Audio recordings are covered by the copyright law. As soon as you record an audio event using your resources you automatically are the copyright holder of this recording, not of the sound source (of course). Therefore re-recording a recorded audio event in ways not expressly permitted by the license agrement is illegal (5 years - $250,000).
Pianos do not record sound but their mechanics and design are patented (also true for most instruments, electronic or acoustic). If you would rebuild a piano with the same specs you\'d be in trouble. Since the sonic image of a piano can be changed by a player, piano technician, room response and... it would be hard to patent the actual sound of the instrument. And its still just a piece of metal creating sine waves. Every rubber band does that. Maybe the lumberjack who cut that perfect tree for that great piano deserves the copyright of the sound.
It is my understanding (not substantiated) that even some of the new synths are coming out with agreements buried in the fine print that say you can\'t sample the defualt sounds the synth produces...
Steinway may have already put something in the owner\'s manual for new pianos that says you can\'t sample it. In the future library developers may have new barriers to scale to prove they have the right to create the library.
You confuse, I think, patents vs. copyrights & trademarks. There are sound trademarks, but very few. One is the lion\'s roar at the beginning of every MGM (I think!) movie.
Yeah, I can see a bit of ethical issue regarding sampling a DX7\'s original presets, or an M1 \"Universe\" patch.
I guess when you\'re purchasing an electronic instrument (or acoustic) it\'s a buy-out. Just like the people that sang in VOTA or SOV.
I believe that if you are re-sampling a sample that has been fundamentally changed into something that\'s barely recognizable even by the original developer, you should be ok. Take a commercial drum loop, run it through massive distortion, pitch it an octave lower, add a reverse reverb, slapback delay and some flanging and as far as I\'m concerned all bets are off!
DX7 uses oscillators to create sound. the copyright could only be about the settings that cause these osc to behave a certain way. So if you are the one who programmed that factory sound for Yamaha and they paid you this would make Yamaha the copyright holder of your settings not really of the sound that results. And again the technolgy is patented and it looks like the sounds are free game as long as you do not use the same technology that Yamaha uses to play them back or rebuild a DX7 and infringe on their pat..
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by franz: the technolgy is patented and it looks like the sounds are free game as long as you do not use the same technology that Yamaha uses to play them back or rebuild a DX7 and infringe on their pat..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Doesn\'t Stanford University hold the patent on this type of synthesis and it\'s licensed by Yamaha, or did Yamaha actually buy it?
Also, wouldn\'t the patent have expired by now (it\'s pretty old)?
(Not rhetorical, I don\'t know the answers, just curious.)
Whether it was Stanford or Chowning I don\'t know, but I don\'t think it has expired. Some years ago I believe the length of patents was extended significantly.
Clearly, the use of the synth is pretty much up to you, but what I heard (AGAIN, UNSUBSTANTIATED) was covering the ORIGINAL sounds. Not necessarily sounds you programmed yourself. Those could be sampled. Sounds programmed by others would of course be subject to your license agreement with that programmer.
I agree with thesoundsmith that having the original synth is much more satisfying, but I don\'t WANT a Mellotron in my house, thank you! Big, messy dust collector most of the time, really fun for a few hours a year. My GSt lib is a great substitute for me.
I\'ve always had ethical issues with sampling an electronic (as opposed to acoustic?) synthesizer. This over and above the fact that any synthesizer worth its amps should be able to produce thousands more sounds than could effectively be sampled, so any \'sample library\' of, say, a DX7 is going to only contain a VERY small part of the instrument\'s capabilities.
OTOH, if someone were to produce a Jupiter 8 software clone (Native Instruments-style) I would almost undoubtedly buy it in a heartbeat. Go figger...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Arial\">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Munsie:
So, it would appear no one is getting sued (yet) for sampling a piano and then producing an expensive sampled piano library for commercial resale.
So, it would seem logical, if one sampled the sound of the samples, and then made a new library, he too should be able to sell it with no legal consequences.
I would further think, if eq, effects, were added, this would become an original library?
Franz already illuminated the copyright issues. It isn\'t, and never will be, illegal to sample an acoustic instrument. Someone may someday try to enforce trademark status on the name (as in saying, you can sample this but we\'ll come after you if you call it \"Steinway\"), but even that would be iffy. What interest would Steinway (or insert your favorite name here) have in discouraging recognition of their instruments as those of superior excellence? There is no direct competition and no breach.
It seems this debate only thrives in this forum. Instrument manufacturers are unconcerned.
As for producing libraries FROM libraries, that is a more interesting topic. I think you probably could produce a library from a library, but certainly not in the sense you mention. But what if the \"library\" you produce is composed music?
For instance, suppose I decide I want to release an orchestral phrase library? Say for the sake of argument that I used GOS, Dan Dean Solo Brass, and Ultimate Orchestral Percussion.
There, the line is hazy. I am producing original musical compositions, essentially, and offering those as a library in and of itself. The product is not derivative--I\'m not producing a chromatic string library from a chromatic string library. It is my feeling that this probably does not violate the agreement, since my library of original compositions cannot be used in a way which competes with, or takes value away from, the original library sources. In fact, when I compose music for my various gigs, I am doing just that--only they\'re not intended for playback as a sample library in and of itself. They form library material from which the show editors farm cues and backgrounds.
I\'d be interested to hear comments from the commercial sample developers on the site. My first impression is that this practice would actually be encouraged, since it is the equivalent of a successful endorsement for the product.
However, an application like adding EQ or release triggers, or even wild effects, to an existing library and calling it original? Nope, that one\'s fairly cut and dried--it\'s a simple repackaging of an existing product in direct competition. Without the \"musical composition\" step, there\'s no ground for interpretation. Even with the composition step, some producers might be uncomfortable.