# Can i resample my libraries i bought?



## Cinebient

I know it might depends on the EULA also but i wonder if in general i would be allowed to sample my favorite tools and apps f.e. as EXS24 instrument. Of course only for my own usage and in a musical context (which could be commercial as well) and not in any kind of pure sample library, FX or loops thing etc.
Some here should have much more knowledge and experience about this.
It is not clear to me if i read all the EULA about my sample libraries and it is clear that i only use it for my personal usage and just would like to sell (or share) the musical result, aka a full song, score etc. in combination with other tools.
So it means i just would use the same samples as EXS24 instrument to create a song instead of the dedicated tool or app (iOS apps f.e.) itself which is mainly for workflow reasons.


----------



## Living Fossil

Of course you can.


----------



## Akarin

You absolutely can!

I'd love to be able to make my braaams and whooshes created from sample libraries available, though, but that, on the other hand, is a huge no no.


----------



## Ashermusic

Cinebient said:


> I know it might depends on the EULA also but i wonder if in general i would be allowed to sample my favorite tools and apps f.e. as EXS24 instrument. Of course only for my own usage and in a musical context (which could be commercial as well) and not in any kind of pure sample library, FX or loops thing etc.
> Some here should have much more knowledge and experience about this.
> It is not clear to me if i read all the EULA about my sample libraries and it is clear that i only use it for my personal usage and just would like to sell (or share) the musical result, aka a full song, score etc. in combination with other tools.
> So it means i just would use the same samples as EXS24 instrument to create a song instead of the dedicated tool or app (iOS apps f.e.) itself which is mainly for workflow reasons.



Sure, the great Charlie Clouser routinely creates EXS24 instruments for his own use from libraries he acquires.


----------



## d.healey

Although some EULAs may forbid it, If it's for your own use then I don't see how anyone would know or be able to stop you.


----------



## Cinebient

Thank you for the answers.
If others are interested in similar things:
In the meantime i got an answer from a developer of a specific iOS app i really love (and even prefer over some 200GB+ sample libraries for some sounds which are not as editable and so but they are that good indeed for me and unique sounding and even more detailed sometimes for out of the box playing) and it seems it is not so easy and i should not use it that way if i want to use it for any commercial things at least. Well, even if no one would hear the difference i respect the "rules" and the work of the developers and do not want to go into a grey area.
So i guess at the end i would have to look at each individual EULA or better ask the specific developers (which even have to ask themselves sometimes if the tool was a collaboration and there are several copyright holders at the end).
At least it seems there is a chance there might come a (more advanced) mac version (maybe windows too?) of some apps i like to use. Sometimes little apps really can compete, or even beat, these large Kontakt libraries for specific things.
These apps are no joke for me but i really do not like to use my iPhone directly or even an iPad since iOS offers super great tools these days but it is not stable enough for me and i like to stay within Logic on my mac and would like to run much more instances of these tools.


----------



## averystemmler

I respect developers as much as anyone, but unless their app is supported by ad revenue or mining your data or something, it ought not matter a wink to them. The only reasons I believe they might tell you you shouldn't, are:

A: They don't want to accidentally imply (words can be tricky things) that you're allowed to repackage their product and sell/distribute it, and then have to deal with a "but they said I could!" legal mess.

B: The library depends on the app itself to really be useful/playable, and they don't think you'll get any benefit out of resampling it.

Could be that I'm missing something in this specific case, but even the big names resample stuff for their personal use all the time. It's no more a grey area than running a sample through a creative effect.

Again, just don't distribute it out of context. A lot of the language in EULA's is really just to protect them from people repackaging and reselling their product in sneaky ways.


----------



## Cinebient

averystemmler said:


> I respect developers as much as anyone, but unless their app is supported by ad revenue or mining your data or something, it ought not matter a wink to them. The only reasons I believe they might tell you you shouldn't, are:
> 
> A: They don't want to accidentally imply (words can be tricky things) that you're allowed to repackage their product and sell/distribute it, and then have to deal with a "but they said I could!" legal mess.
> 
> B: The library depends on the app itself to really be useful/playable, and they don't think you'll get any benefit out of resampling it.
> 
> Could be that I'm missing something in this specific case, but even the big names resample stuff for their personal use all the time. It's no more a grey area than running a sample through a creative effect.
> 
> Again, just don't distribute it out of context. A lot of the language in EULA's is really just to protect them from people repackaging and reselling their product in sneaky ways.



I expected something like this. Thank you.
In my case it is really just for handle it more easy in my workflow. It is mainly because the editing is a bit limited inside the app (but it also offers things i miss in my desktop plug-ins or it is much more complicated there). There are a few out of the box sounds i really love and could not find any better for this specific sounds in any of my much bigger and more expensive Kontakt libraries. The fact it is running on an iPhone amaze me sometimes and while i even made a whole album and a lot of tracks on iOS devices some years ago i changed my workflow and use it now just as part of my set-up (but a really great part with some very innovative tools the desktop world could learn from).
The main part is about the envelopes in this case and using my external reverbs. Of course i already sampled something via the Mainstage autosampler as EXS24 instrument to test and the same sounds works much better here since i can set my own envelopes and add on top some more modulations and FX if needed.
I also could use just my iPhone/iPad as external device via IDAM since Apple made it easy to use iOS devices as Audio and Midi device (also at the same time) inside Logic (or Mainstage or GarageBand). This way i integrate a lot iOS apps into my workflow since the quality is as good as with some expensive desktop plug-ins these days. The main thing is i prefer to do it all in Logic and i want to have a more consistent workflow in this environment. I also would like to use the Logic articulations ID since the app also is missing these things. It is also just nice to set up a huge sound (since the app is multi-timbral with up to 16 parts) and sample this as single EXS24 instrument since the RAM and CPU is a very limited factor on iOS devices.
However, it seems a more advanced mac version is in development which might solve all of my trouble here.


----------



## Vardaro

How about making soundfonts of my favorite sounds, to use on my 2GB-RAM XP laptop, for sketching puroses?.


----------



## rrichard63

Vardaro said:


> How about making soundfonts of my favorite sounds, to use on my 2GB-RAM XP laptop, for sketching puroses?.


There's no difference between making a soundfont and making an EXS24. If both are for your own use, they are okay. If either is given or sold to anyone else, that's not okay unless explicitly allowed by the EULA.


----------



## bengoss

You can resample your friends libraries)


----------



## GtrString

In one sense, any type of recording is sampling, as you are only using a small part of the sound, so if that is applied, noone could ever use any library for anything.

But what is most important is not to use any single sound in isolation. In any other case you’d be allright.


----------



## AdamKmusic

Of course, you just can’t sell the re-sample.


----------



## LamaRose

Can I drive 65 on a posted 55?


----------



## GeneraStudios

The goal of EULA's is to prevent you from stealing their sounds and making money off of them. Typically they set these up so that you can use them in your music and production, including commercial uses. It would be completely unreasonable for them to ban resampling, because sometimes you need to burn a sound to audio and manipulate it there for a whole host of reasons (maybe you just want to save memory, maybe you want to re-pitch or re-tempo sync it, maybe you want to play it through a reel to reel tape machine, etc). 

Plus theirs no way they could ever know, at least with any plugin i've seen. 

The only unethical usage of this I can think of is if you were to resample all the sounds from a subscription service plugin, and then cancel your membership. Something like Arcade by Output could be vulnerable to this type of stealing, but honestly the interface and the new material every week/day is most of the reason you'd pay for Arcade - if you just wanted good sounds alone you'd probably get something else.


----------



## Polkasound

bengoss said:


> You can resample your friends libraries)



Only if the resampled libraries will remain solely in your friend's possession for his use only.


----------



## bengoss

Polkasound said:


> Only if the resampled libraries will remain solely in your friend's possession for his use only.


I wouldn’t agree with that. I see the sample libraries as an instrument that someone has purchased, let’s say a Moog sub37. Why wouldn’t you ask him/her to run a midi file or resample the synth..


----------



## Polkasound

bengoss said:


> I see the sample libraries as an instrument that someone has purchased



No. A sample library is not an instrument -- it's technically a sound recording. When you buy a virtual instrument and download the samples for it, you are not acquiring ownership of those samples. You're only buying a license to use them. The samples must remain in your possession unless and until you are granted permission by the developer to resell them along with the license to use them.

If your friend bought a real Moog Sub 37 and asked you to come over to sample it, that would be fine. You and he could do whatever you want with the samples. But if he bought a _virtual_ Moog Sub 37 and asked you to come over to resample samples from that library, from a practical standpoint nobody would care, HOWEVER, whatever new samples you create would have to remain in his sole possession. Only your friend has the authority to create music with the virtual Moog he bought, and only he has the authority to manipulate the instrument's samples to create music with them, but he does not have the authority to distribute the instrument's samples.

Another example is this... let's say you wanted to make a sample library of a Fender Stratocaster. You could generate samples for your library by playing an actual Fender Stratocaster, and that would be fine. But you would not be allowed to generate samples for your library by pulling audio off your Eric Clapton CD. That's because you own the disc, but not the music on it.


----------



## bengoss

Polkasound said:


> No. A sample library is not an instrument -- it's technically a sound recording. When you buy a virtual instrument and download the samples for it, you are not acquiring ownership of those samples. You're only buying a license to use them. The samples must remain in your possession unless and until you are granted permission by the developer to resell them along with the license to use them.
> 
> If your friend bought a real Moog Sub 37 and asked you to come over to sample it, that would be fine. You and he could do whatever you want with the samples. But if he bought a _virtual_ Moog Sub 37 and asked you to come over to resample samples from that library, from a practical standpoint nobody would care, HOWEVER, whatever new samples you create would have to remain in his sole possession. Only your friend has the authority to create music with the virtual Moog he bought, and only he has the authority to manipulate the instrument's samples to create music with them, but he does not have the authority to distribute the instrument's samples.
> 
> Another example is this... let's say you wanted to make a sample library of a Fender Stratocaster. You could generate samples for your library by playing an actual Fender Stratocaster, and that would be fine. But you would not be allowed to generate samples for your library by pulling audio off your Eric Clapton CD. That's because you own the disc, but not the music on it.



Ok,
If I compose a piece for you with let’s say Berlin strings and you buy it off of me, who owns the recording with the samples together? Yes, you own it. 
My point is that, I don’t see anything wrong with paying someone to use his samples even trying to resample a library(good luck with that
B


----------



## d.healey

bengoss said:


> If I compose a piece for you with let’s say Berlin strings and you buy it off of me, who owns the recording with the samples together? Yes, you own it


Read the EULA that comes with your sample library. 99% of the time they specifically disallow resampling (i.e making new audio files of single notes) while specifically allowing commercial use in the context of a musical composition.



> My point is that, I don’t see anything wrong with paying someone to use his samples even trying to resample a library(good luck with that


I agree I don't see anything wrong with it either. But whether it's morally wrong or not is irrelevant as this is a question of copyright licensing not opinion.


----------



## Polkasound

bengoss said:


> If I compose a piece for you with let’s say Berlin strings and you buy it off of me, who owns the recording with the samples together? Yes, you own it.



If I buy the composition from you, then I only own the composition and whatever sound recording of it that you gave to me. Whether or not you used Berlin Strings to create the composition is irrelevant, because you are free to distribute any original music you create with Berlin Strings. But ownership of the samples in Berlin Strings is retained by Orchestral Tools, therefore you cannot distribute the samples.




bengoss said:


> My point is that, I don’t see anything wrong with paying someone to use his samples even trying to resample a library(good luck with that
> B



It all depends on what you mean by "his samples." If your friend created his own samples _from scratch_, (for example, he sampled an acoustic guitar by strumming chords into a mic) then he owns the samples and is therefore authorized to let you use/resample them. If your friend bought a copy of Berlin Strings, he is not authorized to let you use/resample the samples from that library, because he does not own them.


----------



## Polkasound

The next question that usually follows is: "But can't I sample the sound recording he gave me?"

Yes, you can do that, but in case you're trying to develop another string library by sampling audio from the sound recording, there is a clause in most developer's EULAs to protect against it. The clause states that if you create music using their library, the songs cannot be comprised of exposed, soloed samples from their library -- the samples must be accompanied by other instrumentation.

What this means is that your friend is not allowed to create a "song" of, for example, sustained notes or shorts playing chromatic scales, because someone could easily resample the audio of those notes and reassemble them into new string library. Any song your friend creates needs to be "dirtied up" to some degree with other instruments and processing to deter such resampling.

This is a gray restriction to enforce, because there are often times when a composition requires a rather exposed passage from a single library. When in doubt, defer to common sense and your conscience.


----------



## Piano Pete

The point that Polka is trying to illustrate is that when you purchase a library, you are not actually buying the samples. You purchase a license to use those samples. This is not the same as if you were to sample your friend's moog. They own the physical synthesizer; when they purchased it, they bought the thing: they did not license it. That is where the difference lies. This is also why certain vst companies can withhold the right to prevent resale of their products, because it is a license to begin with.

*I am not in the sampling or vst industry, so someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong or misguided:*

As Polka outlined, if you distribute a piece of music that contains samples, and at that point if someone were to re-sample your tune, say for hip-hop or whatever else, they would have to deal with the copyright holder of that song to re-sample it, not the VST companies utilized within the tune. Based on the EULAs of most of the sample companies, once the piece of music is finished, that recording etc is out of their realm of ownership. You retain the copyright of that creation and are free to redistribute your music, license it, and sell your ownership as you see fit. The problem arises when you start sampling things down at the base level, i.e. Berlin's sustained sample of the violins playing a G4. Here, if you were to provide your friend with the raw samples utilized in that piece of music, or you/they were to create a sample library from those samples for resale--and sometimes even if you were to build a sample library from a composition (if things can be isolated in such a way), most of the vst companies have a clause in the EULA that do not allow the licensee (you) to do so, and they typically reserve the right to go after you if they see fit. *This is why it is great to read EULAs!*

For private use; however, you can go to town and re-sample/mangle whatever you want as long as you are not reselling those samples/kontakt instances--as the raw material was never in your ownership to begin with. This is the same situation when dealing with foley samples from libraries like Prosoundeffects. Sure, I have made custom samples from licensed samples, and I have used them all over the place (most would be unrecognizable from the originally licensed source material); however, I am not reselling those samples, and I do not even hand them over to my friends-- as it is not within my rights based on my moral compass, but more importantly, it is prohibited based on the terms and conditions that I agreed to when I licensed the source material. Call me old fashioned, but if I expect others to respect my ownership and intellectual property of my creations, I better uphold those standards for everyone else. 

This is the same problem people run into with online service accounts for film or video games. People think they own their mmo accounts and items, and therefore they should be allow to resell their accounts to their friends (look at all the steam account sales), but if you read the EULA, the company retains ownership of all in-game assets--including the account that you believe you own.

Again, if there is anything in here completely incorrect or misguided, feel free to correct me. I do not really deal with the IP involved with VSTs/samples as that is not really in the scope of what I do for a living. If there is something I am mistaken about, I would be happy to correct it


----------



## bengoss

d.healey said:


> Read the EULA that comes with your sample library. 99% of the time they specifically disallow resampling (i.e making new audio files of single notes) while specifically allowing commercial use in the context of a musical composition.
> 
> 
> I agree I don't see anything wrong with it either. But whether it's morally wrong or not is irrelevant as this is a question of copyright licensing not opinion.





Piano Pete said:


> The point that Polka is trying to illustrate is that when you purchase a library, you are not actually buying the samples. You purchase a license to use those samples. This is not the same as if you were to sample your friend's moog. They own the physical synthesizer; when they purchased it, they bought the thing: they did not license it. That is where the difference lies. This is also why certain vst companies can withhold the right to prevent resale of their products, because it is a license to begin with.
> 
> Yes definitely, you only have the license to use it as you wish and of course your client demands.
> 
> 
> 
> *I am not in the sampling or vst industry, so someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong or misguided:*
> 
> As Polka outlined, if you distribute a piece of music that contains samples, and at that point if someone were to re-sample your tune, say for hip-hop or whatever else, they would have to deal with the copyright holder of that song to re-sample it, not the VST companies utilized within the tune. Based on the EULAs of most of the sample companies, once the piece of music is finished, that recording etc is out of their realm of ownership. You retain the copyright of that creation and are free to redistribute your music, license it, and sell your ownership as you see fit. The problem arises when you start sampling things down at the base level, i.e. Berlin's sustained sample of the violins playing a G4. Here, if you were to provide your friend with the raw samples utilized in that piece of music, or you/they were to create a sample library from those samples for resale--and sometimes even if you were to build a sample library from a composition (if things can be isolated in such a way), most of the vst companies have a clause in the EULA that do not allow the licensee (you) to do so, and they typically reserve the right to go after you if they see fit. *This is why it is great to read EULAs!*
> 
> For private use; however, you can go to town and re-sample/mangle whatever you want as long as you are not reselling those samples/kontakt instances--as the raw material was never in your ownership to begin with. This is the same situation when dealing with foley samples from libraries like Prosoundeffects. Sure, I have made custom samples from licensed samples, and I have used them all over the place (most would be unrecognizable from the originally licensed source material); however, I am not reselling those samples, and I do not even hand them over to my friends-- as it is not within my rights based on my moral compass, but more importantly, it is prohibited based on the terms and conditions that I agreed to when I licensed the source material. Call me old fashioned, but if I expect others to respect my ownership and intellectual property of my creations, I better uphold those standards for everyone else.
> 
> This is the same problem people run into with online service accounts for film or video games. People think they own their mmo accounts and items, and therefore they should be allow to resell their accounts to their friends (look at all the steam account sales), but if you read the EULA, the company retains ownership of all in-game assets--including the account that you believe you own.
> 
> Again, if there is anything in here completely incorrect or misguided, feel free to correct me. I do not really deal with the IP involved with VSTs/samples as that is not really in the scope of what I do for a living. If there is something I am mistaken about, I would be happy to correct it



This is an endless conversation 
IMO write the best music you can, if you can’t afford the best libraries hire someone who have them, run your midi files, get the stems and mix your music. I don’t see any issue there, correct me if I’m wrong. 
As for resampling, yes possible but not moral. If you own the libraries then go ahead and do whatever you need to.

B


----------



## Polkasound

bengoss said:


> if you can’t afford the best libraries hire someone who have them, run your midi files, get the stems and mix your music. I don’t see any issue there, correct me if I’m wrong.



I'll be happy to correct you. You cannot use someone else's sample libraries, because the person who has them does not have permission from the developer to let anyone else use them. That is strictly forbidden in almost every EULA.

I own a recording studio. I also own thousands of dollars worth of sample libraries. I can freely use them on my own productions, but if one of my clients wants to use one of my libraries for one of his productions, I can't do that without first obtaining permission, or buying another license, from the developer of the library.


----------



## d.healey

Polkasound said:


> I'll be happy to correct you. You cannot use someone else's sample libraries, because the person who has them does not have permission from the developer to let anyone else use them. That is strictly forbidden in almost every EULA..


Actually this isn't black n white. Some people make mockups for a living, taking someone else's scores or MIDI and producing an audio rendering.


----------



## dflood

Polkasound said:


> I'll be happy to correct you. You cannot use someone else's sample libraries, because the person who has them does not have permission from the developer to let anyone else use them. That is strictly forbidden in almost every EULA.
> 
> I own a recording studio. I also own thousands of dollars worth of sample libraries. I can freely use them on my own productions, but if one of my clients wants to use one of my libraries for one of his productions, I can't do that without first obtaining permission, or buying another license, from the developer of the library.



Question: So let’s say it’s my album we are recording in your studio, and you are contributing some backing performances, for which you will be credited, using your samples. That would be out of bounds without permission?


----------



## dzilizzi

I've always wondered if I could create an instrument from mangled sounds from other instruments. So say I take my Spitfire Strings, create a violin phrase, add some distorted piano from Sonicouture and a wild reverb all mashed together and that is one note in the instrument. I'm thinking because you can't separate out the violin and piano, it would be considered a new instrument and that wouldn't be against the EULA. Not that I'm planning on doing it anytime soon. Or ever. Well, maybe. LOL! Mostly because I would like to learn how to program Kontakt and my non-virtual instruments consist of 2 shakers and my voice.


----------



## Desire Inspires

Polkasound said:


> I'll be happy to correct you. You cannot use someone else's sample libraries, because the person who has them does not have permission from the developer to let anyone else use them. That is strictly forbidden in almost every EULA.
> 
> I own a recording studio. I also own thousands of dollars worth of sample libraries. I can freely use them on my own productions, but if one of my clients wants to use one of my libraries for one of his productions, I can't do that without first obtaining permission, or buying another license, from the developer of the library.



Ah, even more reason to ditch the software.


----------



## Polkasound

d.healey said:


> Actually this isn't black n white.



Thank you for bringing that up. I should note for everyone reading this thread that that information I've been giving does not, in any way, supersede any developer's EULA. There are always exceptions. Always read the EULA, and if there are any questions about a library's usage in particular, they should be directed to the developer.




dflood said:


> So let’s say it’s my album we are recording in your studio, and you are contributing some backing performances, for which you will be credited, using your samples. That would be out of bounds without permission?



As strange as it sounds, yes, it very well could be. Hypothetically speaking, let's say I have a copy of Berlin Strings at my studio, and you, being my client, want me to use it to add a string part to your album. That may not be allowed, because the composition and rights to the recording are yours, not mine. In order for Berlin Strings to be added to your recording project, you may need to purchase your own copy/license of Berlin Strings.

Scenario #1: Fifty composers each own their copy of Berlin Strings, and make music with it.

Scenario #2: One composer owns a copy of Berlin Strings, and 49 other composers come over to his house to take advantage of that one copy instead of buying their own. 
EULAs are typically written to deter the second scenario by restricting one copy per single user for his or her own music productions. For this reason, because I am a commercial studio, I must read the EULAs and/or check with the developers before using their libraries on a client's project.


----------



## bengoss

Polkasound said:


> I'll be happy to correct you. You cannot use someone else's sample libraries, because the person who has them does not have permission from the developer to let anyone else use them. That is strictly forbidden in almost every EULA.
> 
> I own a recording studio. I also own thousands of dollars worth of sample libraries. I can freely use them on my own productions, but if one of my clients wants to use one of my libraries for one of his productions, I can't do that without first obtaining permission, or buying another license, from the developer of the library.



I totally understand, you are talking from a developer standpoint, btw nice accordions! 
I’m wondering and probably someone here can answer, if you are a composers assistant do you have to own all of his libraries or you work with his? 

And again I wouldn’t agree with you, as an owner of the library and providing services for your client you don’t need any further permission from the developer. Even if client is resampling library. If I come to your studio and ask you to compose me a peace of staccato notes from c0 to c5 and pay you 5k and also get a permission from you to do whatever I want or change your piece, I can definitely use the samples you gave me.

B


----------



## Polkasound

bengoss said:


> if you are a composers assistant do you have to own all of his libraries or you work with his?



Someone else will need to answer this, since I don't work in that line of the industry. Maybe the composer buys a multiple-user license, maybe composer assistants secure permission, maybe some EULAs allow for assistants, maybe they use the composer's own software on the assumption that the developers wouldn't care, etc. I really don't know. I'd be curious to know as well.




bengoss said:


> If I come to your studio and ask you to compose me a peace of staccato notes from c0 to c5 and pay you 5k and also get a permission from you to do whatever I want or change your piece, I can definitely use the samples you gave me.



I wouldn't be giving you "samples" by definition as it relates to virtual instruments -- I'd be giving you recorded audio created with the samples. I would not be allowed to give you any samples from the library. But even as far as the recorded audio is concerned, for me to even create a musical piece comprised of staccato notes from C0 to C5, if the notes are too exposed, could violate the EULA of the library's developer. In that case I would have to turn down your offer. No hard feelings. I'm just a stickler for playing by the rules and watching out for my fellow developers.

Thank you for the compliments on the accordions!


----------



## bengoss

Polkasound said:


> Someone else will need to answer this, since I don't work in that line of the industry. Maybe the composer buys a multiple-user license, maybe composer assistants secure permission, maybe some EULAs allow for assistants, maybe they use the composer's own software on the assumption that the developers wouldn't care, etc. I really don't know. I'd be curious to know as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be giving you "samples" by definition as it relates to virtual instruments -- I'd be giving you recorded audio created with the samples. I would not be allowed to give you any samples from the library. But even as far as the recorded audio is concerned, for me to even create a musical piece comprised of staccato notes from C0 to C5, if the notes are too exposed, could violate the EULA of the library's developer. In that case I would have to turn down your offer. No hard feelings. I'm just a stickler for playing by the rules and watching out for my fellow developers.
> 
> Thank you for the compliments on the accordions!



Lol me and you won’t agree on this) 
I think you would be so excited for the 5k, won’t even think about Eula and compose that easy piece at 60bpm in different velocities, after that client can use the audio as they please)) 
You are protected though. 

Yeah I’ll have that accordion in my mind if anytime I need to compose something in that style.

B


----------



## Polkasound

bengoss said:


> Lol me and you won’t agree on this)
> I think you would be so excited for the 5k, won’t even think about Eula and compose that easy piece at 60bpm in different velocities, after that client can use the audio as they please))
> You are protected though.



I trust that smile means you're joking.

I would use my judgement as normal. If you needed a legitimate musical composition, and it happened to have one part in it where there was, for example, a fast major-scale run spanning two octaves, it would not set off any red flags. Lots of compositions have parts like that. But if you explained to me that you wanted me the entire composition to be nothing but whole notes moving chromatically all the way up the keyboard, that would be a very clear violation of the EULA. I would not accept your offer.

And if you think anyone else on VI-Control would knowingly violate a developer's EULA out of greed, you're in the wrong forum. VI-Control is comprised of everyone from beginners to award-winning composers for blockbuster films. We don't share the same opinions about sample libraries or developers, but we ALL do share one thing: respect for EULAs and the law.


----------



## bengoss

Polkasound said:


> I trust that smile means you're joking.
> 
> I would use my judgement as normal. If you needed a legitimate musical composition, and it happened to have one part in it where there was, for example, a fast major-scale run spanning two octaves, it would not set off any red flags. Lots of compositions have parts like that. But if you explained to me that you wanted me the entire composition to be nothing but whole notes moving chromatically all the way up the keyboard, that would be a very clear violation of the EULA. I would not accept your offer.
> 
> And if you think anyone else on VI-Control would knowingly violate a developer's EULA out of greed, you're in the wrong forum. VI-Control is comprised of everyone from beginners to award-winning composers for blockbuster films. We don't share the same opinions about sample libraries or developers, but we ALL do share one thing: respect for EULAs and the law.



It was just an example, I didn’t ask if you would use your judgment or not.. 
We are not talking about you here and I exactly know what this forum is about and I love it. 
I never mentioned braking any law or Eula’s in my posts, I do respect them and I’m sure everyone else here. 

B


----------



## bigcat1969

Oh yeah that reminds me who was it who wanted the hit staccato saxello song i wrote that goes up two octaves one note at a time?

http://www.mediafire.com/file/d0ssasu6jjys6ab/song_I_wrote.wav/file

PS That is what you don't do unless you are using CC0 samples and like annoying people on message boards!


----------



## Piano Pete

From my vantage point, it seems there are two conversations happening at once, that in my mind are separate:

1) The OP's question, can I make custom sample libraries from other developer's licensed audio (and the subsequent question is this allowed for redistribution would be 1.a)?

2) Are other people allowed to use someone's library say either as an assistant or loaning something to a friend?

While I have voiced my opinion and understanding of the first point(s), this is my thought on the second.

From the viewpoint of someone hiring me to do midi programming, I am still using the samples that I licensed, so I do not view that differently than if I were to write a piece of music with them. (This is coming from someone who has done their fair share of midi programming and assisting). Whether it was my tune or not, this functionality does not have to do with re-sampling the base level samples from another developer for _commercial_ redistribution (in points 1-1a). At no point have I handed over custom VI's of re-sampled instruments to another person.

Regarding assisting a composer at their studio while using their kit, I view this like how families/friends tend to share netflix accounts. Technically, we aren't supposed to, but we all do (and we all thank the one person who actually pays for the darn'd thing). To my knowledge, sample companies do not really practice the same thing as other software sectors. For this example, I'll use 3d software, say Maya or Solid Works, where they often require commercial studios to purchase licenses for a set number of workstations or a blanket license for a given company or studio. How each of these companies determine their licenses (commercial, private, and even academic) is different, but I cannot think of any VI's off the top of my head that follow this model. Maybe it is due to the market share, or maybe it is too much of a hassle? I'm not sure.

While we could spend hours debating semantics and being extra-critical about all the conditions in a given EULA that most of us do not fully understand, I for one am not a lawyer, so I do not really feel qualified to be doing so. I'll be the first to admit that I do not full comprehend every line in a given EULA. Anything I have posted thus far is either my understanding of the system or my opinion. In the end, I feel it ultimately boils down to some common sense. To each their own.

Regarding Ben's comment about commissioning a work to effectively become the base of a sample library, I would not even know where to begin in determining where that line in the sand is. The world is seldom black and white, and I guess it just comes down to how far you want to push into the grey. My only comments are: read the EULA's (we the users), and if you were to do something like this and _commercially redistribute_ said VI as your own, accept the risk of a VI company coming after you. Whether it happens or not is anyone's guess, but I would not risk it myself. It takes a lifetime to build a reputation, and it only takes seconds to destroy one.

There's a lot we can get away with either due to being behind closed doors or it not really mattering a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, but in this instance, I would avoid doing something like this, especially in an industry that is as small as music--specifically media composition.

----EDIT----

I just re-read some of the EULA's for some of my libraries. Several of them offer an extension of the Personal license towards commercial/institutions who purchase the license, with stipulation that it is an institution wide license not based on any given number of people who may use said software. Again, read the Eulas.


----------



## Polkasound

Piano Pete said:


> I'll be the first to admit that I do not full comprehend every line in a given EULA. Anything I have posted thus far is either my understanding of the system or my opinion. In the end, I feel it ultimately boils down to some common sense. To each their own.



This is such a well-articulated point. EULAs, by the way they are written with such broad brush strokes, often sound like they are trying to restrict creativity. But the reason for the broad brush strokes is not to restrict creativity, but to cover as many library abuse scenarios as possible in as few words as possible.

Common sense goes a looooong way, but it doesn't cover everything. Common sense once told me I could build up an arsenal of virtual instrument libraries to use on clients' recording projects just the same as if I'd build up an arsenal of software plugins and outboard gear. But then several VI-Control members, including one lawyer, told me that's not necessarily the case since VIs are typically regarded as not just software, but also sound recordings.

When I learned about this, I began paying closer attention to EULAs and using a different common sense approach by viewing a library as not just software, but also as a sound recording with special privileges. The special privileges, however, are different from developer to developer, and that's why it's important to read the EULAs. And if something in a EULA is not clear, contact the developer. They'll be happy to clarify any questions one may have regarding the use of their libraries.


----------



## averystemmler

These are good discussions to have, and there have been some incredibly well thought out points here.

From a purely ethical (and thus very subjective) perspective, if the sound recordings of the licensed library are being used to create a sound recording that you, the licensee, are the natural owner of, then that seems like a perfectly reasonable use of the product. This includes assistants, engineers, or your uncle Joe - so long as they are working on something that you own. In reality, of course: the EULA is king.

Now, i personally believe that you should be able to use the libraries you own on music you're hired to produce or mockup, but this is because I consider that an "arranging" job, where you're taking the raw musical material and arranging it for virtual instruments. There are creative adjustments to be made and skill to be exerted. As an arranger, I believe you own the copyright to your arrangement, but not to the source material. Is that accurate? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong (I haven't done gigs that fall into that space).

What I assume developers very much do not want, though, are businesses based around exploiting their libraries. A web site, for instance, that says: "Pay us $20, upload your midi and we'll pump it through Berlin Strings!" I'm not sure how you would legally differentiate that from the above "arrangement" example.

Again, just my personal view on the subject. Read EULAs, don't be a hooligan, etc.


----------



## Polkasound

averystemmler said:


> A web site, for instance, that says: "Pay us $20, upload your midi and we'll pump it through Berlin Strings!" I'm not sure how you would legally differentiate that from the above "arrangement" example.



We should page @CGR to this thread, because he provides a service like that for piano libraries. He may be able to provide some insight.


----------



## averystemmler

Polkasound said:


> We should page @CGR to this thread, because he provides a service like that for piano libraries. He may be able to provide some insight.



Interesting! I'd like to hear his experience for sure.


----------



## gsilbers

Those examples and IF scenarios are just too little for anyone to care. The real EULA main point is dont upload to torrent like file sharing sites and do not resell the samples. 
Yes, having a service or having someone that uses sample libraries to export the stems is not really allowed but its tolerated. unless it becomes the main service of a company that starts advertising here etc and becomes a big thing. but really its just peanuts in comparison to torrent and file sharing sites. 

now... for the OP question. you cannot resample and sell individual samples as part of a new sampler or prodcuts in iOS/android. if its muscial composition yes. but if its outside of musical composition and into a more technical product, like children 1st piano app and you resample a spitfire library but w effects or whatever then no.. thats not cool at all. even if the samples are processed. mainly because that sound source took hundreds of man hours to do and thats the prodcut you are buying from them.


----------



## Ben H

bigcat1969 said:


> Oh yeah that reminds me who was it who wanted the hit staccato saxello song i wrote that goes up two octaves one note at a time?
> 
> http://www.mediafire.com/file/d0ssasu6jjys6ab/song_I_wrote.wav/file



It's certainly catchy!


----------

