Is it legal?

kavinsky

misty orchard in the middle of Czechoslovakia
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

Senior Member
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.
 
Last edited:

procreative

Senior Member
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

Senior Member
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

Senior Member
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

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

emaitch

New Member
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

Senior Member
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

Senior Member
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

Senior Member
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

Senior Member
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.
 

Polkasound

Senior Member
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.

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

Senior Member
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. ...
 

Saxer

Senior Member
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

Senior Member
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.

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

Active Member
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

Senior Member
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

Senior Member
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.

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. :)