What's new

What happens to your songs after you sell your libraries?

James H

01001000 01101001
I'd say that's different, just like using 1 vocal sample.
If it was a licensed sound, I'm guessing it would be something like a hook or similar.

I've always read the terms as per Robert_G's #17
 

halfwalk

Active Member
from the OT EULA:

"The usage of this product 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. "

So by that logic, I'm not actually allowed to render a line I made with Berlin Woodwinds and then load that rendered line into a sampler, even if it's just for the purpose of bouncing to free up resources, or to chop it up for some glitchy/sliced stuff in, say, Geist. Or trying to, say, de-noise a MA2 string sample in RX. Doing so would technically violate the license agreement, thus:

"This license will terminate automatically without notice by Schwarzer & Mantik GmbH if you fail to comply with any provision of this license. Upon termination you shall destroy all copies of the samples, ensembles, instruments, presets or other contents of the sound library / sound libraries. "
 
Last edited:

rudi

Active Member
A very interesting debate. Have any of you actually seen a license that specifically says that you can no longer use/sell a compostion once you transfer or sell your license?

EDIT: For clarification as the post above landed before I posted mine, I am not talking about creating a "sound library" which a is very specific endeavour and would violate copyright laws.
 
Last edited:

James H

01001000 01101001
So by that logic, I'm not actually allowed to render a line I made with Berlin Woodwinds and then load that rendered line into a sampler, even if it's just for the purpose of bouncing to free up resources, or to chop it up for some glitchy/sliced stuff in, say, Geist. Or trying to, say, de-noise a MA2 string sample in RX. Doing so would technically violate the license agreement, thus:
I think the keyword there is "sound library". You would be creating a sound.
 

halfwalk

Active Member
Collins dictionary defines a "sound library" as:

a collection of sounds stored on file (for example on CDs, DVDs, or as digital audio files)


Wikipedia defines a sample library as:

A sample library is a collection of digital sound recordings, known as samples, for use by composers, arrangers, performers, and producers of music.

it also says:

The term sample library, when used in a commercial context, implies a collections of samples that have been produced and licensed for the purpose of being used as samples.

But "implication" alone, from a wikipedia article no less, is not really a solid legal basis for a definition.

Sweetwater defines it as:

A collection of samples and programs using those samples, typically based around a theme or single subject, e.g., a drum sample library, a grand piano sample library.


I'm just wondering what the actual legal definition of a "sample library" is. It all seems to be a grey area, based on assumptions and unspoken agreements. I mean, if I record a bunch of my own farts and put them in a Kontakt patch, haven't I made a sample library?

Anyway, cheers, I'm out, I've wasted enough of my/your time. My apologies.
 
OP
Geomir

Geomir

Active Member
Wow it got intense here! That's not a bad thing, right? Well, when I started this thread I thought to put it in the "Newbie Questions" Forum! In the end I put it here, and I wrote that I have a very simple question! OK that was an epic fail for sure... I did not expect so many answers, arguments, debates, opinions, etc... So it seems this is not a simple question! It's more complicated than I ever thought!

Thank you so much for all these answers, huge or small! It seems that the laws are loose and unclear, to the point that even the term "music library" is not strictly defined!

So I think that in the end, as some people mentioned, it's practically impossible someone to knock your door and try to sue you by proving that you used their library and then sold it!
 

synkrotron

A creator of Stuff
I had to have a good poke around as I am not familiar with EW.

On their ComposerCloud page:-


it says "Keep the instruments in your compositions forever, even if you leave (requires bouncing)"

So, bounce your composition and that's it... all good, for all time.
 
OP
Geomir

Geomir

Active Member
I had to have a good poke around as I am not familiar with EW.

On their ComposerCloud page:-


it says "Keep the instruments in your compositions forever, even if you leave (requires bouncing)"

So, bounce your composition and that's it... all good, for all time.
Even more reasons to respect EastWest as a company!
 

synkrotron

A creator of Stuff
Even more reasons to respect EastWest as a company!
Yes, I guess so, although I know nothing about their products. I am guessing that they are well respected.

I've just seen a new post that mentions some problem with the cloud software:-


So that would be a little bit of a worry.
 

Mike Greene

Senior Member
Moderator
Not to go off on a tangent, but this brings up one of the reasons why, as a developer, I don't like the idea of resale. (Before I get blasted for saying that, Realitone offers refunds, rather than resale.)

The common reason presented for why resale should be allowed is that if a library is a dud, then the purchaser should have the opportunity to sell it to someone else. I've seen that argument a hundred times, and that's fine.

Yet if tracks were made with those sounds ... tracks apparently good enough that we have hopes about those tracks getting placed ... then it seems the library did have value to the purchaser. So resale in that case isn't a matter of "I couldn't use this library, so I'd like to recoup my losses." Rather it's "Well, if they say I can resell it, then I'ma gonna do it!" Totally fine, and I'm not quibbling with the OP here, who is doing what is perfectly legal. But, it seems (in my opinion, at least) to go against the spirit of how this business works, and specifically, how pricing is set.

As a developer, if I'm pricing a product that I know is going to change hands and get used in actual viable tracks by more than one person, then I'm going to want to charge more than I would if it's only going to be used by one person. Only makes sense, right?

The problem is that the vast majority of customers won't ever resell, even if it's allowed. So they get kinda screwed in that arrangement, because they're paying the "You can re-sell it, so we assume it's two people who will use this library" price.

To be clear, I don't take issue with the OP or anyone else who legally resells libraries. That's totally fine by me. I'm just pointing out why, as a developer, this makes me even less inclined to go in that direction.
 

synkrotron

A creator of Stuff
Well, I am still very, very new to the whole library thing.

I am one that, "won't ever resell," cos I find the whole idea of doing that a complete PITA.

But I can certainly see a situation where whole libraries could be passed backwards and forwards under the guise of "being sold," when it is only being lent.

Then again, what about licenses for the players of these libraries? Are they not licensed somehow, using iLok, or whatever.

Call me naive and I would heartily admit that fault, as I have no idea how all this works. I have dozens of VST effects and instruments, all legal and paid for, and most of the vendors work very much on trust when it comes to dishing out licenses. And as much as iLok has been maligned over the years, especially the hardware dongle, I can understand why some vendors insist on it.


Sorry for taking that tangent a bit further... just trying to understand the issue here and speaking out loud...
 

gsilbers

Part of Pulsesetter-Sounds.com
i think im more curious why european have more of these type of discussions... :)

between the GDPR and EULA its like bending the rules a little would get you mandatory prison over there and you definitely get caught but some invisible force..

i don't mind if i sell my library to micheal at ninja tracks, he shares it with ben and write some cool music together and then sell the library. someone still bought it. and its a digital copy. or at least 3.. all good.

now... just one muderfukin kid uploads it to a torrent site and its 200000000000 fukin downloads everyone gets for free and i can't do shiat about it. now that sucks. so micheal sharing his copy with his friend ben is like me sharing my fender bass with freddy. fender won't mind. but with digital copies its different. its not sharing to one dude. and even if every copy i sold gets shared to one person.. its not a huge deal. but uploading one moderfukin copy to torrent and its 200000000% worse.

same deal with GDPR, i mean.. its that law its aim at tech giants and very large operations that is obvious. but someone calling me out cuz im sharing the one muderfukin person's name i KNOW uploaded to torrent? ooooo nooo... privacy laws and shiat.

so i get questions about if its ok if some samples are isolated and sent in stems to a music house/editor/etc... im like.. bitch please. thats like 0.00000000003% of a problem compared to uploading to torrent site. or crappier... selling it on eBay and i can't just sue or email eBay about it... i have to fill in a long ass form saying its mine and do it for every product .. like if it was MY job to police THEIR site. OR police Splice or police facebook or police google.

i think its just perspective. software companies of course are very keen in making sure the resale and sharing doesn't happen and EULA this EULA that but the main problem is fighting torrent sites.

anyways.. as for on topic: what Robert_G said at the start about the logo. thats the easiest to compare.
 

David Cuny

Summer, we hardly knew ye.
Most libraries' licences grant complete rights of the work created with the library to the purchaser.

Of course, that "work" generally excludes the creation of sample libraries.

Selling the library means that the seller is prohibited from creating new work with the library. Rights to prior works are retained.

Selling a piano is a good analogy, as it's a tool for creating music (and flattening cartoon characters).

While you own the piano, you can play it, record with it, and tapdance on top of it.

Selling the piano means you can't tapdance on it anymore, but any music you recorded with it prior to the sale is still yours.

If the samples were recognizable in their own right - like a drum break from a popular song - the licensing would be different. In those cases, a license is generally needed on a work-by-work basis.
 

JEPA

Senior Member
Published music is fixed work. If sample licenses say you can use them in your work, then it's fine. If you sell copies of your fixed music after reselling sample libraries licenses it should be fine. If you extracted, saved, isolated sounds of the library for later use after reselling the license, it will be illegal I bet you.
I could be wrong, but this way of thinking seems logically to me...
 

Polkasound

Senior Member
If you extracted, saved, isolated sounds of the library for later use after reselling the license, it will be illegal I bet you.
That also makes sense to me. Developer's EULAs generally allow for users to create compositions that use their libraries. The moment you sell a library, that license is revoked. So what it comes down to is: when did you start creating the composition?

In my opinion, unless a EULA says differently, whatever composition you created (or started creating) with the library while you owned the license is yours. Even if you render the library's track in that composition to audio and end up reselling the library, you can continue to work on that composition, however, the audio track rendered from the library is locked exclusively to that composition. You cannot use the audio from that track in any other composition -- not even a remake of the original composition. In addition, the audio is locked AS IS, meaning that you cannot edit the audio to change the sequence of the notes. You lost that privilege when you sold the library.
 

synkrotron

A creator of Stuff
If you extracted, saved, isolated sounds of the library for later use after reselling the license, it will be illegal I bet you.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, but I am sure that it would be difficult for any vendor to do anything about it. Creators could say that they created a particular sound in a project before selling the library, for instance. And, especially with the likes of instrument libraries, how can a vendor tell if a particular sound was made with their library, unless there was a really distinctive sound that was unmistakably theirs.

I'm reading this:-

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.
and thinking, this clause seems to allow you to create a number of audio loops (samples?) for further use, either by yourself, or licensed to other creators to use in their stuff. As long as the loop [sample] is not "exposed" then you are in the clear. It doesn't say anywhere that if you sell the library (or stop your subscription) that you can no longer use that "Production Music Library."


And then, as a creator, would anyone be interested in actually re-sampling a complete instrument for further use and then selling the original library?

Sound effect libraries may be a different issue as it would be easier to render certain effects for further use once the library has been sold.


I dunno... I that for a majority of creators, this is a non-issue and we would never come under any real scrutiny.
 

synkrotron

A creator of Stuff
You cannot use the audio from that track in any other composition
Again, just me personally, once I have used a particular clip/sample/loop in a creation, I doubt very much if I would use it again.

I suppose that I could take a piano or violin passage and chop it up to rearrange it. Sounds too much like a faff to me. As would a vendor trying to prove that you did such a thing.


As I am very green on this whole library thing I would love to know if the likes of EW has ever brought a case to court, and won.
 
Top Bottom