Is it legal?

Daniel James

Senior Member
A loop is considered a sample. And pretty much every professional sample library on the market strictly prohibits using their libraries to create new samples to sell.

It appears Splice is selling licences to samples they do not own and I strongly recommend those companies effected send a cease and desist and try to get any money made from your samples paid back to you.

This is one of the dangers of using sample content from outsourced creators. Splice really needs to be careful with that as it is them selling it, leaving them open to legal action.

-DJ
 

Dex

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?
Yes, absolutely. If the EULA says you can only use the library for x and you go do y with it you are violating the EULA.
 

Daniel James

Senior Member
According to the creator of that pack they had permission to do so. I am hearing multiple libraries so I have followed up on twitter to see whom gave the ok.

Because if companies are allowing people to create and sell loops using their packs I would be a fool not to do so also.

This is from one of the loop pack developers:

"Hey man! Just wanted to address this. When I was commissioned to make this pack years ago, I was OK'd to use one shots but not loops. Everything I make these days is squeaky clean. I cannot speak for Splice though. Just wanted to clear up how it went down on my end. DMs are open"

-DJ
 
Last edited:

Desire Inspires

To the stars through desire....
Yes in theory posting review on youtube can and will violate EULA. But this is largely pointless from a legal point - EULA is not a law and never understood this way. EULA is a license agreement between two parties: a licensor and licensee.
So only the licensor can wave the LA around and demand the licensee to stop doing whatever he is doing "or else", but why he would in this case. There is no benefit to the licensor and he is the one who wrote the LA.

People would often throw terms of legality and non legality - but in case of license agreement there is no such thing until one of the parties decide to make it so (going to court and the court rules in their favor - then it became legal - otherwise it is just agreement between two equal parties).
This is vastly different from issues where state/province laws are written (like copyright law). In the case of license agreement this is written by one or both parties. And they can literally write anything in it and demand any damages but it will never go that way in court.

I can put in LA that you must give me your first born for using my libraries but never actually enforce it because it is stupid and I don't even want your new born. Yep you may be violating the terms of agreement but it is as good as nothing until I really put an effort to it and start demanding it. And then the court will of course rule that I am insane and I need to remove that from any further agreement and that will be it. Except I will spend huge amount of money to realize I am insane.

That is why license agreement violations seldom go to court unless real big money are in stake. In case of libraries that would mean the developer suing one of his paying customer. How likely is this going to be? And the fee a court would award in the developer favor will be just a peanut or $50 bucks, remove offending work and say you are sorry.
You have to understand that in agreement none of the parties actually break the law - no matter what they do. They only break their agreement. No court in the world will in such case ever rule to the licensee (little Johny) to pay the attorney and legal fees for the licensor. So the developer is on the hook for legal fees regardless if he wins or loose. But in fact, if the court feels that the developer has no grounds for the lawsuit (a youtube video review would be perfect example) and wastes court time it may actually force the developer to pay the legal fees for the little Johny.
Dangerous rhetoric.
 

Daniel James

Senior Member
Dangerous rhetoric.
It’s as simple as, the person who creates the sample owns copyright to those samples. Via a license agreement you can allow others to use those samples for certain uses. If someone breached the EULA, they are then violating copyright, and those are the laws you would be dealing with.

Most companies to not restrict users from showing their samples on youtube in the form of reviews or track breakdowns because the user is not redistributing the samples or trying to sell permission to use the sounds, so they are on the correct side of the license agreement. Actually many companies encourage it, it’s great promotion.

At the end of the day you never own the samples you are using, so it doesn’t matter if someone rips them from a users video. You only ever own a license to reuse those samples in a manner agreed upon in an EULA. Creating and distributing loops made from sample libraries legally is not that much different than ripping a chorus from a Lady Gaga song and then reselling it as a pop loop.

-DJ

P.s Lady Gaga is the metric by which we discuss copyright here XD
 

Daniel James

Senior Member
According to the creator of that pack they had permission to do so. I am hearing multiple libraries so I have followed up on twitter to see whom gave the ok.

Because if companies are allowing people to create and sell loops using their packs I would be a fool not to do so also.

View attachment 19452

-DJ
Ok after following up, It appears splice told the packs creator "that as long as the sample is modified, it's usable." Which we all know not to be true. So developers, if you hear your work on Splice, send a cease and disist as they are telling their pack producers it is ok to circumvent the EULA. And you will have a very strong case for a copyright infringement. Particually as they are making money from the service.

-DJ
 

Diablo3

Active Member
Added note: He didn't say it. My bad.

Christian Henson said it best on his vlogs: "If you don't protect your IP, no one is gonna do it for you", or something like that. Meaning if you get leaked libraries from SFire Audio or buy from this seller (let's say they selling it's illegal) and 8Dio or any mentioned company hasn't done anything to prevent it, then you are not doing anything wrong.
 
Last edited:

Daniel James

Senior Member
Christian Henson said it best on his vlogs: "If you don't protect your IP, no one is gonna do it for you", or something like that. Meaning if you get leaked libraries from SFire Audio or buy from this seller (let's say they selling it's illegal) and 8Dio or any mentioned company hasn't done anything to prevent it, then you are doing anything wrong.
I will most certainly be protecting mine.

-DJ
 

Dex

Member
Christian Henson said it best on his vlogs: "If you don't protect your IP, no one is gonna do it for you", or something like that. Meaning if you get leaked libraries from SFire Audio or buy from this seller (let's say they selling it's illegal) and 8Dio or any mentioned company hasn't done anything to prevent it, then you are not doing anything wrong.
Not true. It's still wrong (and illegal) even if the company hasn't tried to prevent it.
 

Daniel James

Senior Member
As we can all clearly hear DAMAGE in that link. Here is the EULA section related.

"The usage of Heavyocity products (in particular samples, instruments and presets) for the creation of a sound library or as a sound library for any kind of synthesizer, virtual instrument, sample library, sample-based product or other musical instrument is strictly prohibited"

Which is all you need to know really.

-DJ
 

Hasici

New Member
Well its essentially a pirate site. And I think that message should be made very clear to professionals!

-DJ
It is my experience that in such cases everyone involved knows pretty much exactly what they are doing and that they are ripping off a library but pretend to either doing within their rights or pretend that they don't know where it came from or was done by someone else...
 

Daniel James

Senior Member
It is my experience that in such cases everyone involved knows pretty much exactly what they are doing and that they are ripping off a library but pretend to either doing within their rights or pretend that they don't know where it came from or was done by someone else...
But as a professional you cannot open yourself up to those risks knowingly. Splice is for all intents and purposes a piracy site as the content you get from it does not provide the required licence to use them.

If you use pirated samples thats on you as a composer.

After looking into it, speaking to both developers of the original sample libraries and the creators of the sample pack I am telling you as plainly as I can... Using SPLICE is the same as using pirated samples. You DO NOT have the correct licence to use it in your productions. I am saying this message should be spread to as many professionals as possible, as the site looks legitimate, but the content is not.

-DJ
 
Christian Henson said it best on his vlogs: "If you don't protect your IP, no one is gonna do it for you", or something like that. Meaning if you get leaked libraries from SFire Audio or buy from this seller (let's say they selling it's illegal) and 8Dio or any mentioned company hasn't done anything to prevent it, then you are not doing anything wrong.
I’m not sure how you manage to get that interpretation!

He’s saying precisely the opposite.

If you don’t look after your own IP, why should you expect anyone else to value it.

ie: look after your own IP.

We strongly protect our IP at Spitfire, to the extent of having three independent companies working on anti piracy, and having our own traceable methods of preventing illegal use of our IP.

Apart from anything personal - it’s our absolute duty to our customers to protect our IP as strongly as we can.

Best,

Paul
 

Diablo3

Active Member
I’m not sure how you manage to get that interpretation!

He’s saying precisely the opposite.

If you don’t look after your own IP, why should you expect anyone else to value it.

ie: look after your own IP.

We strongly protect our IP at Spitfire, to the extent of having three independent companies working on anti piracy, and having our own traceable methods of preventing illegal use of our IP.

Apart from anything personal - it’s our absolute duty to our customers to protect our IP as strongly as we can.

Best,

Paul

I swear to god he said it almost exactly like that. BUT maybe I took it out of context. If I ever find the exact time stamp in said video, will let you guys know.
 

Diablo3

Active Member
DISCLAIMER: I was wrong apparently. I guess I was on drugs (never done drugs)...
Forum etiquette: Should I edit that mistaken post?
 

LinusW

Active Member
As we can all clearly hear DAMAGE in that link.
I believe you, but some kind of comparison would be good for those of us who have not used Damage.
Just like this video dealt with Softphonics resampling other products into their sample libraries.