017)

hello and sorry. I just want to chime in to find clarification, asking:


own (what?): hardware / software (really own?)
license/leasing (what?): software / samples / or samples usage? (how far?)
samples usage: first owner (owns products-music),
samples usage: third party (other composers-collaboration?-rendering-not collaboration? sub leasing - somebody rents the studio) - treating software like hardware?


----------



## mc_deli (Mar 8, 2017)

procreative said:


> _Spitfire Audio Holdings Ltd grants to you and only you, subject to the following terms and conditions, a single non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, non-transferable right to use the Audio Sample Recordings on the following terms. The product and enclosed recordings are the property of Spitfire Audio Holdings Ltd and are licensed to you only for use as part of a musical performance, live or recorded._
> ---
> Having scanned East West's EULA it seems to say the same thing.


Who wants to have a stab at interpreting this EULA as it might apply to a similar service as the Piano Producer model that CSG has promoted in the commercial section?
Is rendering someone else's midi a musical performance?


----------



## procreative (Mar 8, 2017)

I do not think its grey at all, it says

_licensed to you only for use as part of a musical performance, live or recorded_

So while it might be perfectly acceptable to perform/record the part for the client in your studio, it is saying ONLY you. So if they were to perform/record and you were simply to produce/engineer (like most people do in a studio) that would not be within the licence.

I have an analogy. In my day job if I license an image from a stock library, I can use it in a project for the client. However as we all know clients frequently ask for the "artwork", however this is not permissible unless they buy a license as well. We all know what clients expect though and it puts us in an awkward position.

I had a client once who I did a brochure for, using images from a library I had a license for. They then got a web design company to create a website who scanned the images from the brochure. When I pointed out that they should not have done that, they simply thought I was touting for business and was just sore I had not done the website.

By reusing the images that the client did not directly have a license for were infringing the terms (however the photo library were uninterested in dealing with them, probably because it was a small company I bet).

So I can fully see why/how they could enforce studio clients buy their own license.

Its all very well devs saying "well we probably would not pursue them" but imagine said recording goes on to become a Billboard Top 10 or such, will their Finance Officer see it that way when there is potential damages?

Its why Big Fish Audio recently decided to change their EULA as many libraries refused to touch anything with their libraries on it as they expressly forbid use in them without special permission being granted.


----------



## mc_deli (Mar 8, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> EULAs are sometimes pretty gray when it comes to interpretation. Spitfire's statement "_The product and enclosed recordings are the property of Spitfire Audio Holdings Ltd"_ could simply be their way of saying, "We own this software" to invoke copyright protection. The statement, "_...licensed to you only for use as part of a musical performance, live or recorded"_ doesn't seem to restrict for use by whom. So if the software is licensed to me and I install it in my recording studio, can I use on a client's recording project? Maybe.


I know you are interested in the studio question but you've taken my quote out of context here - I am specifically asking about the midi-to-single-instrument model as cited by the OP at the start of this thread...


----------



## 667 (Mar 8, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> It's simply my opinion that they ought to be. Every developer has the right to license their VIs as they see fit. If a developer wants to regard their VIs as sound recordings and require usage licenses the same as sound recordings, that's their choice, and we all need to honor their choice if we use their VIs. I happen to be a developer who sees his virtual instruments as tools no different than any other plugins. Once my VI is installed in your studio, no more licensing is required of you to use it on your friends and clients projects. The thought of nickle-and-diming them with additional licenses may appeal to some developers, but not to me.



I too would prefer VI's were licensed as instruments and not 'sound recordings'.

I am curious whether there are other countries where this very US-style copyright view doesn't even apply. 

Would be awesome if we knew which devs allowed what 'commercial' use, I have so.many.sample.libraries. It would be impossible to contact everyone about this.


----------



## Heinigoldstein (Mar 8, 2017)

667 said:


> I too would prefer VI's were licensed as instruments and not 'sound recordings'.
> 
> I am curious whether there are other countries where this very US-style copyright view doesn't even apply.
> 
> Would be awesome if we knew which devs allowed what 'commercial' use, I have so.many.sample.libraries. It would be impossible to contact everyone about this.



I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be that easy with European consumer rights. But that's why I'm repeating myselve over and over. I don't want to ask a lawyer everytime I use my VIs if it is legal, to us it in a certain way. And I'm pretty sure most developers don't want this either.


----------



## afterlight82 (Mar 8, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> Thank you for explaining that, because it puts things into perspective and clears up some confusion.
> 
> Personally, I find that kind of protection for a virtual instrument to be needlessly stifling. A virtual instrument should be regarded as a music production tool, not an audio recording. If an 82-year-old accordion player hiring my studio wants me to add a virtual horn to his recording, I'm supposed to tell him, "_Sorry, I can only add the horn to my own recordings. If you want the horn on your recording, the developer mandates that you buy a computer and recording gear, buy Kontakt, buy the virtual instrument, learn how to use all of it, and produce the CD yourself. Have a nice day._"
> 
> Any EULA that enforces a scenario like the one above borders on sheer idiocy and is a bane to the recording industry. It should be taken into account by all developers that not every musician in the world has the knowledge and resources to own and operate their own recording setups. Why compound their situation by denying them the use of virtual instruments that are legally purchased and owned by those who DO have the knowledge and resources to own and operate their own recording setups?



In usual cases this wouldn't violate the EULA of most developers though, because it really falls into the definition of what you're allowed to create. Eg East West - they say "your original compositions and soundtracks". Which is terrible legally (it's vague, ill-defined, too abstract, genre-specific and doesn't mention recordings, mediums and so on)....but actually the vagueness is _okay_, because hey, it hinges on what "your" means, what "composition" means and so on and so forth. 

If you help the 82 year old stick a horn on his accordion piece, that could conceivably be defined as "your composition or soundtrack", or more specifically, it be difficult to prove the opposite case (that it's not). EULA's aren't specific rules on what you may or may not do, they're establishing a basis under which to sue for when someone does something egregious (e.g. post it to a torrent site). Because if you make software and sell it to someone without an EULA and someone sticks it on a torrent site, you have no basis for remedy. But as a user, will a developer in real terms ever sue a purchaser for this kind of use above even if they thought it was against the terms? No....the damages, even they one would be dwarfed by the costs and they'd have to pay their own lawyers.

BUT for us composers it does matter to be vaguely aware of it, for this reason alone; you never know what piece might take off. If the sample becomes the recognizable backbone of something iconic, then it is vaguely conceivable that you'd have an issue if it was an egregious breach of it, but that's hard to imagine for a library you paid for. 

Otherwise it's theoretical and just a point of interest.


----------



## procreative (Mar 9, 2017)

I absolutely agree with those that think its rather overzealous. Fact is though if you are running a studio business, can you afford to take the chance that its "unlikely" they would pursue you? 

If you use samples on a clients work and they are chased by said company later, they will quite rightly pass the blame on to the studio as they have paid for time to use you facilities and its not their problem if you infringed a EULA.

Its no use saying "its probably not what they meant", if its not implicitly stated then its open to debate. That would involve contesting a ruling in court and if it involves a company in another jurisdiction could be very costly.

The only practical way forward would be for sample devs to have a "Commercial EULA" for collaborative businesses or studios. Otherwise I can see people exploiting EULAs by sharing each other's libraries and saying "he let me use his studio to write my piece".

I dont think European Consumer Law would help, we are talking about a business scenario.

But that is the problem with software, nobody would blink if you used a Moog in a studio (like Gary Numan did all those years ago on Cars), doubt he has had to pay any royalties or infringed any EULAs.


----------



## Heinigoldstein (Mar 9, 2017)

To make a fair point to the developers, I really believe most of them are not really aware of that problem. Spitfire, OT, VSL and all the other major companies develop tools for pros and they don't want to prevent musician, composers, producers from doing their work. They just want to protect their rights and aim too far with their EULAs. At least I hopt it is that way.


----------



## macmac (Mar 9, 2017)

What about in the simplest of cases where a friend or client wants you to produce a track for them from scratch (based on their demo) because either they are not capable or want an objective ear (producer). In this example you are *not* using their MIDI files to run through your VIs so that they can avoid buying the VI themselves, but rather you are using your VIs/sample libraries to do their track in your own environment. When finished, you give them the finished track that you did on your computer in your house with your gear. Is that OK?

However the second question arises if they expect or want you to give them the session file and/or the individual tracks so that they can tinker with it later on, which now puts the VI/sample library sounds in isolation, which is not permitted by any EULA I've ever seen.

I've seen ads from people/companies producing demos/fleshing out someone's song/mix, etc. where I would think that the above would be a very typical scenario for what these people are doing.

And what about collaboration, where your share of the work is done on your computer with your stuff?


----------



## robgb (Mar 9, 2017)

Check out Sampletekk's EULA. I think it's the best one out there. It's a couple paragraphs long.


----------

