Is it legal to release or sell samples made using VSTs you bought?
- Thread starter BennyHendel
- Start date
Bman70
Senior Member
I suspect most of the libraries have an approach similar to East West, which clearly states that no derivative sounds can be made from their sounds for sale to the pubic. You can make preset libraries to sell, but those are only for use in the original software.
Edit: A preset library is really just someone becoming familiar with the software, and tweaking it in pleasing ways, then selling their expertise so to speak. However, I don't think any company can really tell if a sound has been distorted and synthed beyond recognition. I imagine there are some selling samples made this way, and likely won't be found out, and then it's just a personal values question.
Edit: A preset library is really just someone becoming familiar with the software, and tweaking it in pleasing ways, then selling their expertise so to speak. However, I don't think any company can really tell if a sound has been distorted and synthed beyond recognition. I imagine there are some selling samples made this way, and likely won't be found out, and then it's just a personal values question.
Casey Edwards
Senior Member
You absolutely can not use someone else's source material to make profit in that manner. It's a part of every EULA for all the virtual instruments and other sound packs I've seen. It doesn't matter how different you make it through processing. If you want to make and sell sounds, loops, whatever, you have to first start with capturing your own source material and building a library out of that.
Levon
Active Member
Their EULA is very clear (point 5)
www.spitfireaudio.com
Spitfire Audio End User License Agreement — Spitfire Audio
RonOrchComp
Senior Member
Grey area.
You are not allowed to use a dev's sample content to make another sample library - I think that's clear to everyone.
But a Splice pack? I am sure the devs would all argue no, but is it really no?
You are allowed to use a dev's sample content to make a musical composition, that can be sold to a TV Production Co., to an ad agency, to a film maker, etc. But you are disallowed from selling that musical composition to another composer? Not sure how much sense that makes, or if that's even legal.
You are not allowed to use a dev's sample content to make another sample library - I think that's clear to everyone.
But a Splice pack? I am sure the devs would all argue no, but is it really no?
You are allowed to use a dev's sample content to make a musical composition, that can be sold to a TV Production Co., to an ad agency, to a film maker, etc. But you are disallowed from selling that musical composition to another composer? Not sure how much sense that makes, or if that's even legal.
Bman70
Senior Member
Well yes, that's exactly the distinction the licensing makes: Compositions, songs, soundtracks, are a unique product that people can't use as an instrument (unless they sample it against copyright). Selling something that people can put in their DAWS and use as an instrument becomes apparently a competition with the original sample maker... I assume, based on their nervousness about it.
RonOrchComp
Senior Member
Yes - that's a pretty good argument the other way. Which is why I say it's a grey area. I don't think that this sit. has ever seen the inside of a courtroom, has it?
Oh, and I don't understand what unless they sample it against copyright means
nolotrippen
Senior Member
It's illegal
Bman70
Senior Member
Yes - that's a pretty good argument the other way. Which is why I say it's a grey area. I don't think that this sit. has ever seen the inside of a courtroom, has it?
Oh, and I don't understand what unless they sample it against copyright means
It's not legal to sample bits of a song and use it without permission from the copyright owner. So it's against copyright law I suppose the full sentence would be.
Ben
VSL
Read the "Terms of License" to be sure if it is allowed or not. If you are still not sure contact the support.
I can only speak for our libraries and our ToS: https://www.vsl.info/en/manuals/legal/terms-of-license
I can only speak for our libraries and our ToS: https://www.vsl.info/en/manuals/legal/terms-of-license
RonOrchComp
Senior Member
As already pointed out, not necessarily.
styledelk
Senior Member
The grey area here is:
If you can't make samples available from their libraries-- because you don't own their libraries, you own a license to it-- and you agreed to that license by buying it (or at the very least by activating and downloading it
AND
You have the right to license your original works and compositions to [allowed use cases that they state]
THEN
Do those third parties have a right to sample your works to create a sample library?
In one legal sense, they do not-- because you didn't grant them that right, since you didn't have that right to grant. You only owned a license to the samples in a specific context, and your composition is a product (in part) of the affordances that license gave you.
In another, in some countries fair use laws, it's common practice that it is allowed to sample portions of Compositions to create Sample Libraries (however that Fair Use is often really well defined as to what kind of use is considered Fair, and which durations, etc.)
But what happens in the modern world where the creation you made was done with upstream rights that disallowed that to begin with, since they weren't _your sounds_, they belonged to someone else, which you effectively were granted a limited license to?
This is the part that probably has to be worked out in various courts of law. I'd hate to foot the bill to test that.
d.healey
This is a custom title
We had this conversation already - https://vi-control.net/community/threads/using-products-to-create-products.95836/#post-4598893
Bman70
Senior Member
I ended up replying there, but I'll just post an excerpt:
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 the concept of BBCSO sound libraries. 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 pigments 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.
Bman70
Senior Member
This is certainly admirable to see from a company, and I admit I'm more likely to spend money on VSL than other companies because of it. Just so I'm not mistaken, does "music library" mean the same thing as "sample library"? As in, recording VSL sounds, exporting it to a synthesizer and making unique tones from it?
styledelk
Senior Member
They are indeed different!
Ben
VSL
This should be fine as long as you don't violate the 2 rules: musical context and not isolated. If you are not 100% sure, send an example to [email protected] and my colleagues will look into it
Bman70
Senior Member
This should be fine as long as you don't violate the 2 rules: musical context and not isolated. If you are not 100% sure, send an example to [email protected] and my colleagues will look into it
Thanks. On the musical context part, does that mean it has to be part of a composition or musical phrase? Because a sound library would be more about a unique synth preset, that users could compose music with. The sound preset could be considered musical, but it's more of an instrument.
