# Using products to create products



## Consona (Jul 13, 2020)

Just wondering how does this work... using various products to make your own commercial sample library/sound pack/etc.


Sample Libs: Read some license agreements and overall, you can't use sample libraries to make your own products.

DAWs: You can use daws to make your own products.

VST Synths: I assume you can use VI synths to make your own synth patches collection and sell it. But can you sample a VI synth and make a kontakt lib out of that for example?

Hardware Synths: How does this work? Can you sample any synth and sell those samples? Or do you need some agreement from the manufacturer or something?

VST effects: Can you use vst plugins, like various Waves or Fabfilter saturators, compressors and whatnot, on your samples and then sell those?

VST synths/effects: Can you put your samples into Steinberg's Padshop or Izotope's Iris, effect them, and then sell that?


----------



## Daryl (Jul 13, 2020)

The underlying principle is that any original products that use actual recordings are not allowed to be used to make another sample product. Over and above that it is a rather grey and murky situation.

The main issue for using hardware synths is that you generally can't use the name of the synth in your marketing, particularly if there is an active Trademark.


----------



## iMovieShout (Jul 13, 2020)

You will find that most if not all, sample libraries contracts / terms & conditions of sale will expressly state that you are not the owner of the samples and are just a licensee. When you buy a library, you are in fact only buying the right to use the library, and not ownership of the library. As such the vendor / owner can revoke your license and even pursue legal action against you if they find you have used their samples or sample libraries to create your own samples that are intended to be marketed or sold as your own libraries. The bigger studios such as CineSamples, Spitfire Audio, VSL, Native Instruments, etc, etc, etc are all very clear on this. Its a big no no. 
If you want to create your own sample libraries to sell, then you will need to create them from scratch using actual instruments etc. Using synths etc is also fine, but as mentioned previously / above its legally very risky to quote actual synth names in marketing and branding unless you have the prior permission of the brand owner (ie. the manufacturer of the synths).
Hope that helps.


----------



## GNP (Jul 13, 2020)

Except for Omnisphere patches - it seems very talented folk like The Unfinished can use existing sounds in Omnisphere to create his own patches and sell them. I think the main caveat is to look up the user agreement for each VI, as I'm sure different VIs with varying degrees of encouraging to make your own patches using their samples, may vary.

If you are planning to do so, but NOT sell, then I think no VI company has to right to tell you "not allowed". Everyone has the right to butcher and mix and match any VI sounds into something cool. But if you are planning to sell your patches that has been made using other VI sounds, then that's probably a no-no.


----------



## Consona (Jul 13, 2020)

I was reading various sites' license agreements and with sample libs, that's pretty easy; you own jack shit, can't do anything expect making music. (More or less, well, rather less than more...)

But on things like some granular synths, effects, etc., I couldn't find anything.


----------



## reborn579 (Jul 13, 2020)

i think you can create loop libraries with sample instruments, since you're basically selling a composition, not the samples themselves. i remember seeing a lot of orchestral loop libraries that sounded like they were obviously made with sampled instruments.

i'm sure you can create sampled synth instruments from vst instruments as long as you don't just record the basic presets and put them in your sample pack. if you would modify the sound or the presets and not mention any product name, i'm sure it's fine. 

still, people tend to buy sampled instruments that are made with real instruments, not virtual ones. what would be the value in buying sampled samples?


----------



## Geoff Moore (Jul 13, 2020)

reborn579 said:


> i'm sure you can create sampled synth instruments from vst instruments as long as you don't just record the basic presets and put them in your sample pack. if you would modify the sound or the presets and not mention any product name, i'm sure it's fine.


You can sample a basic preset, because no recording is begin used to make the original sound. Classic synth presets are captured for Kontakt instruments all the time - but as mentioned above, they can't use the synth's name (unless it's an official licensed library).


----------



## synthesizerwriter (Jul 13, 2020)

Look at Behringer's recent 'reimaginings' of synths to see how you can evoke the same impression without using the original name... 'Poly D' etc. But also note how they use names when there is less certainty about trademarks - original company no longer exists, for example...


----------



## Mornats (Jul 13, 2020)

GNP said:


> Except for Omnisphere patches - it seems very talented folk like The Unfinished can use existing sounds in Omnisphere to create his own patches and sell them.



My guess on this one is that it's allowed because the buyer has already got a licence for the sounds used in The Unfinished's patches. You couldn't sell the same patches for Kontakt as you'd have to include the sounds from Omnisphere which wouldn't be allowed.


----------



## synthesizerwriter (Jul 13, 2020)

If I remember Kirby Ferguson's 'Everything is a Remix' correctly, there are three processes involved in creating something: copy, transform, combine. I suspect that The Unfinished's Omnisphere sounds have done all three...


----------



## Daryl (Jul 13, 2020)

reborn579 said:


> i think you can create loop libraries with sample instruments, since you're basically selling a composition, not the samples themselves.



That would entirely depend on the EULA. You are given specific permission to use the audio recordings, and the owner of those recordings is entitled to tell you what you can, and can't use them for.


----------



## Scalms (Jul 13, 2020)

And what about using plugins(reverb, saturation, etc) to enhance a newly recorded instrument to sell?


----------



## d.healey (Jul 13, 2020)

Scalms said:


> And what about using plugins(reverb, saturation, etc) to enhance a newly recorded instrument to sell?


You can apply effects to your own recordings and sell your own recordings, no problem. As long as you are not selling audio files that you don't own the rights to sell you're fine.


----------



## José Herring (Jul 13, 2020)

Consona said:


> Just wondering how does this work... using various products to make your own commercial sample library/sound pack/etc.
> 
> 
> Sample Libs: Read some license agreements and overall, you can't use sample libraries to make your own products.
> ...


Nebulous. But, the rule of thumb is you can't use another sample library to create a sample library. For example you can't use EWQLSO string FX put them through other processing then sell that. Expressly forbidden. 

On the hardware side. Even more nebulous. But, there was some noise made by Roland because people were using the original Saw wave from Famous Roland synths in sample libraries. Put the waves online and spreading them around. But, as far as I can tell if you processed that wave then there's no way that can be enforced. There then was this long discussion about forensic audio which I never was fully convinced. 

As far as VSTI's you'll have to read the Eulas. A synth pure and simple, sure, a sample based synth like Omnisphere, I would imagine not.

Where it gets dicey is wavetable synths. Kind of falls in between. 

But be warned. The last time I looked into this was with EW who back in the day had some of the most specific use EULA's and I got to the point were I even wondered if I could use the library in an recording at all. Seriously it was like you can use the library but you can't use any exposed single instrument unless it's accompained by another instrument either at the same time or immediately before or after......JEZZUSSS it was bad. I joked once what if I did a chromatic single note piece with rest between each note....I don't think they fully appreciated the joke.


----------



## reborn579 (Jul 14, 2020)

Daryl said:


> That would entirely depend on the EULA. You are given specific permission to use the audio recordings, and the owner of those recordings is entitled to tell you what you can, and can't use them for.


true


----------



## SamC (Jul 15, 2020)

Was always curious about this as, although it seems you can’t resell or re-license these vsts, production music libraries do it all the time.

Does anyone know where the line is?

All the production music libraries I work for ask for stems, which on occasion, contain isolated loops or patches which can then be synced by clients.

That’s allowed but re-selling yourself is a no-no? I’ve also heard that it’s permitted, as long as the sample has at least 3 other elements alongside it.

My guess is, you can only sell or license them as songs but not explictly as “sample packs” or vsts?

It may be dependent on each developers EULA.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 15, 2020)

SamC said:


> All the production music libraries I work for ask for stems, which on occasion, contain isolated loops or patches which can then be synced by clients.
> 
> That’s allowed



According to some EULA, no, it's not allowed. The fact that some people do it is irrelevant. You are given a specific licence to use a copyright recording. In the case of a loop, one could argue that there is a music copyright as well. By allowing it to become isolated, you are theoretically trying to claim a Royalty on something that you didn't write.


SamC said:


> but re-selling yourself is a no-no? I’ve also heard that it’s permitted, as long as the sample has at least 3 other elements alongside it.
> 
> My guess is, you can only sell or license them as songs but not explictly as “sample packs” or vsts?
> 
> It may be dependent on each developers EULA.


What do you mean by "re-selling"? You can use the samples in our own compositions and arrangements and "sell" those. However, you may not use them in such a way that the individual samples are exposed.


----------



## SamC (Jul 15, 2020)

Daryl said:


> According to some EULA, no, it's not allowed. The fact that some people do it is irrelevant. You are given a specific licence to use a copyright recording. In the case of a loop, one could argue that there is a music copyright as well. By allowing it to become isolated, you are theoretically trying to claim a Royalty on something that you didn't write.
> 
> What do you mean by "re-selling"? You can use the samples in our own compositions and arrangements and "sell" those. However, you may not use them in such a way that the individual samples are exposed.



I think what muddies the water for me is that it seems all the libraries I write for are breaking the EULA. Many samples are clearly exposed in underscore versions for example. Not to mention clients now want access to all your stems. These are AAA libraries, too.

Sorry, I worded it poorly.

By “re-selling” I meant, selling your compositions as “sample packs.” Say you compose an album of ‘dramatic builds,’ can you only sell those compositions directly to clients as long as the individual samples aren’t exposed? Or is the whole idea of using them for a “sample pack” generally prohibited?


----------



## Daryl (Jul 15, 2020)

SamC said:


> I think what muddies the water for me is that it seems all the libraries I write for are breaking the EULA. Many samples are clearly exposed in underscore versions for example. Not to mention clients now want access to all your stems. These are AAA libraries, too.



This is usually against the EULA, and theoretically you could be forced to pull the tracks, as you have no permission to use them in that manner. However, this would only be likely to happen if one could sample the underscore and create the identical sample library that they came from. So if your track consisted of slow a scale, with a bar rest between each note, for example, this would more than raise a few eyebrows.



SamC said:


> By “re-selling” I meant, selling your compositions as “sample packs.” Say you compose an album of ‘dramatic builds,’ can you only sell those compositions directly to clients as long as the individual samples aren’t exposed? Or is the whole idea of using them for a “sample pack” generally prohibited?


Yes, but see my above example. As long as you are creating a new composition, it's not a problem. If it was a double bass drone on different, successive notes, it would be a problem.


----------



## Dark Horse (Jul 31, 2020)

This post does not constitute as legal advice.
This post may come off as salty. I'm a nice person. I'm just hangry right now.

Judges care about law, not overreaching EULAs that say you can't be human.

The U.S. Supreme Court _*unanimously ruled*_ in _Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc._ that while it's important to secure every man in the enjoyment of his copyright, that should never limit further creativity, as always "in science and in art, there are, and can be, few, if any, things, which in an abstract sense, are strictly new and original throughout. Every book in literature, science and art, borrows, and must necessarily borrow, and use much which was well known and used before."

A violin maker would no more own a sample library created by Itzhak Perlman than a synth developer would own a sample library you took the time to design and craft techniques and performances into.

Don't reverse engineer circuitry
Don't reverse engineer source code
Don't copy their raw audio and call it your own

If the law didn't protect building on the shoulders of others, then all human creativity would be illegal. Imagine a lumberyard stamping their wood "If used to make instruments, it can't be recorded or sampled". A synth developer can no more restrict sampling your own creations, techniques, and performances. A lot of people in the music scene live in L.A. and think they are legal experts, as if L.A. was full of the most honest people on the planet. If most people had their own way, every cent on the planet would head only their direction. I could care less about that mentality. I just want to make noise and enjoy it. But whenever I see people talking about limiting creativity, I have to wonder... who do you even think you are?

Courts care that you just don't call someone else's work your own. But using the work of others to make something new... that's been ruled on enough times in history that I mean... if it hadn't been, just about everything on YouTube would be illegal these days.


----------



## Bman70 (Aug 4, 2020)

Dark Horse said:


> This post does not constitute as legal advice.
> This post may come off as salty. I'm a nice person. I'm just hangry right now.
> 
> Judges care about law, not overreaching EULAs that say you can't be human.
> ...




Since this came up in another thread today, I just wanted to point out that _Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. _involved a parody of Pretty Woman written by a rap group. That's not quite applicable to using samples to make new samples. A parody is an acknowledged and open interpretation of the original work. 

EULA laws don't prevent you from being human. If you want to go sample the BBC Symphony Orchestra, and make a better library than Spitfire's, they can't prevent this by claiming they copyrighted sound libraries of BBCSO. However, if you remix Spitfire's samples of BBCSO, are impressed with your results, and sell them in a library... then that's derivative in the anti-copyright way. 

Grumbacher is a leading oil paint pigment company, selling tubes of their pigments to artists. They can't prevent others from trying to sell better oil paints in tubes. But the law does prohibit someone mixing their colors into new amazing hues, putting them in new tubes, and selling those under a new brand. The reason is because the unique base of binders and pigments is still Grumbacher's formula. Likewise, the unique base mix of sound would still be Spitfire's.


----------



## Dark Horse (Aug 5, 2020)

Bman70 said:


> Since this came up in another thread today, I just wanted to point out that _Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. _involved a parody of Pretty Woman written by a rap group. That's not quite applicable to using samples to make new samples.



The court opinion talks about how nearly all creations use content from another creation and the don't exclusively address parodies in their opinion, thus it was worth mentioning. I'm not saying it's the only court case in existence or the most relevant to every case, like paint or Spitfire.



Bman70 said:


> if you remix Spitfire's samples of BBCSO



Right, obviously that's theft (and morally wrong). But unlike the paint example...

A synth is an instrument, like a violin. In the hands of a 100 masters, you'll get 100 different performances. Tweak hundreds of variables in combinations that permutate into possibilities well beyond trillions into centillions. Sound is truly infinite, depending on what you do with it. The sample library *Scoring Synths* was made by programming a synthesizer (performing an instrument in unique ways), recorded a unique way. Does the microphone and synth manufacturer own the sounds? No more than a violin maker can claim ownership of a sample library. All work is derivative to a point. When people forget that and try to force all money to come their way, they seem to forget how much they've also relied on others, especially manufacturers, developers, and violin makers who used methods that were crafted over a thousand years by people who came before them.

Scoring Synths is 90% original. They programmed the sound their own way that's mostly of their own making (like a violinist), yet didn't invent every microphone or the synth instrument (mind you, I'm building a few mics right now... lol).

Spitfire remix is theft, but also very different from libraries like Scoring Synths.
* How much borrowing you do
* How much creativity was employed to make your own art
* How much it competes with the original product

The key here is that it's not "If you..." but "How much...", because all works rely on the works, including the products, of others. How much you rely is the key to understanding whether you are doing things right.


----------



## Bman70 (Aug 5, 2020)

Dark Horse said:


> The court opinion talks about how nearly all creations use content from another creation and the don't exclusively address parodies in their opinion, thus it was worth mentioning. I'm not saying it's the only court case in existence or the most relevant to every case, like paint or Spitfire.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's a bit of a mind warp to try to make sense of, and it's possible much of copyright law was formulated before anyone had to deal with such a situation. I agree a VI seems like an instrument, but it also seems to exist legally somewhere between an instrument and a recording. If I buy a physical violin, I can:
-Meticulously sample every note, and sell the sounds as a VI.
-Sell the instrument to someone else in a simple private transaction.

I can't however do that with Joshua Bell violin. It's already a sample! And if I want to sell my copy, I have to get permission for a license transfer.

I personally can take a Spitfire ensemble, and do things to it in Omnisphere to make it unrecognizable. There shouldn't be an issue with selling that sound, IMO. I think the restrictions are mostly to keep companies from having to constantly define "how different does it have to sound," which can be a wormhole. I appreciate the argument that they used expensive preamps, microphones, and sound processing to make their recordings, and as such it's a proprietary sound. But I much prefer the approach of Vienna Symphonic Library, which allows derivative samples as far as I can tell.


----------

