# Is it legal?



## kavinsky (Jun 21, 2017)

Is it legal to resell "naked" loops and stems you made with your commercial VI libraries as a standalone product?
Just stumbled upon this "loop pack" and its clearly made with damage/hz01/8dio arranged in a form of percussion loops. same thing with brass - very obvious
https://splice.com/sounds/splice/varien-colossus

Can somebody just clear it up for me please?
I briefly checked Heavyocity's EULA and it states the following:

"Use of unmodified Samples appearing in isolation such as, but not limited to, in video game soundtracks, gaming machines, and/or toys (where they may appear in isolation or as “naked” sound effects) is not permitted without first obtaining a separate written license (which may be issued at the sole discretion of Owner). In addition, “naked” or isolated samples are not to be sold or distributed as individually licensable “stripes,” “work parts,” or “elements.”

Loops (continuous repeating compositions that contain only a combination of modified Samples) must be used in a musical context with at least two other instruments or loops that contribute significantly to the composition. The Loop may be an element, but not the entire composition. "


----------



## AlexanderSchiborr (Jun 21, 2017)

It depends always what the developer of a library grants you as a user for particular rights. See also Eula, but apart from that everything is negotiable those things are imo pretty clear violation for me. Lets take an example: The EULA from Spitfire Audio, see also here:

https://www.spitfireaudio.com/info/eula/

"
_Do I have to pay you any fees beyond the purchase price or royalties if I use these sounds in my compositions for a Film, TV show, Game or other recording?_

NO - provided you use our sounds in the context of a musical composition and not as part of a library of sounds.

E.g. it's ok to score the end product. *It's not ok to make a composing or player tool in the end product that uses our sounds individually as building blocks. It's not ok to provide our sounds exposed for other people to use in the construction of a recording."
*
Similiar EULA´s I have found also with other developers as this is a common thing and I can understand that of course. So in case that they used here samples from Spitfire recordings HZ01, yes that is violating SA Eula. My personal opinion is that I think the ethic of selling a product based on recordings I don´t own pretty lame! Just my personal opinion though.

So, to anwer your question: I think no, it is not legal at all.


----------



## procreative (Jun 21, 2017)

Of course its a violation, but many of the loop collections must be violating these EULAs as so many "loops" seem to be pretty naked as thats the point of them. Question is how many devs can be bothered to enforce their EULAs?

This gets even greyer when there are libraries like Vivace, Grosso and Capriccio where its almost impossible to use them as part of a piece when they have almost full orchestration.

Even if you are creating composed music for libraries you have to be careful, it was only recently Big Fish Audio reworded their EULA as not so long ago you could not use their stuff in any production library without getting special permission.


----------



## Polkasound (Jun 21, 2017)

I believe what these EULAs are saying is that you cannot create a composition/loop whereas the samples are soloed, making them easy to be harvested and reused as samples. The samples you use in your loops must be embellished with other instruments so that no one developer's samples are isolated.

A most extreme violation, for example, would be a composition/loop in which nothing but an undressed string ensemble plays a chromatic, three-octave scale of pizzicato notes. That's like giving away 37 recorded samples. But if that chromatic scale were layered with other instruments, then the pizzicato notes couldn't be isolated.

It is my opinion that most developers' word their EULAs to prohibit their samples from being used in compositions from which they can be easily harvested. If the loops are playing several layered instruments all the time, then they should be safe. But if one developer's samples are soloed in the loop, making them easy to harvest as new samples, then it probably is a violation of the EULA.


----------



## erica-grace (Jun 21, 2017)

I have not read the HY EULA, but don't most - if not all - EULAS say that you can not take the exisiting sample content and make a new sample library? If the HY EULA does indeed say that, than Splice is in violation.


----------



## Polkasound (Jun 21, 2017)

Erica, that is correct, except in this case, Splice is not creating sample libraries -- they are creating loops.


----------



## emaitch (Jun 21, 2017)

erica-grace said:


> I have not read the HY EULA, but don't most - if not all - EULAS say that you can not take the exisiting sample content and make a new sample library? If the HY EULA does indeed say that, than Splice is in violation.


Absolutely. Every EULA I've seen prohibits using the samples for other sample libraries, whether they're loop libraries or not. Choosing not to prosecute doesn't make it okay and whoever does it is exposing themselves (and their customers) to possible legal action. This is why so many music supervisors and producers are skittish about using music that incorporates loop libraries because many loop library producers are careless about their sources. Best to look for libraries that advertise "copyright clean".


----------



## erica-grace (Jun 21, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> Erica, that is correct, except in this case, Splice is not creating sample libraries -- *they are creating loops*.



So, the loops are not coming from SAMPLE CONTENT?

And how is selling a loop library that uses samples different than selling a sample library that uses samples? Aren't they one and the same?


----------



## Polkasound (Jun 21, 2017)

erica-grace said:


> And how is selling a loop library that uses samples different than selling a sample library that uses samples? Aren't they one and the same?



Let me take it one step further. How is selling a musical composition created with samples any different from selling loops created with samples?

The answer lies within each individual EULA, because developers have the authority to license their products as they see fit. Some may choose to license each individual sampled note in their library as a sound recording, in which case the end user may need permission to use the samples in any commercial application. But this is highly restrictive, and developers typically don't want their end users jumping through legal hoops just to use their libraries. So they write their EULAs to say end user may use the samples for their own compositions.

But this creates a loophole whereas a malicious "composer" could play every note chromatically in a sample library, call it a musical composition, and legally sell it to someone who could easily convert those notes back into samples. So EULAs are then amended to state that compositions cannot contain exposed sample content, and must be dressed/embellished with other instruments.

In the case of the loops, if the samples are exposed, the loops could then be a violation the EULA. That technically also hold true for full-length musical compositions, but common sense dictates that a developer is not going to come after a composer who briefly solos a violin in an orchestral work.


----------



## erica-grace (Jun 21, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> Let me take it one step further. How is selling a musical composition created with samples any different from selling loops created with samples?



Selling a sample library made from a sample library for others to use in their compositions, is not the same as selling a sample library for others to use in their compositions. As you say, it all comes down to the EULA. If the EULA allows you to make new sample libraries from the one you have purchased, then you can. But I was questioning whether or not you are allowed to - as I don't think any EULAS say this is ok.


----------



## procreative (Jun 21, 2017)

Problem is there seem to be many loop libraries out there for example Producer Loops Symphonic Series that have entire compositions available that provide the DAW project, WAVs, Midi etc. The WAVs are provided as OMF files which are separated out tracks. Technically these are naked samples (not sure what libraries they are).

Now is it right or wrong? Not sure. But Producer Loops are a big enough label sold everywhere from Time & Space and Best Service to their own site. Surely developers might have taken issue?

If they all do indeed "watermark" their samples surely they would have done something?

In reality many of them can't be bothered. An example I had a client who I did a brochure for get another agency to make them a website using the library images I made the brochure with (they did not even use originals they just badly scanned the images of the printed brochure).

I pointed out to the client their error and that they needed to license the images themselves to do this, but they thought I was angling for more business and were very rude to me. So rude I thought f**k you and advised the large library (Getty) of their infringement.

They did nothing.

Perhaps if it had been a large plc maybe they might as they probably realised proving it would be costly.


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 21, 2017)

kavinsky said:


> Is it legal to resell "naked" loops and stems you made with your commercial VI libraries as a standalone product?


If you composed with it and sell your composings, yes it is.


----------



## Polkasound (Jun 21, 2017)

erica-grace said:


> As you say, it all comes down to the EULA. If the EULA allows you to make new sample libraries from the one you have purchased, then you can. But I was questioning whether or not you are allowed to - as I don't think any EULAS say this is ok.



OK. I thought you were implying loop libraries and sample libraries were the same thing when created from the same sample library. You're right in that sample library developers ban the use of their samples to create and sell new libraries, because that would be theft.



germancomponist said:


> If you composed with it and sell your composings, yes it is.



This may be true, but only in some cases. It really depends on the EULA, because some developers may opt to ban the distribution of naked loops/compositions created from their libraries.


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 21, 2017)

I live in the EU, and here it is allowed and makes sence to me. Libraries are my instruments. Think about this example: You buy a real trumpet, record phrases and sell it. ...


----------



## afterlight82 (Jun 21, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> Erica, that is correct, except in this case, Splice is not creating sample libraries -- they are creating loops.



A Court would probably see that as a distinction without a difference.


----------



## Saxer (Jun 21, 2017)

In German law there's the term 'treshhold of originality'. There's a level of own creativity that has to be added to a work to be approved as an own creation. This level is very low but normally parts like accompainment are not enough to be considered as an own composition. So if a loop library is not necessarily an own artistic composition work it would be more or less a republishing of samples. But that's a very subjective valuation.


----------



## Polkasound (Jun 21, 2017)

germancomponist said:


> I live in the EU, and here it is allowed and makes sence to me. Libraries are my instruments. Think about this example: You buy a real trumpet, record phrases and sell it. ...



It makes sense, and things may be different in the EU than in the U.S., but unlike the sound a real trumpet produces, a sample library is comprised of a collection of sound recordings (samples). A developer can therefore treat their sample libraries as sound recordings and restrict their commercial uses. You can buy a music CD for your personal enjoyment, but you can't take audio clips from the CD and use them in your own recording unless you licensed to do so. The EULA issued by a developer is your license, and it determines what you can and cannot do with the sample library you purchase.



afterlight82 said:


> A Court would probably see that as a distinction without a difference.



If Splice were sued, I'd think a court would defer to the EULA, since it is legally binding agreement. Then it would be a matter of determining whether or not the EULA was breeched.


----------



## afterlight82 (Jun 21, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> If Splice were sued, I'd think a court would defer to the EULA, since it is legally binding agreement. Then it would be a matter of determining whether or not the EULA was breeched.



They'd also look at copyright law, severability, completeness, venue, and a whole host of other legal doctrines, as well as the definition of the word "sample", and since the Spitfire EULA states:

"This license expressly forbids resale or other distribution of these Sounds or their derivatives, either as they exist in the library, reformatted for use in another sampler, or mixed, combined, filtered, resynthesized or otherwise edited, for use as sounds, multisounds, samples, multisamples, soundsets, programs or patches in a sampler, microchip, computer, software, game console or any sample playback device. You cannot sell them or give them away for use by others in their sampling or sample playback devices. Spitfire Audio Holdings Ltd reserves all rights not expressly granted to you." 

and the Splice EULA makes clear they are selling "samples" per their EULA; "Splice Sounds is a subscription service (“Splice Sounds”) that allows Users to purchase a fixed number of credits (“Credits”) per month to redeem for downloads of samples from the Service (samples available for download through Splice Sounds are “Samples”)."

It's open and shut that this is a breach of contract. Spitfire should undoubtedly go after them and the user who uploaded the stuff. I don't think Splice's liability shield will protect them, but that'd be a matter for litigation. 

I tend to go by the gut feeling of "does this feel like it's wrong"? Don't go wrong too often with that.


----------



## bigcat1969 (Jun 21, 2017)

The defacto standard is you can't resample a sample and you can't distribute a sample that some other entity created without permission. This is why the world of PD and CC Licensing exists in Freebieland. If this protection didn't exist this industry couldn't exist as everyone would give away everything for free after one person bought the first copy. And a loop is a sample.


----------



## Polkasound (Jun 21, 2017)

afterlight82 said:


> They'd also look at copyright law, severability, completeness, venue, and a whole host of other legal doctrines, as well as the definition of the word "sample", and since the Spitfire EULA states:



That certainly would be true depending on the nature of the lawsuit. But if Splice were sued, they could argue semantics, saying that they use "samples" as a blanket term for their loops, which they may redefine in court as compositions. So I wouldn't consider anything open and shut. If I were Spitfire and felt Splice were violating my EULA, I would send them a cease & desist letter. If it didn't work, I would consult a legal expert to determine the plausibility of litigation.



afterlight82 said:


> I tend to go by the gut feeling of "does this feel like it's wrong"? Don't go wrong too often with that.



That usually goes a long way.


----------



## afterlight82 (Jun 21, 2017)

Polkasound said:


> That certainly would be true depending on the nature of the lawsuit. But if Splice were sued, they could argue semantics, saying that they use "samples" as a blanket term for their loops, which they may redefine in court as compositions. So I wouldn't consider anything open and shut. If I were Spitfire and felt Splice were violating my EULA, I would send them a cease & desist letter. If it didn't work, I would consult a legal expert to determine the plausibility of litigation.



Well C&D would be the only reasonably way to start even if one was going to sue. It's frowned upon to just dive on in with litigation. The semantics thing would get laughed out of court, not that this would get to court in a billion years, since they carefully included an "entire agreement" clause as most contracts do, and they specifically differentiate between a "Track" and a "sample", because they also have complete tracks as something else they sell, I guess. Oops.

"_Track means any User Content you Post that is a musical work or sound recording..._".



Polkasound said:


> That usually goes a long way.





Either way, Spitfire should go at them. It's not legal.


----------



## Polkasound (Jun 21, 2017)

FYI, I haven't bothered to read any of Splice's or Spitfire's EULAs. I'm just going by what I've been reading here from post to post. There may be information in both company's EULAs that could change my point of view.

But one thing that holds true in general is that many EULAs are like traffic laws -- written somewhat ambiguously to be all encompassing. It keeps EULAs from having to be several pages long. But the ambiguity can be a double-edged sword because what could be black & white is now left open to interpretation.


----------



## procreative (Jun 22, 2017)

I would encourage anyone creating library tracks or cues to carefully read the EULAs of all the products they intend to use.

While its true morally sample instruments should be treated like real instruments in that once you have bought them you can create what you like with them, it just does not work that way.

Sample libraries are licensed as Sound Recordings and the copyright/licensing is much tighter.

I have got into lots of arguments as to the moral side to "ownership" in that I find it odd that a sample maker can "sample" a mini moog and have a very draconian licensing rights yet the original hardware developer has no rights over the sounds they designed for this hardware. In my mind either both have a right to licensing/royalties or neither. Especially when you into 80s/90s Romplers that are effectively primitive sample players.

I know some libraries won't even touch some developers as they dont want the hassle of a TV show asking for verification then being threatened with extra fees.

The biggest worries are the phrase based titles as often there are passages in pieces that might have exposed parts using these. EULAs seem to vary on this. I am sure East West dont even allow Library use at all?


----------



## Dominik Raab (Jun 22, 2017)

> I am sure East West dont even allow Library use at all?



You might be sure, but you're not right. 

From the EastWest EULA, section 2 (bold formatting added by me):



> 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.



This also applies to the loops found in EW products, not only note-sampled instruments:



> E. You *may use any included* EASTWEST SOFTWARE *Audio Loops* (compositions that contain a combination of sound samples that can be repeated to form a continuous piece of music) *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), subject to the following terms and conditions: (1) the Audio Loops must be used in a musical context *with at least two other instruments that contribute significantly to the composition*; and (2) The *entire Audio Loop cannot be left exposed at any time in the composition.* If you have any doubt a composition or soundtrack by you meets the foregoing criteria, you may submit the composition to [email protected] for written approval. Please do not send audio or MP3 files, send us a link to your composition on your web server.



Link to the Agreement.

They're making sure nobody is allowed to distribute music from which someone can clip the original sample or loop in order to use it the way the would use EastWest's software. They explicitly allow using both samples and loops with a music library, and they're even giving you pointers on when it counts as exposed.


----------



## procreative (Jun 22, 2017)

Dominik Raab said:


> You might be sure, but you're not right.
> 
> From the EastWest EULA, section 2 (bold formatting added by me):
> 
> ...



Correct! 

I am sure this policy changed though as I am almost sure when I first bought HWS it was not allowed. Maybe they moved with the times. I did discover my error soon after but forgot to edit my post.


----------



## Fab (Aug 27, 2017)

haha, found this thread because...I knew it would be somewhere.

I just stumbled across the site. Interesting concept but damn, some of the user submitted packs I was checking out contain almost completely unedited samples from other sample library devs.

My favorite was the gravity hits in a certain cinematic/trailer themed pack, so recognizable too! lol

Surely, someones going to get into trouble.


----------



## mc_deli (Aug 27, 2017)

Looks to me like Splice is another classic tech leeching middleman play. Provide a "platform" for "users" to "trade" "content". Take a cut. Ignore rights violations. Rely on the platform, large number of users, small scale of peer-to-peer sales and general murkiness of service to get away with it. Claim ignorance.

I hope they get crushed under the weight of litigation from the real rights owners. IMHO of course.


----------



## Fab (Aug 27, 2017)

mc_deli said:


> Looks to me like Splice is another classic tech leeching middleman play. Provide a "platform" for "users" to "trade" "content". Take a cut. Ignore rights violations. Rely on the platform, large number of users, small scale of peer-to-peer sales and general murkiness of service to get away with it. Claim ignorance.
> 
> I hope they get crushed under the weight of litigation from the real rights owners. IMHO of course.




^lol, OR they then make enough money to go fully legit and further down the line...criticize and undermine any 'would be' competitors for doing exactly what got them to where they are....


----------



## Count_Fuzzball (Aug 27, 2017)

mc_deli said:


> Looks to me like Splice is another classic tech leeching middleman play. Provide a "platform" for "users" to "trade" "content". Take a cut. Ignore rights violations. Rely on the platform, large number of users, small scale of peer-to-peer sales and general murkiness of service to get away with it. Claim ignorance.
> 
> I hope they get crushed under the weight of litigation from the real rights owners. IMHO of course.



How is Splice any different from any other user-hosted content platform like, youtube, for example?
Splice *say* they will comply with DMCA requests, like youtube does. Despite that, people still upload feature-length movies to youtube.

I always find accountability funny in these situations.

Who do you go after? The users who are uploading the content (which the host can only remove *after* it's been uploaded), or the host for hosting user-uploaded illegal content (see the first statement)?


----------



## k4music (Aug 2, 2018)

Hello all. A question regarding usage of sample packs in this context. Say for example if we purchase a sample from a sample pack company and use it for a commercial music production and the source of the sample is from another sample library which we dont know when using it. Will there be any problem for the work created with that sample.


----------



## YaniDee (Aug 2, 2018)

mc_deli said:


> Looks to me like Splice is another classic tech leeching middleman play


I bought samples from Splice for about a year, but never really "trusted them". Once your membership is over, would they even have a record of you having bought a sample, would it ever stand up as proof of "legality", if it was contested? Any time I used a sample in a composition I thought had commercial potential, I wound up buying the whole pack from the original source ..


----------



## 667 (Aug 3, 2018)

k4music said:


> Hello all. A question regarding usage of sample packs in this context. Say for example if we purchase a sample from a sample pack company and use it for a commercial music production and the source of the sample is from another sample library which we dont know when using it. Will there be any problem for the work created with that sample.


Yes. Every production company is always saying NO UNCLEARED SAMPLES and they mean it. Sucks massively that this company is being like the Udemy of samples. "Just give us our cut we don't give a #$!% where it comes from".


Just buy what you want from the real companies and avoid this problem.


----------



## Kaufmanmoon (Apr 13, 2019)

I'm bumping this thread as I was thinking about this and Logic Drummer/Superior Drummer e.t.c came to my thoughts when creating stems for library music.


----------



## robgb (Apr 13, 2019)

I'm always fascinated by this topic. Mostly because I read EULAs and often wonder, how is anyone ever going to enforce this? With naked loops, it's obviously much easier to recognize your product, but who's going to tell me that within the context of a fully produced orchestral piece that a developer would even recognize, say, their violas in the mix? And, even if they did recognize them, how would they go about proving it was their library? Which is probably why some developers go in for iLok and other systems, in hopes that their sample libraries won't be cracked. Which, of course, is a pipe dream. I honestly think the only thing preventing composers and musicians from using pirated software is one thing: their ethical makeup. An ethical composer will avoid using pirated samples because it's the right thing to do, and the unethical one won't care because the chances of getting caught or called-out are pretty slim.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe developers DO have a way of recognizing their material. But even if they do, do they have the resources to launch legal proceedings? Thoughts like these make me glad I'm not a developer, and almost explains why the prices are often so damn high.


----------



## Hasici (Apr 13, 2019)

As for "ownership" of sample libraries, no sampling library give you ownership in any form. You pay license for the rights to use the sampling library in your production. You don't own the libraries. So no this is not like owning a trumpet (which is a physical object) or keyboard (ditto). Sample libraries are pure intellectual property. The EULA will specify how you can and cannot use the library, and creating another library from it is mostly always prohibited. 
Of course there is the red herring of ligitation. Many of those who use the libraries by breaching the license agreement doing so in hope that the developers will not sue them. The problem with suing is that the developer must demonstrate that their library was used - which requires paying an audio forensic expert. It simply all runs into big money - and depending on the country the damages awarded may be not worth doing all that.


----------



## 667 (Apr 13, 2019)

robgb said:


> Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe developers DO have a way of recognizing their material. But even if they do, do they have the resources to launch legal proceedings? Thoughts like these make me glad I'm not a developer, and almost explains why the prices are often so damn high.


There's watermarking, I'm not sure how much it is really used these days though. 

Based on CH's recent video about 'taking things legal' I will assume that you will probably never be sued because it's far too much cost for far too little benefit. However the flipside to that coin is that if you ARE sued you are in for a world of pain, stress, and burned $$$. So it's really not worth it to take that risk, at least not for me.

Kinda like the worlds worst lottery ticket, you really really don't wanna win.


----------



## robgb (Apr 13, 2019)

667 said:


> There's watermarking, I'm not sure how much it is really used these days though.


I've wondered about that. Seems more like a threat than a real technology. Again, I think it boils down to your ethical make-up. And with so many low cost alternatives and sales these days, I'm not even sure it's worth it for the unethical composer to steal.


----------



## MatFluor (Apr 13, 2019)

robgb said:


> And with so many low cost alternatives and sales these days, I'm not even sure it's worth it for the unethical composer to steal.



If you look around on reddit and chatrooms - there are more than enough people who themselves are ok with pirating/stealing/whatever. Reasons are mostly "I have no money", "I need to sound good" and the good old "This will help me make music like that huge composer guy, so I need it, but it's too expensive". Not to say that the majority of those people have no shame in using cracked software, pirated stuff etc, and justify by pointing at big names that use cracked stuff themselves going like "Look at one of the worlds top DJs, he uses cracked software in his videos!". Aka - when he does it and gets away, you as unknown nobody get away with it all the more.

A different view is that the era of demos are obviously over and you pirate to try stuff out. Still nothing I like, but there at least I understand the reason - try the sounds, like it, you can work with it, let's buy the real deal.

Sorry, piracy talk triggers me beyond belief


----------



## robgb (Apr 14, 2019)

MatFluor said:


> A different view is that the era of demos are obviously over and you pirate to try stuff out.


After having been burned a few times, this one I get. I truly wish I'd had a demo of Albion One before I dropped four hundred bucks on it. And I suspect actual demos would probably help cut down on some of the pirating. Because, let's face it, the lack of them certainly doesn't prevent it.


----------



## Floris (Apr 14, 2019)

I am wondering about this. If a certain set of samples can only be used in musical context: are YouTube reviews, tutorials and behind-the-scenes also in violation for just playing single tracks out of context?
Even though this is not what the EULA is trying to prevent: if you look at it from a black-white perspective: does this technically violate it?


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 14, 2019)

A loop is considered a sample. And pretty much every professional sample library on the market strictly prohibits using their libraries to create new samples to sell.

It appears Splice is selling licences to samples they do not own and I strongly recommend those companies effected send a cease and desist and try to get any money made from your samples paid back to you.

This is one of the dangers of using sample content from outsourced creators. Splice really needs to be careful with that as it is them selling it, leaving them open to legal action.

-DJ


----------



## Dex (Apr 14, 2019)

Floris said:


> I am wondering about this. If a certain set of samples can only be used in musical context: are YouTube reviews, tutorials and behind-the-scenes also in violation for just playing single tracks out of context?
> Even though this is not what the EULA is trying to prevent: if you look at it from a black-white perspective: does this technically violate it?



Yes, absolutely. If the EULA says you can only use the library for x and you go do y with it you are violating the EULA.


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 14, 2019)

According to the creator of that pack they had permission to do so. I am hearing multiple libraries so I have followed up on twitter to see whom gave the ok.

Because if companies are allowing people to create and sell loops using their packs I would be a fool not to do so also.

This is from one of the loop pack developers:

"Hey man! Just wanted to address this. When I was commissioned to make this pack years ago, I was OK'd to use one shots but not loops. Everything I make these days is squeaky clean. I cannot speak for Splice though. Just wanted to clear up how it went down on my end. DMs are open"

-DJ


----------



## Desire Inspires (Apr 14, 2019)

Hasici said:


> Yes in theory posting review on youtube can and will violate EULA. But this is largely pointless from a legal point - EULA is not a law and never understood this way. EULA is a license agreement between two parties: a licensor and licensee.
> So only the licensor can wave the LA around and demand the licensee to stop doing whatever he is doing "or else", but why he would in this case. There is no benefit to the licensor and he is the one who wrote the LA.
> 
> People would often throw terms of legality and non legality - but in case of license agreement there is no such thing until one of the parties decide to make it so (going to court and the court rules in their favor - then it became legal - otherwise it is just agreement between two equal parties).
> ...



Dangerous rhetoric.


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 14, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> Dangerous rhetoric.



It’s as simple as, the person who creates the sample owns copyright to those samples. Via a license agreement you can allow others to use those samples for certain uses. If someone breached the EULA, they are then violating copyright, and those are the laws you would be dealing with.

Most companies to not restrict users from showing their samples on youtube in the form of reviews or track breakdowns because the user is not redistributing the samples or trying to sell permission to use the sounds, so they are on the correct side of the license agreement. Actually many companies encourage it, it’s great promotion. 

At the end of the day you never own the samples you are using, so it doesn’t matter if someone rips them from a users video. You only ever own a license to reuse those samples in a manner agreed upon in an EULA. Creating and distributing loops made from sample libraries legally is not that much different than ripping a chorus from a Lady Gaga song and then reselling it as a pop loop.

-DJ

P.s Lady Gaga is the metric by which we discuss copyright here XD


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 14, 2019)

Daniel James said:


> According to the creator of that pack they had permission to do so. I am hearing multiple libraries so I have followed up on twitter to see whom gave the ok.
> 
> Because if companies are allowing people to create and sell loops using their packs I would be a fool not to do so also.
> 
> ...



Ok after following up, It appears splice told the packs creator "that as long as the sample is modified, it's usable." Which we all know not to be true. So developers, if you hear your work on Splice, send a cease and disist as they are telling their pack producers it is ok to circumvent the EULA. And you will have a very strong case for a copyright infringement. Particually as they are making money from the service.

-DJ


----------



## Diablo IV (Apr 14, 2019)

Added note: He didn't say it. My bad.

Christian Henson said it best on his vlogs: "If you don't protect your IP, no one is gonna do it for you", or something like that. Meaning if you get leaked libraries from SFire Audio or buy from this seller (let's say they selling it's illegal) and 8Dio or any mentioned company hasn't done anything to prevent it, then you are not doing anything wrong.


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 14, 2019)

Diablo3 said:


> Christian Henson said it best on his vlogs: "If you don't protect your IP, no one is gonna do it for you", or something like that. Meaning if you get leaked libraries from SFire Audio or buy from this seller (let's say they selling it's illegal) and 8Dio or any mentioned company hasn't done anything to prevent it, then you are doing anything wrong.



I will most certainly be protecting mine.

-DJ


----------



## Diablo IV (Apr 14, 2019)

Daniel James said:


> I will most certainly be protecting mine.
> 
> -DJ



Yeah, and btw, I don't agree with CH....


----------



## Dex (Apr 14, 2019)

Diablo3 said:


> Christian Henson said it best on his vlogs: "If you don't protect your IP, no one is gonna do it for you", or something like that. Meaning if you get leaked libraries from SFire Audio or buy from this seller (let's say they selling it's illegal) and 8Dio or any mentioned company hasn't done anything to prevent it, then you are not doing anything wrong.



Not true. It's still wrong (and illegal) even if the company hasn't tried to prevent it.


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 14, 2019)

As we can all clearly hear DAMAGE in that link. Here is the EULA section related.

"The usage of Heavyocity products (in particular samples, instruments and presets) for the creation of a sound library or as a sound library for any kind of synthesizer, virtual instrument, sample library, sample-based product or other musical instrument is strictly prohibited"

Which is all you need to know really.

-DJ


----------



## Diablo IV (Apr 14, 2019)

Dex said:


> Not true. It's still wrong (and illegal) even if the company hasn't tried to prevent it.



I agree. A bad deed is a bad deed no matter what.


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 14, 2019)

Diablo3 said:


> I agree. A bad deed is a bad deed no matter what.



Well its essentially a pirate site. And I think that message should be made very clear to professionals! 

-DJ


----------



## Hasici (Apr 14, 2019)

Daniel James said:


> Well its essentially a pirate site. And I think that message should be made very clear to professionals!
> 
> -DJ


It is my experience that in such cases everyone involved knows pretty much exactly what they are doing and that they are ripping off a library but pretend to either doing within their rights or pretend that they don't know where it came from or was done by someone else...


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 14, 2019)

Hasici said:


> It is my experience that in such cases everyone involved knows pretty much exactly what they are doing and that they are ripping off a library but pretend to either doing within their rights or pretend that they don't know where it came from or was done by someone else...



But as a professional you cannot open yourself up to those risks knowingly. Splice is for all intents and purposes a piracy site as the content you get from it does not provide the required licence to use them. 

If you use pirated samples thats on you as a composer. 

After looking into it, speaking to both developers of the original sample libraries and the creators of the sample pack I am telling you as plainly as I can... Using SPLICE is the same as using pirated samples. You DO NOT have the correct licence to use it in your productions. I am saying this message should be spread to as many professionals as possible, as the site looks _legitimate, _but the content is not.
_
-DJ _


----------



## paulthomson (Apr 15, 2019)

Diablo3 said:


> Christian Henson said it best on his vlogs: "If you don't protect your IP, no one is gonna do it for you", or something like that. Meaning if you get leaked libraries from SFire Audio or buy from this seller (let's say they selling it's illegal) and 8Dio or any mentioned company hasn't done anything to prevent it, then you are not doing anything wrong.



I’m not sure how you manage to get that interpretation!

He’s saying precisely the opposite. 

If you don’t look after your own IP, why should you expect anyone else to value it. 

ie: look after your own IP. 

We strongly protect our IP at Spitfire, to the extent of having three independent companies working on anti piracy, and having our own traceable methods of preventing illegal use of our IP. 

Apart from anything personal - it’s our absolute duty to our customers to protect our IP as strongly as we can. 

Best,

Paul


----------



## Diablo IV (Apr 15, 2019)

paulthomson said:


> I’m not sure how you manage to get that interpretation!
> 
> He’s saying precisely the opposite.
> 
> ...




I swear to god he said it almost exactly like that. BUT maybe I took it out of context. If I ever find the exact time stamp in said video, will let you guys know.


----------



## Diablo IV (Apr 15, 2019)

DISCLAIMER: I was wrong apparently. I guess I was on drugs (never done drugs)...
Forum etiquette: Should I edit that mistaken post?


----------



## paulthomson (Apr 15, 2019)

haha!! no don't worry. Glad it was clearer on second viewing!


----------



## LinusW (Apr 15, 2019)

Daniel James said:


> As we can all clearly hear DAMAGE in that link.


I believe you, but some kind of comparison would be good for those of us who have not used Damage. 
Just like this video dealt with Softphonics resampling other products into their sample libraries.


----------



## 667 (Apr 15, 2019)

I am starting to see Splice ads everywhere, e.g. music forums on reddit, man I wish someone would take them down. Piracy is one thing but a BUSINESS based on piracy really grinds my gears.


----------



## LinusW (Apr 15, 2019)

667 said:


> I am starting to see Splice ads everywhere, e.g. music forums on reddit, man I wish someone would take them down. Piracy is one thing but a BUSINESS based on piracy really grinds my gears.


The business is not based on piracy. Just because 1 sample pack was based on sample libraries does not mean everything is. You have got lots of labels in there - Audentity, Function Loops, Loopmasters, Prime Loops, Producer Loops, Sample Magic etc. They're doing original content. 
Something went wrong when Splice ordered this sample pack from some producer.


----------



## 667 (Apr 15, 2019)

LinusW said:


> The business is not based on piracy. Just because 1 sample pack was based on sample libraries does not mean everything is. You have got lots of labels in there - Audentity, Function Loops, Loopmasters, Prime Loops, Producer Loops, Sample Magic etc. They're doing original content.
> Something went wrong when Splice ordered this sample pack from some producer.


There is a tendency for "crowd sourced" content based businesses to not look to close at this type of thing. Or to say it's the responsibility of the "producers" and not them as middle man. I don't agree. 

I think if you build your business with this type of model you have massive responsibility to do it properly and keep bootleg/pirate stuff off of your platform.


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 15, 2019)

paulthomson said:


> I’m not sure how you manage to get that interpretation!
> 
> He’s saying precisely the opposite.
> 
> ...



Thankyou for doing so too Paul! If we as developers do nothing, then nothing changes. Also worth keeping in mind (and I am sure this is what you team are doing also) that if you want quick action, a break of the EULA moves into copyright law, meaning you can file DMCA takedown notices. It won't get you lost revenue back but at least they wont continue to profit off your work!

-DJ


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 15, 2019)

LinusW said:


> The business is not based on piracy. Just because 1 sample pack was based on sample libraries does not mean everything is. You have got lots of labels in there - Audentity, Function Loops, Loopmasters, Prime Loops, Producer Loops, Sample Magic etc. They're doing original content.
> Something went wrong when Splice ordered this sample pack from some producer.



From speaking to a few of the sample pack makers for splice over the past day, they are apparantly told by SPLICE that if they edit the sample library then its ok to make new samples with. Which is wrong. And they know its wrong. Meaning they are willingly redistributing samples they dont have the rights to. That is what piracy is in a nutshell. As you never actually own the samples you purchase but a licence to use them in music. 

-DJ


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 15, 2019)

Also this is the company that allowed their producers to resample and 'edit' direct cuts from the DOOM soundtrack.



Mick Gordon (the amazing composer behind the music) did not give permission to do so and was understandably upset. Splice did nothing about it, because they know they can get away with it. How ever if a composer was to use those samples they could be liable for a copyright claim from ID Software. Which is why its no better than piracy. Professionals should steer well clear!

-DJ


----------



## LinusW (Apr 15, 2019)

667 said:


> I think if you build your business with this type of model you have massive responsibility to do it properly and keep bootleg/pirate stuff off of your platform.


I agree on that! It's Splice responsibility.


----------



## 667 (Apr 15, 2019)

Daniel James said:


> Mick Gordon (the amazing composer behind the music) did not give permission to do so and was understandably upset. Splice did nothing about it, because they know they can get away with it. How ever if a composer was to use those samples they could be liable for a copyright claim from ID Software. Which is why its no better than piracy. Professionals should steer well clear!


Yeah this is not ok. I hope they go out of business tomorrow, or someone with the will and resources takes them out and ends up owning the founders' houses.

Especially because the work he did on that soundtrack was incredible! Not just the output but the actual work he did was an amazing blend of technical and artistry. Total merge of genius and competence and I do not mean that in any kind of sarcastic way: it's unique, rare, and awesome.

His GDC talk covers it, worth every second:


----------



## LinusW (Apr 15, 2019)

Might be a wise thing to not use packs by KSHMR :/
...or published by Splice. Better using the other labels publishing their stuff on Splice.


----------



## Daniel James (Apr 15, 2019)

If you spot them, forward this tweet to the developer so they can get them removed asap.






-DJ


----------



## Damarus (Apr 15, 2019)

Yup subscription canceled. Luckily I only used it for


Daniel James said:


> If you spot them, forward this tweet to the developer so they can get them removed asap.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Heh, I wonder how they would feel about taking down most of KSHMR's stuff then..


----------



## 667 (Apr 15, 2019)

Yeah it's BS. If KSHMR is still on the site, they are lying thieves. Also, wtf is with them pushing responsibility onto users or legit copyright owners, like who has time to police everything. I can not stand these scammers and theives building whole businesses on this and just never caring or taking this into account.

If you are a building a "platform" with user generated content delivery/sales you need to build-in some kind(s) of solutions to this. If you can't solve it then your business is de facto broken. If you go ahead you should go to jail. I'm serious. If KSHMR is still on Splice then the people who run that company should be in jail.

I know it sounds like I'm over reacting but I'm just so sick of creatives/artists/musicians being ripped off at every turn. Endlessly. Have you never been ripped off? I have! And it's endemic. Everywhere. 

Pay to play. Record contracts. Managers. Hollywood Accounting. All the BS Christian talks about in his videos-- producer wants points for saying 'drums should be louder'. Get outta my face with this! Enough!

Stop stealing from the people who make things and if you build your business in this way I hope you fall in poop.


----------



## tawnia (Apr 16, 2019)

Daniel James said:


> If you spot them, forward this tweet to the developer so they can get them removed asap.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is so many it's truly overwhelming. It's like where do we begin? Total shit show. Here we go! Thanks for your support all.


----------



## Crowe (Apr 17, 2019)

Ok, so on the topic of splice, I got Serum on a rent-to-own basis. I'm very interested in making my own presets and wavetables for use within serum, with no real intention to sell any of them but having a firm 'never say never' stance.

So, should I only make wavetables and presets from samples I recorded myself? Do we know of any companies that are ok with the selling of transformative work? What kind of EULA's am I looking for?

I have no intention of having any of the presets or wavetables I am making sound anything like the original. I am, however, a person of principle so 'getting away with it' tastes sour to me.


----------



## 667 (Apr 17, 2019)

No one is ok with selling DERIVATIVE works. Modifying samples is not transformative (from legal perspective). To be transformative you have to make a significant change to the meaning of the work, generally-- there's a bunch of tests-- but generally just editing stuff is not sufficient.

Example would be take a play or movie about one thing and 'transform' it into a sculpture that ALSO now means something different, like you are either inverting the meaning of the original work, or maybe it took place in the past and now you're turning it into a comment about something happening today, etc. That's the kind of threshold you're looking for if you want a work to be transformative.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm not claiming this is the minimum threshold, I'm just saying that that this is kind of the intended use of transformative exceptions to copyright, and if you're not doing something like this you have a harder time arguing transformative use.

Recently there was another case where Dr. Seuss sued a Star-Trek themed riff on Oh The Places You'll Go! and they were able to argue transformative use even though it was still a book. So yeah there are always exceptions, but one thing about the law is every case is different. There may be something deep down in the text of the ruling that pushed that case over the line and it may not apply to the next one. Or to yours.

I think the moral question is actually the most interesting one. What does it mean for you to be importing samples and modifying them etc. I think yes you should record your own sounds. I would not import other peoples' samples into Serum and sell them even if they are modified. I just would not be able to accept that regardless of my changes its DNA is still someone else's work.

I would look for CC / public domain recordings and make my own. Especially for wavetables, they are small short samples that don't need huge multisaples/roundrobins, etc., yeah? So taking a few snippets from recordings you made should be easy. Not as easy as just importing someone else's samples of course  but easier than building a huge Kontakt instrument. 

But that only applies to stuff I would sell. For my own musical use, everything is fair game. Even Omnisphere (which a lot of people object to its EULA because it limits non-musical use of the samples) says straight up you can do anything you want if you're not selling samples.



> *What if it's just for my own use and I don't distribute the samples I've created? *
> If you're a licensed user, you are welcome to use your Spectrasonics instruments and libraries to create new audio samples and loops for your own use. The important thing is not to distribute them.


----------



## Crowe (Apr 17, 2019)

Thank you for your thoughts. I just found out that VSCO Community is Creative Commons 0 (public domain) so I've basically found what I was looking for.

EDIT: Actually, I've found a *lot* of usable Creative Commons samples. I don't think I'll need much of anything until my own recording environment is up to snuff.

EDIT: I've also found out that CC0 is not the same as public domain, though the end result is similar. Good to know for others who are looking for usable samples.


----------



## ionian (Apr 17, 2019)

So where does someone like this developer fall?

http://www.beatmachine.co.uk/vst-instruments.html

He outright samples sounds off of synth Roland's sound cards, he uses artists' likenesses, in both his ads and the gui for his plugs to which I'm sure they were most likely neither asked, nor compensated for, distributes Alan Wilder's Emax samples (of which I could swear his original Ebay ad said the winner was forbidden to resell the samples), and sells a ton of sample libraries such as Stock Aitken Waterman, Depeche Mode, And a bunch of "80s" ones (19xx libraries) where he flat out says that he went through the multitracks for the songs and sampled the instruments right off the multi tracks from the original songs for all these libraries.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Feb 20, 2022)

kavinsky said:


> Use of unmodified Samples appearing in isolation such as, but not limited to,


So if I have a Damage drum loop starting off a song - and I did not add any EQ, compression, etc. - and no other instruments were playing at the time, I would need Heavyocity's permission to release the track?


----------



## Polkasound (Feb 20, 2022)

MorphineNoir said:


> So if I have a Damage drum loop starting off a song - and I did not add any EQ, compression, etc. - and no other instruments were playing at the time, I would need Heavyocity's permission to release the track?


Technically, yes, because you are redistributing audio from the library in a way that makes it easy to copy.

But in my opinion, such rules are designed more for deterring intentional malicious copyright infringement -- not stifling a legitimate license owner's creativity. For example, many developers will have a similar rule stating you can't have a composition that plays single notes from their library in isolation. The rule is not designed to prevent a composer from playing a few single notes in isolation if that's what his composition needs -- the rule is designed to deter someone from making a composition out of single notes in a chromatic scale (or loops if a loop library) which can then be copied and repackaged as a new samples.


----------



## Daniel James (Feb 20, 2022)

Polkasound said:


> Technically, yes, because you are redistributing audio from the library in a way that makes it easy to copy.
> 
> But in my opinion, such rules are designed more for deterring intentional malicious copyright infringement -- not stifling a legitimate license owner's creativity. For example, many developers will have a similar rule stating you can't have a composition that plays single notes from their library in isolation. The rule is not designed to prevent a composer from playing a few single notes in isolation if that's what his composition needs -- the rule is designed to deter someone from making a composition out of single notes in a chromatic scale (or loops if a loop library) which can then be copied and repackaged as a new samples.


This, it's obvious when someone is taking the piss. So no you are not allowed to do that but so long as it's clearly being used in a piece of music as intended and just happens to be naked for a few seconds, no one is coming after you for that I don't think. If you however bundle up a bunch of loops together and try to sell it as a sample library....lawyers....lawyers everywhere.

There have actually been companies _here_ who outsourced their sampling to external people. One of those external people did exactly this and slammed competing products sounds together and the company actually released the product (I do think unknowingly, which is almost just as bad in terms of management). Once it was discovered it was pulled down pretty quick, but I heard they got lucky not to be sued in that instance as the library actually sold quite a few copies. Luckily the company being pirated took mercy and accepted it being removed. Not sure how it resolved after that, that's all I remember hearing. So there _are_ examples of people chasing it down. But that situation was _clearly_ in the wrong, but it makes a good example of why that rule exists in terms of practicality.

If you are not comfortable with it don't risk it. But its usually crystal clear what your intentions are and that is more what they will be looking at.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Feb 20, 2022)

Polkasound said:


> Technically, yes, because you are redistributing audio from the library in a way that makes it easy to copy.
> 
> But in my opinion, such rules are designed more for deterring intentional malicious copyright infringement -- not stifling a legitimate license owner's creativity. For example, many developers will have a similar rule stating you can't have a composition that plays single notes from their library in isolation. The rule is not designed to prevent a composer from playing a few single notes in isolation if that's what his composition needs -- the rule is designed to deter someone from making a composition out of single notes in a chromatic scale (or loops if a loop library) which can then be copied and repackaged as a new samples.


While the intent behind the policy might be such deterrence, they could still technically claim a violation - I guess I will be sure to add some effect plugin to the drums if they are ever the only sound playing on a portion of the track




Daniel James said:


> This, it's obvious when someone is taking the piss. So no you are not allowed to do that but so long as it's clearly being used in a piece of music as intended and just happens to be naked for a few seconds, no one is coming after you for that I don't think. If you however bundle up a bunch of loops together and try to sell it as a sample library....lawyers....lawyers everywhere.
> 
> There have actually been companies _here_ who outsourced their sampling to external people. One of those external people did exactly this and slammed competing products sounds together and the company actually released the product (I do think unknowingly, which is almost just as bad in terms of management). Once it was discovered it was pulled down pretty quick, but I heard they got lucky not to be sued in that instance as the library actually sold quite a few copies. Luckily the company being pirated took mercy and accepted it being removed. Not sure how it resolved after that, that's all I remember hearing. So there _are_ examples of people chasing it down. But that situation was _clearly_ in the wrong, but it makes a good example of why that rule exists in terms of practicality.
> 
> If you are not comfortable with it don't risk it. But its usually crystal clear what your intentions are and that is more what they will be looking at.


I was not "taking the piss" - I was asking a legitimate question

The EULA is worded ambiguously when it comes to the entire section from which I originally quoted - in contracts, any ambiguity is resolved against the drafter thereof -- using words such as "musical" and "unmodified" can mean virtually anything -- if the sample being used was originally recorded at 48Hz and I downsample it to 44.1Hz, is that a modification?


----------



## Polkasound (Feb 21, 2022)

MorphineNoir said:


> While the intent behind the policy might be such deterrence, they could still technically claim a violation - I guess I will be sure to add some effect plugin to the drums if they are ever the only sound playing on a portion of the track


Exactly. The proper thing to do would be to contact them because it would be a violation not to, but if I'm going to be completely honest, if I were you, I'd probably skip that step on the grounds that I wouldn't be doing anything with malicious intent. I'd simply be an authorized licensee of the library just making a piece of music with it that happened to have one loop playing exposed for a short bit. If anything, I'd at least add a virtually indistinguishable amount of processing to the loop just for peace of mind.


----------



## berto (Feb 21, 2022)

did not read the full conversation but it has been removed. No loops sounds in this pack.


----------



## AnhrithmonGelasma (Feb 21, 2022)

So if we suspect a sample or "cleared for sampling" track we've bought may have been generated by layering different libraries, would it be illegal to isolate one of those layers using software?

As a practical example, there's a "cleared for sampling" track I've been thinking of buying to isolate a few vocals from the instrumental backing using software. But I'm not sure if the vocals came from a sample library. Of course I can try asking the track's author.


----------



## Polkasound (Feb 21, 2022)

AnhrithmonGelasma said:


> So if we suspect a sample or "cleared for sampling" track we've bought may have been generated by layering different libraries, would it be illegal to isolate one of those layers using software?
> 
> As a practical example, there's a "cleared for sampling" track I've been thinking of buying to isolate a few vocals from the instrumental backing using software. But I'm not sure if the vocals came from a sample library. Of course I can try asking the track's author.


I don't want to touch the word "legal" but rather I'll use the word "proper" since it relates to license agreements and not laws.

When you buy an item from a pawn shop, you don't first have to prove it wasn't stolen. You can assume it wasn't. But if it is stolen and you are caught with it, you may be charged with possession of stolen property. But those charges will likely be dropped once the details have been investigated and the item is returned.

Likewise, when you buy a track cleared for sampling and the seller of the track says its OK to use software to isolate one part of their track, you can assume everything is on the level. But if that isolated part was created by a virtual instrument library and you get caught, the developer of the library could come after you in court, but chances are they wouldn't bother you once they learned the details of your situation. (Chances are they wouldn't come after you anyway.)

Use your common sense. If you suspect a part you want to isolate and sample on a music track constitutes an exposed passage from a known virtual instrument library, then common sense ought to preclude you from buying and sampling the track. Just like when you buy a car from a private seller and there's a screwdriver jammed into the ignition, common sense ought to preclude you from buying the car. If you're unsure about whether or not a library is being used, you can always contact the developer of the assumed library and explain your predicament.

But from a practical standpoint, small-time musicians need not worry about such minutiae. No developer is going to take a musician to court because the musician's track on SoundCloud features a 5-second isolated sample of the developer's library which was was heard by a few hundred people.


----------

