Vengeance samples copyright??

[timbreman]

I spoke with someone recently who advised me that it's a rule that you can't use Vengeance one-shots to create loops that are sold. I find this strange as I've spoken with a copyright attorney who advised me that one-shots cannot be copyrighted unless there is something extremely unique about them that sets them far apart from other one shots....such as maybe a unique effect.

Can anyone clarify this for me? What's the real deal here?

[housegezeichnet]

no big deal as there is an ongoing discussion that manuel schleis sampled a lot of other commercial stuff too

[Myrok Rolles]

as soon as you change them, they are as good as yours. Change the pitch up, add some fx... chop em.. there is no way for anybody to know.

[timbreman]

Originally Posted by LaLa

but the funny thing is: how can they claim the copyright for samples they just sampled somewhere else?

Damn good point.

[ughbaw]

wait...you're creating loops using vengeance samples....to sell as sample loops?

what?

[timbreman]

Originally Posted by ughbaw

wait...you're creating loops using vengeance samples....to sell as sample loops?

what?

No. One of the artists we're working with brought up the copyright issues because he creates dubstep drum loops using them. He doesn't want to break any copyright rules which is understandable but also an issue if one shots really can't be copyrighted. Looking for clarification on the issue.

[tablo]

Lady Gaga was okay with it so I don't see why not
Lady Gaga - Judas.... Vengeance Loop!

[timbreman]

Originally Posted by tablo

Lady Gaga was okay with it so I don't see why not
Lady Gaga - Judas.... Vengeance Loop!

Not the same thing. Loops and one shots are made for commercial use. The question is whether one shots can be used for loops to be sold.

[nyne]

i dont get it.......one shots can be used for music that is sold but not for loops that are sold ??

[timbreman]

Originally Posted by nyne

i dont get it.......one shots can be used for music that is sold but not for loops that are sold ??

Exactly. Because loops can be used for commercial use (making music to be sold). Lady Gaga's music is not meant for commercial use unless royalties are paid out.

The big difference is loops involve some form of composition while a one shot is just a single sound. For example...As far as I'm aware it's not possible to record a single snare sound and claim it as your own.

[Simonator]

Your confusion lies in the difference between recording copyright & publishing copyright...

Their samples are subject to recording copyright, otherwise there would be nothing to stop you pressing a thousand duplicate copies & selling them on the local flea-market.

What your attorney has (seemingly confusingly) told you about is that they cannot claim publishing copyright.
For example, if you re-recorded The Beatles' Yesterday, they could say 'hold on, this is our artistic idea'... whereas if you recorded the sound of a kick-drum from your 909, Vengeance cannot say 'I wrote that melody'.


... Further to (and separately from) this, many sample libraries have a clause in their terms of acceptance that state that you are not permitted to use the samples to create sample libraries. Read the T&Cs.


As stated earlier though, Vengeance are the most blatant uncleared-sample-rapists that the world has ever known... so... ****-em. *





* Not sure this logic will hold up in court.



.

[mattyc]

isn't it in the EULA when you buy them ?

[._.]

The day I'll use someone else samples is the day I blow my own head off with ultra high pressure whale sperm.

If you some day notice I don't post here anymore you'll definitely know what happened.

Making samples for dubstep? Drum samples? For the genre that doesn't even have drums or where it doesn't even matter, because every-phuckingthing is synthetic? Well fuuuuuuuck me I guess at least n+1 sucker is born every minute. Or? Maybe an exponent here?

[timbreman]

Originally Posted by Simonator

Your confusion lies in the difference between recording copyright & publishing copyright...

Their samples are subject to recording copyright, otherwise there would be nothing to stop you pressing a thousand duplicate copies & selling them on the local flea-market.

What your attorney has (seemingly confusingly) told you about is that they cannot claim publishing copyright.
For example, if you re-recorded The Beatles' Yesterday, they could say 'hold on, this is our artistic idea'... whereas if you recorded the sound of a kick-drum from your 909, Vengeance cannot say 'I wrote that melody'.


... Further to (and separately from) this, many sample libraries have a clause in their terms of acceptance that state that you are not permitted to use the samples to create sample libraries. Read the T&Cs.


As stated earlier though, Vengeance are the most blatant uncleared-sample-rapists that the world has ever known... so... ****-em. *





* Not sure this logic will hold up in court.



.

I'm not sure that recording copyright protects the way you say it does. Take this scenario as an example. Two different parties record the exact same snare drum and claim copyright on it. So who really owns it? Both recordings sound the same so how do you differentiate? How could such a thing possibly hold up in court?

[timbreman]

Taken straight from copyright.gov website.


The copyright law of the United States (title 17 of the United States Code) provides for copyright protection in sound recordings.¹ Sound recordings are
defined in the law as “works that result from the fixation of a series of musical,
spoken, or other sounds, but not including the sounds accompanying a motion
picture or other audiovisual work.” Common examples include recordings of
music, drama, or lectures


So how is a single snare shot or bass drum recording even remotely fitting the definition of something that can legally be copyrighted to begin with?

[Simonator]

Originally Posted by timbreman

I'm not sure that recording copyright protects the way you say it does. Take this scenario as an example. Two different parties record the exact same snare drum and claim copyright on it. So who really owns it? Both recordings sound the same so how do you differentiate? How could such a thing possibly hold up in court?

The recording copyright is owned by the person who facilitated the recording. In other words, the person who paid for the production.

If two people both recorded a 909 snare, they might ostensibly sound the same, but the recordings will have subtle differences made through different A/D converters.

You could say hypothetically that if two people used the same DAW & software drum synth to make a 24bit sample at the exact same level, it might be technically identical... but now you are having a semantic argument and moving away from the main point.

[audioconsult]

Originally Posted by ughbaw

wait...you're creating loops using vengeance samples....to sell as sample loops?

what?

great..cheated cheaters...

but who cares as long there are enough morons to buy such crap

[Skept3k]

Originally Posted by Myrok Rolles

as soon as you change them, they are as good as yours. Change the pitch up, add some fx... chop em.. there is no way for anybody to know.

It's proven that there are techniques used to "watermark" audio files. Sample packs could easily use this technology on their audio samples and no matter what you do to the audio file, the watermark will remain intact. If company's actually do this or not... who knows.

You're talking about taking a Vengeance sample CD, using the included one-shots, to then create your own loops, and sell them on your own sample cd?

[audioconsult]

Originally Posted by Skept3k

You're talking about using Vengeance one-shots, to create your own loops, then sell them on your own sample cd?

sounds like a good idea to me.. especially when he wisely chooses materials they have stolen themself..it gets a bit hard for them to sew him then...

[Skept3k]

Originally Posted by audioconsult

sounds like a good idea to me.. especially when he wisely chooses materials they have stolen themself..it gets a bit hard for them to sew him then...

Yeah, I mean it's impossible to know whether or not Vengeance will sue him.

If he makes thousands of dollars off the CD, I bet you they will take a shot at him.

On the other side, they may never know the CD even exists.

The fact is that Vengeance has all those files on their CD copyrighted. Whether or not someone can prove where they came from... it's hard to tell.

[audioconsult]

Originally Posted by Skept3k

Yeah, I mean it's impossible to know whether or not Vengeance will sue him.

If he makes thousands of dollars off the CD, I bet you they will take a shot at him.

On the other side, they may never know the CD even exists.

The fact is that Vengeance has all those files on their CD copyrighted. Whether or not someone can prove where they came from... it's hard to tell.

as soon you proove that they have stolen just one of the sounds in question themself they most likely loose their case and have all the expenses for the law suit

[soundxplorer]

Originally Posted by Skept3k

It's proven that there are techniques used to "watermark" audio files. Sample packs could easily use this technology on their audio samples and no matter what you do to the audio file, the watermark will remain intact.

I don't think the bolded part is true.

[Skept3k]

Originally Posted by soundxplorer

I don't think the bolded part is true.

I thought that the first time I heard about it, but I believe the technology is there. I wont go into detail, but will give you reading material if you really want the proof :D

Now whether or not it's practical or even used... who knows.. I'm just saying the tech is there.

This is from 1999
Audio Watermarking and Applications

Wiki
Audio watermark detection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More info
http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/Imag...m183-51653.pdf

[Meow]

Originally Posted by Skept3k

I thought that the first time I heard about it, but I believe the technology is there. I wont go into detail, but will give you reading material if you really want the proof :D

Now whether or not it's practical or even used... who knows.. I'm just saying the tech is there.

This is from 1999
Audio Watermarking and Applications

Wiki
Audio watermark detection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More info
http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/en/Imag...m183-51653.pdf

I actually just asked my brother about this and he says it is real and in use by a few major audio software makers, he said you can even email "Fabfilter" and "Tone 2" and they will explain how they do theirs.

He also said that you can get rid of it but it's difficult.

I know nothing about it myself LOL but I sure can yell out questions to the next room

[audioconsult]

Originally Posted by Meow

I actually just asked my brother about this and he says it is real and in use by a few major audio software makers, he said you can even email "Fabfilter" and "Tone 2" and they will explain how they do theirs.

He also said that you can get rid of it but it's difficult.

I know nothing about it myself LOL but I sure can yell out questions to the next room

they really do that with theire audio plugs? :-// i am not so sure if i would like my plug in to add modulations to the sound that dont need to be there...
Or is that just something that happens on hacks?

"Unlike sub-codes, encryption or audio compression, an audio watermark should not rely on any specific format. In order to travel along with the content it protects, the watermark must be carried by the content itself. Embedding an audio watermark is an active modification of the audio waveform. Subsequent to this process, the watermarked audio content becomes a message carrier regardless of the format of medium it lives on."

[gsilbers]

Originally Posted by Simonator

Your confusion lies in the difference between recording copyright & publishing copyright...

Their samples are subject to recording copyright, otherwise there would be nothing to stop you pressing a thousand duplicate copies & selling them on the local flea-market.

What your attorney has (seemingly confusingly) told you about is that they cannot claim publishing copyright.
For example, if you re-recorded The Beatles' Yesterday, they could say 'hold on, this is our artistic idea'... whereas if you recorded the sound of a kick-drum from your 909, Vengeance cannot say 'I wrote that melody'.


... Further to (and separately from) this, many sample libraries have a clause in their terms of acceptance that state that you are not permitted to use the samples to create sample libraries. Read the T&Cs.


As stated earlier though, Vengeance are the most blatant uncleared-sample-rapists that the world has ever known... so... ****-em. *





* Not sure this logic will hold up in court.



.

i would listen to this guy.


sample libraries are pretty specific when they say to not sell samples using their samples in any shape or form.

there are many samples in the vengeance collection that are noticble.


also, vengeance also make loops.. using thier one shot samples.


if your lawyer is a music lawyer then he would not know the specifics of sample copyright as its different. it goes more into software copyright.

and yes, it has to do with the owner of the samples.

the samples are being licensed to you under certain conditions.

eric from spectrasonics for example has been very clear that yes, you can resell used software but not for software like his cause it has sample copyrights... cause he owns the sample recordings.

which falls into the same category that the actual RECORDINGS of the samples belongs to them.

[DeathDub]

I worked with audio watermark technology around 1999. Had the encoder and reader software installed on my computer. Encoding audio files did not affect the quality of the sound. The reader software can only detect watermarks it has the key for. In other words the reader software would not detect other companies watermarks, just ours. I did testing by downsampling and converting to every format I could. The watermarking still worked. Sure the technology has improved a lot.

Back then it was relatively inexpensive to watermark a CD. The cost was $150. Pretty cheap investment for a sample company.

[Edward Long]

I think there is a tendency to exaggeration spread all around this thread, to put it mildly. I had a chance to meet and talk with people that are involved in the "loops industry" (?) and I don't think any of them would know a thing about audio watermarking. Also from discussions I witnessed it appears they all "borrow" from each other and, yes, they do use sometimes the competition's samples with fx to produce their own loop bundles and sell them. Believe it or not most of these people DO NOT work for NASA, CIA or NSA - but might have been abducted by alliens

But then again don't take my word for it, after all it's all hearsay - ask a specialized lawyer.

Cheers

[golden beers]

Originally Posted by Edward Long

I think there is a tendency to exaggeration spread all around this thread, to put it mildly. I had a chance to meet and talk with people that are involved in the "loops industry" (?) and I don't think any of them would know a thing about audio watermarking. Also from discussions I witnessed it appears they all "borrow" from each other and, yes, they do use sometimes the competition's samples with fx to produce their own loop bundles and sell them. Believe it or not most of these people DO NOT work for NASA, CIA or NSA - but might have been abducted by alliens

But then again don't take my word for it, after all it's all hearsay - ask a specialized lawyer.

Cheers

if you're talking about the low end of the sample business, yea you have a point.

however, i have worked in that industry and as far as myself and the professionals i personally know, nothing you say here is true as far as 'the high end' of the spectrum is concerned, I'm talking about the wave alchemy's and the driven machine drum's of the industry. these are people with integrity and talent who do not do that kind of quick buck, cheap shit.

ps i know if i heard my drum hits in someone else's loop library I'de probably want the guys who did that killed.

[Ohx]

I used Vengeance crap in big releases.

Nothing happened.

Vengeance jacked some stuff from some of my releases.

Nothing happened.

I got with a couple guys and made some samples, I betcha somebody else processed or layered them and released them as different samples.

Nothing has happened.

Chill out guys.

And for the record you can blast Vengeance for everything they are or aren't but one of their founders is one of the best sound designers I've ever met, so don't knock the people, knock the output.