• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Topic: Possibly a stupid question: On Terms of Use

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Possibly a stupid question: On Terms of Use

    I may sound very dumb in asking this, but there's a bit of a gray area in the Terms of Use when it comes to a soundtrack.

    There is no specific information or policy on using these sounds in a soundtrack to a film in these terms of use. I have searched the forum and the Wiki page and found nothing. The policy states that I must give the credit "Orchestral samples in this recording are from Garritan Personal Orchestra(tm)." That I know, but here's where I get confused: I'm the composer, and I'm licensed to use the sounds, but the director of the film's not the end user.

    I am the composer using Garritan's sounds, but can the film's director is not me. Thus, is he/she allowed to use the song files I create with GPO's sounds, or does he/she need permission from Garritan?

    Is there a difference in policy depending on whether the film is for-profit?

  2. #2

    Re: Possibly a stupid question: On Terms of Use

    Hello, Jaydog

    This is a very good post. I hope that Gary or someone who works directly with him will see your thread and authoritatively answer you.

    In the meantime, I can give you my thoughts:

    --Whenever I've used Garritan Libraries in a publicly performed way, in front of a live audience, or online, I've always given the Garritan company credit, as per the Terms of Use clause you quoted.

    --None of us who have copies of Garritan Libraries actually own them. We have a license to use them.* This point I can see you understand.

    --I have used Garritan instruments in situations that have made me profit, and my understanding is that this is within the license's terms of use. Gary is aware of how I've used his products, and he's never objected to my usage, so I feel that's testimony to how even in a for-profit situation, you are cleared to use his software.

    --You, as composer of the film's music, own the copyright to your work, your director doesn't. You are agreeing to let him use your work. And so you are the one who has the license to use what you've used to create the sound track.

    I'm sure others may have thoughts to add to this.

    * NOTE: To avoid confusion in the future when this thread is re-discovered, posts #8 and #11 on this thread are not accurate. Scroll down to Tom Hopkins' reply for the definitive clarification on the key points of the Garritan user's agreement.

    Randy B.

  3. #3

    Re: Possibly a stupid question: On Terms of Use

    As long as you are providing compiled music, and not samples, you should be good to go. The use of the samples by you, the owner, is restricted to a certain number of machines etc in order to produce compiled / rendered music. What you do with those is up to you - there is no royalties on that.

    This is akin to the use of software development tools to produce applications. As long as your application is not a rebadging of the software development tools, you are free to produce software for re-use.

    Of course, I am not a representative of Garritan so my response is not definitive.

  4. #4

    Re: Possibly a stupid question: On Terms of Use

    Hi Jaydog

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaydog View Post
    I may sound very dumb in asking this, but there's a bit of a gray area in the Terms of Use when it comes to a soundtrack.
    I hope it's not dumb - I nearly asked this very question a couple of weeks ago!

    I'm currently working with a folksinger-songwriter to make an arrangement of one of his songs with a brass band backing. Ultimately only he and not I will make use of and "own" (have the right to profit from) the finished product, so I see this as a very similar situation as yours.

    The Terms Of Use seem to emphasise use of the samples in your own productions and not those of a 3rd party so we too were unlcear on the point, though Alan's and Randy's explanations of providing "compiled music" and "agreement to use" seems a good justification of the use within the terms, and I'm sure that libraries would be of little interest to anyone if use such we'd like to make were not possible.

    However, I too would like a definitive answer from Garritan and have emailed the query direct to their support team. I'll post a copy of their answer in this thread when I get a response.

    Peter

  5. #5

    Re: Possibly a stupid question: On Terms of Use

    I believe that there is no such thing as a "dumb question." I have asked many that could be considered that, but have learned alot from the asking. It is so sad that this discussion even needs to take place. Go with Alan's take, I believe it to be the correct one. Also please go make some music.
    In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

    http://reberclark.blogspot.com http://reberclark.bandcamp.com http://www.youtube.com/reberclark

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Just north of Sydney
    Posts
    272

    Re: Possibly a stupid question: On Terms of Use

    G’day,

    If you spend $50 and buy a set of paints, you can produce a painting, which you can sell for $15,000 000 if you find a buyer. The paint set you have bought and paid for is only a material used in your painting. The painting is a lot more. It is all yours if you have paid for all the materials.

    My friends, do not fear, there is no Garritan Police to hunt you down for inappropriate midi editing, or failure to follow the established rules of orchestration.

    Allan is absolutely right and so is reberclark.

    Peter you said:

    “I'm currently working with a folksinger-songwriter to make an arrangement of one of his songs with a brass band backing. Ultimately only he and not I will make use of and "own" (have the right to profit from) the finished product”

    The composer has the right over the composition. The orchestrator has the right over the orchestration. Each person has the right over his or her contribution to a project. You cannot change or arrange a composition without the permission of the copyright holder. In your case, the composer has given you the right to arrange his composition. In the end it may come down to the terms of an agreement if there is an agreement. Before you engage a legal team, see first if there is sufficient substance to worry about.


    Herbert

    GPO, JABB, CMB, GWI, GOFRILLER, HALION PLAYER, ACCORDIONS by E Tarilonte
    Cubase 6, Notation Composer, VSTHost, GoldWave audio editor.

    Interests:
    Good Food, Gemütlichkeit, Wein Weib und Gesang – History, Politics, Civil Law –
    Electronics, Software Development, Physics – Plant Physiology, Creative Horticulture –
    Photography, Painting, Wood Working - Midi Orchestration, Music, Music, und Musik …

  7. #7

    Re: Possibly a stupid question: On Terms of Use

    Jaydog and Peter, it speaks very well for both of you that you want to make sure you're not over-stepping the bounds spelled out in the Garritan End User License Agreement.

    Most of us on this thread haven't wanted to claim speaking with complete authority on the subject since none of us are Garritan employees, but "only" enthusiastic Garritan users. You will probably rest the most assured if someone from the Garritan company answers you directly. But we're saying that we feel you're doing the right thing, that you're covered, and that you're only doing what many of us already have.

    Gary Garritan was in the audience on the opening night for my musical, "Dorian Gray," -a show performed with tracks I produced with GPO. I had included the proper credits in the program, and I was glad I could ask him to stand and take a bow before the show when I introduced him to the audience. That was an extra acknowledgment I enjoyed being able to make, but Gary made it clear that he not only appreciated but approved of the credit printed in the program. It was all I needed to do.

    I think what may be a bit unclear to you from the agreement in the manual is that most of it is referring to re-using the sample library, re-programming, in any way basing a new software program on samples from Garritan, or re-selling individual samples in any way - that's contrary to the agreement, and what a lot of the verbage in the agreement is about.

    The main difference between us having copies of Garritan programs and the materials other artists use for their work - clay, wire, canvas, paint etc, is that those kind of materials are purchased and owned by the artists, and of course they're free to create whatever they want from them. We, on the other hand, don't own the raw materials we use - we have been licensed to use them. The materials themselves, the samples and associated programming, belong to Garritan. But, like an artist using physical materials, we are still free to profit from the way we use those materials to record music, even though we don't technically own the raw materials.

    Maybe this phrase isn't the same in the final version of the GPO manual, but here's a quote from the last Beta version before the release of GPO4:

    "...You can use these sounds in recordings, music productions, public performances, and other reasonable musical purposes within musical compositions. You can use these sounds in your own musical compositions as much as you like without any need to pay Garritan Corporation or obtain further permission. If you do use these sounds, we ask that in any written materials or credits accompanying your music that utilizes material from the Garritan Personal Orchestra (CD booklet, film credits, etc.), that you include the following courtesy credits: “Instrument samples used in this recording are from the Garritan Personal Orchestra”—or asimilar credit..."

    I put film credits in bold for your sake, Jaydog.

    Thanks for asking the question. We're all saying that even though we're not employees, we feel you guys are in the clear.

    Randy B.



  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Just north of Sydney
    Posts
    272

    Re: Possibly a stupid question: On Terms of Use

    G’day Randy,

    You said:

    “--None of us who have copies of Garritan Libraries actually own them. We have a license to use them. This point I can see you understand.”

    This is not correct. - Before the Law, Software is a good - . Software is as much a good as paint is a good in a picture. Alan has given a good account of what the rights generally are in relation to the use of software. In your last post you have printed the conditions that apply for using the Garritan products. This is what people usually expect.

    I think Jaydog and Peter understand this well. Their concern is about the relationship and rights out of an involvement with a third party.

    Jaydog has no reason to worry. Peter needs to assure that his collaboration is recognised as a right to benefits that may arise.


    Best wishes,

    Herbert
    GPO, JABB, CMB, GWI, GOFRILLER, HALION PLAYER, ACCORDIONS by E Tarilonte
    Cubase 6, Notation Composer, VSTHost, GoldWave audio editor.

    Interests:
    Good Food, Gemütlichkeit, Wein Weib und Gesang – History, Politics, Civil Law –
    Electronics, Software Development, Physics – Plant Physiology, Creative Horticulture –
    Photography, Painting, Wood Working - Midi Orchestration, Music, Music, und Musik …

  9. #9

    Re: Possibly a stupid question: On Terms of Use

    Hi Guys

    I understand that what we buy from Garritan is a "licence" to use our copies of the samples in a limited number of ways. Specifically we have no right to pass on or sell our copies of the samples (without further payment to Garritan), so do not "own" them outright - in which case we could do whatever we wanted to with them.

    The licence however empahsises use of the libraries for our own use/musical productions, whereas, as Herbert says, the issue here is in respect of the involvement of 3rd parties.

    I'm not sure if Jaydog intends to retain some control of his score (and thereby derive ongoing benefits) - I presume not since he hints at it being "not for profit" - or sees himself as being paid to create a musical product which he then sells outright to the film's director ... but maybe I should have said that it is my preference (after much consideration) to pass on the legal title to all future rights to my collaborator ... there's no need to go into the details of this choice here though, but effectively I'm treating it it like an unpaid commission and I trust he'll do right by me at the end of the day.

    While I'm sure that Gary wants to encourage wide use of his libraries and wouldn't want any legal arguments with his users, and I'm sure that under the general principles of law and common practice, such use as ours is no doubt quite acceptable, the problem for me (and my collaborator) at least is that the wording of the licence agreement itself does not seem explicitly clear on the point.

    So the issue is not just whether we are legally allowed to use the samples in this way, but whether the specific wording of the licence agreement supports this use.

    I'm reasssured to get so much support and encouragement that we're ok in law, and will continue to progress on that basis, but I'll still be happy to see confirmation from Gary's team that they're happy with it too.

    Cheers!


    Peter

  10. #10

    Re: Possibly a stupid question: On Terms of Use

    Herbert, while it is true that software is a good, we do not own the software. We have not purchased it. We have purchased the right to use it, a distinctly different product.

    The right to use software is the goods in question here, not the software. If we purchased the software, we would have the right to resell it or use it in anyway we like without restriction.

    But we do not own it. We own the right to its use in accordance with the terms of the agreement we have entered for the exercise of those rights.

Go Back to forum

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
  •