Forums

  • avatar
    178 sounds
    740 posts


    It's probably okay to use synthesized voice from something like Mac OS. I certainly doubt that Apple would come after you even if it were illegal for some reason.

    Also, using public domain or copylefted text is also a good way to do it. For instance, DrNI uses clippings from wikipedia in his track "Computational Linguistics" (combined with some dialogue that I think he wrote.)

    Freesound Admin Official Acclivity Fan Club - Member Stuck with FLAC? Check the FAQ.
  • avatar
    3 sounds
    14 posts


    Does copyright really apply to a few drum hits or keyboard notes from a synth, digital or not? A huge sample bank with hundreds of sounds I could understand, but just a few samples? At least in Sweden a work has to reach something called "verkshöjd" (a certain amount of originality and significance) for copyright law to apply. Although the definitions of "verkshöjd" that I have seen seem rather arbitrary I suspect that a couple of 909 crash hits is way below the required level.

  • avatar
    15 sounds
    135 posts


    It probably is copyrighted. Its not like you made the sound, so if you took their recording it kind of makes sense.

    http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2004/09/08/6th-cir-theres-no-such-thing-as-ide-minimisi-sampling/

    I wish I had a better link than this but I've seen it talked about else where as well.

    Basically one of the latest court ruling stated any sampling is basically stealing. The rulings been criticized. There are things that really aggravate me about it as well.

    It seems like if you have the money to back this stuff up though people have gotten away with it some cases. Its really aggravating because its never been that definitively layed out. One court ruling changes the rules after another. Being ready to pay royalties or exercising caution is best.

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    1 post


    I had also some problems for this matter ... :cry:
    But now i buy alo the stuff for making sounds legaly and hope to make a lot of money and more important have a lot of fun by using my stuff.

    htpp://www.sport-games-predictions-pro.com

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    2 posts


    Bram
    klangfabrik
    Just wondering here...did EMU pay ARP, Moog, Yamaha or Sequential Circuits when they released their synth sample libraries? My guess is that if you own a musical instrument you own every note it makes.

    Quite not true.

    Buying the instrument gives you the right to use the sounds in a composition (and sell it), it does not give you the right to sell the samples again.

    Sometimes the easiest way to thinking about releasing something in freesound is thinking about: "could I legally sell this?". If the answer is yes, you can most likely release it under CC as well.

    Try selling Korg Triton preset samples on a sample CD and see what happens. wink

    - bram

    I agree with bram on this one smile

  • avatar
    410 sounds
    40 posts


    LS
    because you didn't program it or record it in to the software to begin with.

    recording a real instrument is totally different.

    Someone building an acoustic instrument is a sound designer, so is someone creating a synth preset.

    www.rutgermuller.nl
  • avatar
    44 sounds
    99 posts


    I think the big distinction between an acoustic instrument and a synth is that the acoustic instrument does not come with a license agreement that disallows resample of the instrument to create a new instrument. A synthesizer does carry this license. If you took a sample of a korg k2600 patch and loaded it into Kontakt for example you would be breaking the law. If you did the same with a sample of an acoustic instrument there would be no problem. Loading the sample of a k2600 patch would basicly be like recreating the same instrument. Korg wouldn't like this one bit and they might come after you. I would stick to sampling acoustic instrument or self created synth sounds. It's not that hard people, get something like Tassman and create your own synth with some good old fashioned oscillators. It's a lot more satisfying when you create it yourself as well.

    - Eric

  • avatar
    410 sounds
    40 posts


    ejfortin
    I think the big distinction between an acoustic instrument and a synth is that the acoustic instrument does not come with a license agreement that disallows resample of the instrument to create a new instrument. A synthesizer does carry this license.

    Yeah you're right. Some further thoughts that cross my mind to keep the discussion going:

    I think acoustic instruments don't come with a license for sampling to create another instrument for they can

    1) never be played in the exact same way. You lose the touch of the instrument. Even a midi-guitar playing a complex sampled guitar would feel different in your hands.

    2) never sound 100% the same. But.... can get very very close though.

    www.rutgermuller.nl
  • avatar
    0 sounds
    3 posts


    what if we make our own presets? wink

    I would figure it shouldn't be much different than a hardware analog synth as long as you create the sound yourself using the built in features. By that I do NOT mean taking a patch that came with your VSTi and simply tweaking it. I DO mean starting with basic waveform(s) like a sawtooth or sqaretooth (something all the hardware synths feature as well) and applying methods like detune, modulaton, resonance, cutoff filters, distortion, changes to the ADSR envelopes, dynamics, etc. but I could be wrong so some clarification would be nice.

  • avatar
    3056 sounds
    306 posts


    As far as I can tell making your own presets is fine, particularly if you are using non-sample based sounds (you mention sawtooth waveforms etc). What is not ok is using a sample-player and exporting the piano sounds and uploading those as your own.

  • avatar
    1 sound
    5 posts


    Web Hosting Guru wrote:
    Bram
    klangfabrik
    Just wondering here...did EMU pay ARP, Moog, Yamaha or Sequential Circuits when they released their synth sample libraries? My guess is that if you own a musical instrument you own every note it makes.

    Quite not true.

    Buying the instrument gives you the right to use the sounds in a composition (and sell it), it does not give you the right to sell the samples again.

    Sometimes the easiest way to thinking about releasing something in freesound is thinking about: "could I legally sell this?". If the answer is yes, you can most likely release it under CC as well.

    Try selling Korg Triton preset samples on a sample CD and see what happens. wink

    - bram

    I agree with bram on this one smile


    if thats true everything would be under CC (creative commons) because of Itunes and youtube .

  • avatar
    1345 sounds
    1518 posts


    A word of caution here: There is *A LOT* of illegal material in youtube.
    Just because you found it there it does not make it OK. - If you found a bag of cocaine on the street that would not make it ok to sell it. It would still be illegal and you would still go to jail if caught.

    Synth sounds that you made yourself are OK to upload.
    If you start from a preset and make considerable tweaking and change the sound, then it is your own and you can upload. - Note: Changing the filter cutoff or adding reverb *DOES NOT* constitute considerable tweaking...

    If the synth is sample based, you need to be a bit more carefull. If all it allows you to do is change the loop points or the filter cutoff... don't upload it.
    If it involves granular or spectral re-synthesis or other methods to completely mess-about with the initial sounds then it should be OK.

    hmmmm..... erm..... I forgot...
  • avatar
    196 sounds
    6 posts


    Hi there, my first post

    I have a question, sorry if it's asking once more about the same.

    What about posting sounds from dead brands? (e.g. Quasimidi)

    <3 flac
  • avatar
    1345 sounds
    1518 posts


    Hi sergeeo, thank you for your question.

    This actually is a difficult one.

    If no one has bought the rights, then should be OK.
    But I will really have to consult with other mods on this one...

    hmmmm..... erm..... I forgot...
  • avatar
    167 sounds
    1459 posts


    I've been called to shed some light on the issue... smile

    I don't think its a wise idea to take recordings of deceased artists (in our lifetime anyway), for these reasons:

    Stated in the US Copyright Act of 1976, a copyrighted publication or works is protected for a total of 50 years after the demise of the author. When expired it enters the public domain unless in special circumstances a court has transferred the copyrights to another party.

    In 1998 the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), changed the law slightly. It extends the protection to the duration of the author's life plus 70 years after. If the works are of corporate nature, then the duration is 120 years from the date of creation, or 95 years from the date of publication; which ever comes first.

    Despite the revamp of the law, copyrighted sound recording still expire after 50 years; this also includes Broadcasts, Cable Programmes and Computer Generated Works.

    There will always be some greedy persons out there who want to abuse the copyright of a dead artist for their own financial gain (the record label or the publisher for example) which makes it even more dodgy, since they will go after you full force as the artist isn't around to say "its ok", so just to be safe its probably wise to stick within the law on this one. Unless you can make absolutely sure that the recording is in the public domain!

    I hope this explains things.


    I am the thing that goes bump in the night...

    ╭─────────╮
    PLEASE VISIT
    ➤ Phazebook
    ➤ HeadCloud
    ╰─────────╯
  • avatar
    197 sounds
    383 posts


    Precious info overall, but sergeeo was referring to a "dead" company, Quasimidi, out of business since 2000.
    The problem with that is that often a brand that appears dead to consumers is still alive but comatose, under someone else's control.

    The whole brand may have been acquired by another company, and that's the easiest case to verify; it could actually be dead as a brand but sold some assets to other companies before closing. Among such assets you might find the rights on preset sounds of that old hardware.

    As AlienXXX said, "If no one has bought the rights, then should be OK."
    The safest thing, for those who still own the hardware, would be to make their own sounds, clearly different from the factory presets, and posting those.

    HTH

  • avatar
    196 sounds
    6 posts


    Thanks for the thoughts.

    Perhaps you could find this interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac

    <3 flac
  • avatar
    0 sounds
    1 post


    I was in touch with yamaha a while back regarding commercial use of an accomaniment rhythm pattern.
    This was their reply

    "You are permitted to use the Yamaha automatic accompaniments for public performance and recording provided that the accompaniment is used on the product and in the manner for which it has been specifically designed. The data cannot be accessed or used for any other purpose."

    So the bottom line seems to be you can use it live or directly from the keyboard in the recording studio, but not sample it onto another device.
    What you can do to it "after" it is on the multitrack ie looping a section of the recording is still a slightly grey area

  • avatar
    1345 sounds
    1518 posts


    Korgy wrote:
    I was in touch with yamaha a while back regarding commercial use of an accomaniment rhythm pattern.
    This was their reply

    "You are permitted to use the Yamaha automatic accompaniments for public performance and recording provided that the accompaniment is used on the product and in the manner for which it has been specifically designed. The data cannot be accessed or used for any other purpose."

    So the bottom line seems to be you can use it live or directly from the keyboard in the recording studio, but not sample it onto another device.
    What you can do to it "after" it is on the multitrack ie looping a section of the recording is still a slightly grey area


    What this means:
    If you own a Yamaha keyboard, you can pretty much do whatever you want with the sounds - public performance, use them in your music, etc.
    What you cannot do it sample the rhythms and then sell/distribute/upload those elsewhere (that includes Freesound, I am afraid).

    Since they say specifically say:"(...) in the manner for which it has been specifically designed".
    This would mean you can't make a sample of it and slice it or 'glitch it up' or distort it and them use those distorted sounds to sell/distribute/upload...
    This would mean there is no grey area - You can only used them from the device and how they are intended to be - How boring !
    I am not sure if this part is actually enforceable: if you own the device and want to mangle up their rhythms as part of a recording or live performance - there is nothing they can do.
    But, under copyright restrictions, you still should not sell/distribute/upload such mangled versions, make them part of sample libraries, etc...

    hmmmm..... erm..... I forgot...