What's new

Is it legal?

afterlight82

Active Member
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...".

That usually goes a long way. :)
:)

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

Polkasound

Senior Member
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

Senior Member
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

Active Member
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

Senior Member
You might be sure, but you're not right. ;)

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



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



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.
Correct! o_O

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

protect your ears!
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

n trepreneur
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

protect your ears!
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....
 
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

Member
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

Active Member
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

Senior Member
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

Matthew Kilford
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

I was young once
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

New Member
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

Senior Member
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

I was young once
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

Senior Member
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 :whistling:
 

robgb

I was young once
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

New Member
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?
 
Top Bottom