• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 7 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 70

Topic: Legal question about sample libraries

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Legal question about sample libraries

    Hi!

    I assume that this works for most sample libraries, but still is something that I've not made clear to myself.

    All licenses are single ended (unless you buy more licenses), and non transferable. That I know.

    But as the owner of various libraries, can I make music (wav files) to sell? Yes. Can I make music to sell to somebody in order for him to use my music in his own music? yes

    Can I make my own rendering alone of another midi file, not mine? I mean, can I get a midi file from a friend, make the wav files with my library and then send him the audio files? Is this legal? Cause, from what I personally see, I am still the only user, regardless that somoene else benefits from the audio files which are non of the sample company business.

    Can someone shed some light? I have EW products, Ivory, Bela D. Media and some other smaller thingies...

  2. #2

    Re: Legal question about sample libraries

    Hi Nik,

    As long as the audio files are musical content and not just raw data from our DVDs, we have no issue. To clarify and for example; if you compose a track using Lyrical Distortion and then sell that track, God speed! If you sold a CD that was nothing more then GTR1: A String: Round Round 3. wav or if you composed various soloed guitar riffs and then thought to sell said riffs as a guitar riff sample library, we would send some of my family members to visit your studio...





    Best always,
    Francis Belardino
    Bela D Media.com


    1. With the exception of creating a data backup for personal use, the user does not have the right to make copies of said library.
    2. The user does not have the right to share said samples.
    3. The user does not have the right to upload said samples to any form of Peer-to-Peer Internet file sharing service.
    4. The user does not have the right to resell said library.
    5. The user is not permitted to resample said library and/or to create any form of sample library product with said samples.

    As a user, you acknowledge and expressly agree to all terms. Violators of said terms will be prosecuted to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law.
    Bela D Media | www.BelaDMedia.com

  3. #3

    Re: Legal question about sample libraries

    Quote Originally Posted by nikolas
    Hi!

    I assume that this works for most sample libraries, but still is something that I've not made clear to myself.

    All licenses are single ended (unless you buy more licenses), and non transferable. That I know.


    Can someone shed some light? I have EW products, Ivory, Bela D. Media and some other smaller thingies...
    I'm not in the U.S., so I can't speak for what the laws are there, but I would personally not recommend buying any library from a company that has a very long list of limitations. I realize that have to protect themselves from obvious loopholes to piracy, but overall, any good company makes it there top priority to help you make music for which you will have the rights. As far as single ended and non-transferability goes, even that can change from library to libary. It is all whatever the manufacturer wants to put on the package. Some of it would hold up in court, some would not based on fair use laws, not that it is likely that anything is going to court unless you have a wharehouse full of pirated CD's. In Canada, if such a case went to court where you made original music from a library and the company claimed you did not have rights to make profit from the library you bought, the most you would be liable for is the purchase value of the commercial license, or less if the judge ruled the price excessive. (based on comparable cases in another industry, for as I've said, I've never heard of such a case in this industry.) This is especially true if the product is marketed as a sound library for music production. But Canadian law is very common sense that way, wherea American law seems to be go by the letter of the law. This is just in general of course.

    In Canada, for instance, at least the last time such a case was settled, I am legally entitled to make a company of a rented dvd FOR MY OWN PERSONAL USE, even though the rental store and DVD manufacture tell me otherwise with threats of jail time. I cannot however profit from sale of said DVD or to give that copy to another person free of charge. Also, I believe that it is not legal in Canada for you to forbid me to sell anything, including a music library, since it is legally my posession, hoever, the right to use the sounds in a commercial production may be limited to either the original purchaser, or the secondary purchaser (I'm not sure which), but not both. Again, the company can make any limitation on you they want to, but many would not stand up in court.
    If you want to talk on a moral stance, I would suggest that the purchaser should obide by common sense fair use and by the obviously stated limitations made claim before the purchse of the product. I once bought a library which had hidden limitations written inside the pacjage that prohibited me from using the library for anything except my persnal entertainment, and the quality was so poor that entertainment was an impossibility. Such a limitation has no legal precident in my country and I would certainly feel no obligation morally to abide by it.
    But keep in mind that most of the library creators that frequent this site are themselves musicians and music lovers, very committed to the quality of their products and only want fair, reasonable and right profit for their time and financial investment. They also are the ones who have good customer service, as evidenced byt he questions the answer here for even other companies products. I have never seen one of them badmouth another company...so I will do it for them---don't spend thousands of dollars on a single sample library from some company with outrageous promises but has no presence on forums like this. I don't have to mention the names of the poeple who provide tremendous support for this site, and they provide libraries starting as lowas $100 for professional quality and no B.S., and their to busy make quality products to go threatening loyal customers.

  4. #4

    Re: Legal question about sample libraries

    Indeed...

    Frank, I appreciate your answer. Now to a more practical question if you could get back to me:

    I don't have Celtic winds, but I know someone who has it. I need a solo instrument from Celtic Winds. So I send a midi file/score to that person, and he gives me back a wav file with the use of Celtic Winds. Note that I personally didn't use the library at all, but even though I'm not the legal owner of the license of the said library, I end up with a wav file containing the "usage" of the library.

    How about this?

    Cause EW, appears to have problem with this. There is a mentioning about "your music composition" which makes things difficult.

    On the other hand if this is generally true for sample libraries, then all these people working on classical works, and midi files found in the net, or collaborating with each other (for example I had a string quartet with a live recording over a couple of weeks ago, and people did volunteer, once out, to make a rendering with Garritan products), is all illegal from that take...

    ???

    On the othre hand a studio using (exclusively at the hands of the licensee of course) the libraries to make $$$ seems somewhat wrong...

  5. #5

    Re: Legal question about sample libraries

    crazyox:

    I'm not in the US either. I'm in the UK

    Badmouthing works for me sometimes, other times it doesn't. I am very happy with what I've got and I'm moving to buying new stuff from other companies... don't care about badmouthing, it wouldn't be right generally (ranting is a different story ) and furthermore as far as I know badmouthing was what brought this in the first place (but I'm too new to knw about this really).

    Anyways, thing is of course a 12 comandments license is quite bad, but never the less an example of a studio using a library they bought (single license) for ever and to make $$$ seems somewhat strage...

    I love this forum, that's why I'm posting here. And I hope it shows that I'm trying to provide whatever support I can by being here (apart from taking as well of course)...

    Anyways, I actually agree with you all the way, tbh...

  6. #6

    Re: Legal question about sample libraries

    You can use your sample libraries to program someone else's music. The key element is whether or not you are doing the programming (or rendering) or not. As long as nobody else has access to the raw samples then there is no problem. There are many times where I have provided an audio backing track for someone else using samples that I have a licence to use.

    D

  7. #7

    Re: Legal question about sample libraries

    Daryl,

    That is my belief... It makes perfect sense!

    However over last night (UK time) things got a bit shattered over at SOL, and it seems to me that this is a highly gre(a)y area... Just checking to see what people here think. Additionaly, Frank is perfect and a gentleman and came back to me almost immediately!

  8. #8

    Re: Legal question about sample libraries

    FIRSTL thanks to Frank of Bela D for a simply answer to a simply question. He might not like everything I have to say here...I don't knw anything about him...but I want to make it clear that he's answer is an example of the kind of common sense I'm talking about. I'm not trying to attack any reasonable company

    Second:
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolas
    crazyox:

    I
    Badmouthing works for me sometimes, other times it doesn't. I am very happy with what I've got and I'm moving to buying new stuff from other companies... don't care about badmouthing, it wouldn't be right generally (ranting is a different story ) and furthermore as far as I know badmouthing was what brought this in the first place (but I'm too new to knw about this really).
    Not entirely sure what you mean, but to clarify, I am not badmouthing anyone in particulkar and certainly not anyone on this forum. TO the contrary, I am simply suggesting that to pay $4000 for an orchestra library, unless you are scoring Rocky XXVI, is insane. It is not going to be twenty times betterm or even 2 times better than GPO, and Garritan provides free education here, answers questions for everyone even not for his libraries, etc. That's just one person thaqt I mention because I don'y know the names of the other people that contribute so much. If I had money to burn, I'd nuy all their libraries first just to support them, and because I know I will get help when I need it. In contrast, I constantly see post of people having problems with their $3000 BSQSL Titanium edition 5000 piece orchestra, recorded outside Heaven's Gates library. You really have to justify that kind of purchase, yet some such licenses are far more limiting than some of the privately owned sample library complanies and I hear a lot less gripes about them too. (P.S. That was not aimed at EWQSL in particular since I've never used it and likely will never have the Midas touch to afford it.)
    Last edited by crazyox; 03-30-2007 at 05:27 AM. Reason: correction

  9. #9

    Re: Legal question about sample libraries

    Quote Originally Posted by Daryl
    You can use your sample libraries to program someone else's music. The key element is whether or not you are doing the programming (or rendering) or not. As long as nobody else has access to the raw samples then there is no problem. There are many times where I have provided an audio backing track for someone else using samples that I have a licence to use.

    D
    Not neccesarily. It all depends on the contract wording. If the product is licensed per computer, with no other stated restrictions, it doesn't matter who is using it, and regardless of the contract wording, if a studio buys a library for, say, $600, their buying it for the studio, not paying @600 per person that works in the studio. I don't think any other interpretation would hold up in the court of law or the court of common sense. Also, the most respectable library creators offer licenses for additional computers at very resonable rates, much more so than some of the software (cubase, etc.) companies. This is just IMHO, not professional legal advice. Like I've said already, the private and small companies are genrally looking to make an honest buck and may even sometimes oversue it in the legal contracts simply because they copy the license that a larger company uses...they can't justify spending $900 for one hour to a lawyer to slap a contract together and nap for the other 55 minutes. If you email them personally, you'll probably get a very fair response to your question. Not everyone, and there are a few names that seem pop up within the first 2 seconds of copywrite thread, butgenerally speaking. If I seem to blabber on about this, its just because I hate to see people who pay for their libraries waste time worrying about copyrights while piraters are making good music. If everyone is reasonable, their needs be no problems.

    Incidently, and slightly off topic, their has been some really interesting studies done at university economics departments about the increase in profits of record companies when they don't go after filesharing. Despite the alttered numbers most companies put out after Napster hit the scene, their profits soared during the first three years off filesharing and have since remained quite stable. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Filesharing spreads the names around and statistically, people who causually fileshare have purchased more music than they did previously, simple because they were exposed to more variety.

    The record companies are also fearing the advancement of independant artists because of the internet, but they really need not fear. Lokk at Radiohead that got there name giving music away for free on the internet...they;re making a lot of money for a big label now. I state this just for those who are curious...i"m not suggesting that this applies to sample libraries, nor am I implying any moral justifications...just the facts Ma'am.

  10. #10

    Re: Legal question about sample libraries

    When buying a sample library, you don't actually buy the samples. You are paying for a license to use them in a way that's stipulated in the license.
    The license can vary from different producers, so I guess there's no simple answer.
    The license may, or may not, be transferable.
    Worra
    SampleTekk

    Arf, arf, arf...

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 7 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •