The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
COMPOSERS: DO NOT USE SPLICE [Public Service Announcement]
Old 10th July 2019
  #271
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desire Inspires View Post
I am not scared.
Awesome!!

Which is good, because I'm scared enough for both of us. I sincerely hope all my calculations, research and numbers crunching turns out completely wrong!!! I'm hoping that google, youtube, Amazon, Hulu, Netflix and all their type turn out to be humanitarian organizations with musician centric agendas that love and support us and bless us with a meager living.

Cause looking at my calculated and verifiable 94% decrease in long term once sustainable royalties for stuff going over to the streamers is kinda harshing my groove. I mean hell, I'm willing to say that there's a mistake in my calculations and believe that I'm only losing 80% of my income. But hey....

I'm probably just imagining things. Right? Riiiiight. Ok. Better now....

But one thing that worries me is that I keep seeing this huge smelly longhaired thing lurking in the shadows of the room we call an "industry". I checked his nametag when he came out for a drink..... It said something like "Mr. Streaming" on it.... I couldn't get too close though.....

Maybe you have insight?










PS - I have no idea what this has to do with splice, but there are enough red flags that I'd just look elsewhere.
Old 10th July 2019
  #272
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
Yes, you need to say yes that your work contains samples from a Splice. And since it is splice, it would also be good to list the actual creator that made the sample because splice is not really a sample library production company, they are an online marketplace for sample creators. Even their "Splice Sounds" are not really splice, they are still from 3rd parties... they are very similar to a walmart for samples.

As to your 1st question... if you are using a guitar sample from splice, is it ok...

and the answer really is, it depends. How many other guitar parts are in the song? Is the splice loop in the foreground or in the background? Is the splice loop melodic or is it a rhythmic harmony part (i.e. strumming chords)? What other instruments are playing and how many layers does each of those instruments have? Do you have to provide individual instrument mixed stems along with the full mix? And so on...
I think you don’t understand Splice and you’re misrepresenting the risk.

Splice sounds and Splice community are two different things. Everything you say about user generated content and reusing something someone else uploaded is true. But that isn’t Splice Sounds. Splice sounds are not user generated content.

When you download and use a sample from Splice sounds, that is *not* from a random “sample creator” that uploaded a random sample they found or created.

You are confusing the “upload your tracks to share and remix” part (Community) of Splice with Splice Sounds.

When people talk about using Splice, they aren’t talking about using the remixed community tracks.

There is no “upload your own sample to splice for others to download and use” feature in Splice.
Old 10th July 2019
  #273
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsxdsm View Post
I think you don’t understand Splice and you’re misrepresenting the risk.
I can pretty much guarantee you that Etch understands the situation, and is intimately involved with real longstanding companies who are having to legally sift thru the wreckage. He's not some dude in his bedroom with a laptop making beats who wants Splice to be "OK" to use.

Although WTH, for all I know he may very well be banging it out in his bedroom late at night. But during the days, he does also have one of the largest still functioning studio's in LA - which is focused mostly on Library music, and he is intimately involved in music clearance and producing hundreds of tracks a year. Not to mention a writer as well.

Hell, what is it that Etch DOESN'T do? That's the question I want answered!!!
Old 10th July 2019
  #274
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
Although WTH, for all I know he may very well be banging it out in his bedroom late at night.
Uh, might want to rephrase that statement.....
Old 10th July 2019
  #275
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desire Inspires View Post
Uh, might want to rephrase that statement.....
you have a dirty mind DI. Banging out da beats. It's what we do in our bedrooms.

Last edited by drBill; 10th July 2019 at 03:43 AM..
Old 10th July 2019
  #276
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
I can pretty much guarantee you that Etch understands the situation, and is intimately involved with real longstanding companies who are having to legally sift thru the wreckage. He's not some dude in his bedroom with a laptop making beats who wants Splice to be "OK" to use.

Although WTH, for all I know he may very well be banging it out in his bedroom late at night. But during the days, he does also have one of the largest still functioning studio's in LA - which is focused mostly on Library music, and he is intimately involved in music clearance and producing hundreds of tracks a year. Not to mention a writer as well.

Hell, what is it that Etch DOESN'T do? That's the question I want answered!!!
I know who Etch is, and I respect his work and contribution greatly. No disrespect. But he's misinformed.

Splice Sounds and Splice Community are two different things. He is conflating them in his replies throughout this thread. That is wrong. They are fundamentally different.

Using Splice Sounds is the same as using Loopmasters or any other "legacy" Sample CD library. Period.

Splice Community is very different, but when people talk about using Splice, the *are not* talking about Splice Community.

All of what Etch says *totally* applies to Splice Community, but that's not the point.

To be more accurate, Etch should make it clear when his comments apply to Community vs. Sounds. 99% of producers are only exposed to and use the "Sounds" part of Splice. Calling out the risks of using Community content is fine, but to mix in Sounds causes undue fear/uncertainty/doubt.
Old 10th July 2019
  #277
Lives for gear
 
Squawk's Avatar
Here’s a real world example of the ****storm headache that can happen with sample libraries. This is a potential scenario that I think has been mentioned earlier, but is now playing out... it can bite you in the ass.

Beware When Using Sample Libraries
Old 10th July 2019
  #278
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squawk View Post
Here’s a real world example of the ****storm headache that can happen with sample libraries. This is a potential scenario that I think has been mentioned earlier, but is now playing out... it can bite you in the ass.

Beware When Using Sample Libraries
Sure - but that can happen with any Sample library - this thread is about Splice. There is *nothing* different about Splice, other than it's unique pricing/credit model - paying per sample vs. buying an entire library. Obviously if a sample is incorrectly licensed to a library there could be a problem. That can happen anywhere.

The problem I have is that Splice is being singled out, and specifically that the *risk* is being overstated, presumably because Etch and others are equating the "Community" feature of Splice to the Sounds feature - thinking *random* loop creators can upload and distribute samples to Splice Sounds with dubious origins. That is simply not the case.

The risk you take in using Splice is the same risk you take in using any other "traditional" sample library/sample cd/etc. Nothing here is different.
Old 10th July 2019
  #279
Lives for gear
 
Squawk's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsxdsm View Post
Sure - but that can happen with any Sample library - this thread is about Splice. There is *nothing* different about Splice, other than it's unique pricing/credit model - paying per sample vs. buying an entire library. Obviously if a sample is incorrectly licensed to a library there could be a problem. That can happen anywhere.

The problem I have is that Splice is being singled out, and specifically that the *risk* is being overstated, presumably because Etch and others are equating the "Community" feature of Splice to the Sounds feature - thinking *random* loop creators can upload and distribute samples to Splice Sounds with dubious origins. That is simply not the case.

The risk you take in using Splice is the same risk you take in using any other "traditional" sample library/sample cd/etc. Nothing here is different.
Yes, “splicing” a project (a collaborative reworking) is completely different from Splice sounds. The point is, various labels sample libraries are/were (until recently) part of Splice, so the warning remains. WA are not a small operation either. Once it happens, you’re in a potentially bad situation.

I was reading this thread earlier this week, thinking the same thing as you probably. That first, people are confusing two different aspects of Splice, and secondly, exaggerating the potential issues with using Splice sounds, or any other libraries.

My point of view has changed, I received that letter this morning.

Yes, the thread is about Splice, but there is no difference. Any of those WA libraries could have just as easily been available on Splice, as many others are. As someone mentioned, Splice is like the Amazon.com or Walmart 3rd party marketplace to some degree (in terms of distribution).

I have no issue with Splice being singled out specifically, as they are one of the biggest players in the sale of sample libraries. The basic premise of the thread applies to others as well as Splice.
Old 10th July 2019
  #280
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squawk View Post
Yes, “splicing” a project (a collaborative reworking) is completely different from Splice sounds. The point is, various labels sample libraries are/were (until recently) part of Splice, so the warning remains. WA are not a small operation either. Once it happens, you’re in a potentially bad situation.

I was reading this thread earlier this week, thinking the same thing as you probably. That first, people are confusing two different aspects of Splice, and secondly, exaggerating the potential issues with using Splice sounds, or any other libraries.

My point of view has changed, I received that letter this morning.

Yes, the thread is about Splice, but there is no difference. Any of those WA libraries could have just as easily been available on Splice, as many others are. As someone mentioned, Splice is like the Amazon.com or Walmart 3rd party marketplace to some degree (in terms of distribution).

I have no issue with Splice being singled out specifically, as they are one of the biggest players in the sale of sample libraries. The basic premise of the thread applies to others as well as Splice.
No. I disagree. The basic premise of this thread is wrong. First Etch was *rightfully* calling out poor wording in the EULA...WHICH has been since updated, thanks to the hard work of folks on this thread including Etch.

*THEN* despite the derivative work clause being cleared up, the thread derailed into "Splice is just random users uploading their content, so still don't use it!". But that is wrong also.

Now, we are evolving to "All Sample Libraries are bad because WA made a mistake".

No. Just no. The title of this thread is in big bold caps: "COMPOSERS: DO NOT USE SPLICE [Public Service Announcement]" but now we're saying since a single library screwed up (not even on Splice), we still will use Splice as a martyr because it's so large and popular?

Come on. This is just silly. Splice is used by millions of people. This is just fear-mongering at this point. The thread served it's original purpose and called out a real problem with the EULA, but now that that's been fixed, the piling-on against Splice is continuing - not based on fact or any actual issue now.

We can do better as a community here.
Old 10th July 2019
  #281
Lives for gear
 
Squawk's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsxdsm View Post
No. I disagree. The basic premise of this thread is wrong. First Etch was *rightfully* calling out poor wording in the EULA...WHICH has been since updated, thanks to the hard work of folks on this thread including Etch.

*THEN* despite the derivative work clause being cleared up, the thread derailed into "Splice is just random users uploading their content, so still don't use it!". But that is wrong also.

Now, we are evolving to "All Sample Libraries are bad because WA made a mistake".

No. Just no. The title of this thread is in big bold caps: "COMPOSERS: DO NOT USE SPLICE [Public Service Announcement]" but now we're saying since a single library screwed up (not even on Splice), we still will use Splice as a martyr because it's so large and popular?

Come on. This is just silly. Splice is used by millions of people. This is just fear-mongering at this point. The thread served it's original purpose and called out a real problem with the EULA, but now that that's been fixed, the piling-on against Splice is continuing - not based on fact or any actual issue now.

We can do better as a community here.

Agree to disagree. It’s not silly at all. It’s a cautionary tale, something to be aware of if you use commercial sample libraries. The bottom line is, use at your own risk. Splice distributes sample libraries from numerous labels, just like WA Productions. Do you think they really clear all samples themselves? Probably not. They are relying on their partners (such as companies just like WA) to have their legal houses in order and verify that each sample is original.

They have less now that Loopmasters pulled their titles from Splice and parted ways (they were a major content partner) but it’s still something to be aware of. As easily as WA can make “a mistake”, so can any of Splice’s content partners. For all we know, this was the first time it happened to WA. As the demand grows, there’s more potential for things to slip through.

I’m not advocating not using commercial libraries or Splice, but if you do, be aware of the potential problems that can arise at a later date.
Old 10th July 2019
  #282
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Squawk View Post

I’m not advocating not using commercial libraries or Splice, but if you do, be aware of the potential problems that can arise at a later date.
That’s fair. That’s also more nuanced than the thread title: “DO NOT USE SPLICE“
Old 10th July 2019
  #283
Lives for gear
 
Squawk's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsxdsm View Post
That’s fair. That’s also more nuanced than the thread title: “DO NOT USE SPLICE“
Right. It’s not going to cause me to stop using samples on occasion, (and I am also a Splice subscriber), but I’ll take a somewhat more cautious approach. Before receiving that letter this morning, I honestly never even thought that this kind of thing could be an issue. Most people (including myself) just assume that everything is taken care of properly, unfortunately that’s not always the case.
Old 10th July 2019
  #284
Here for the gear
 

So in case **** hits the fan and it turns out the composer is liable.
Would an E&O insurance that covers copyright violations help in this situation?
Or what else can a composer do? (Except not using Samples & Loops)
Old 10th July 2019
  #285
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsxdsm View Post
*THEN* despite the derivative work clause being cleared up, the thread derailed into "Splice is just random users uploading their content, so still don't use it!". But that is wrong also.
Please read the thread and follow the links posted throughout... you are incorrect in this assumption.

Read the thread and you will understand what I'm talking about. A lot of the lawsuits regarding splice IS from sample packs from Splice Sounds, not Splice Community.

Splice approaches people directly to make packs for their Splice Sounds. But their agreement with those creators is almost identical to their agreement with Splice community creators. Even though Splice puts their "name" on Splice sounds, it's all superficial. Under the hood it is really no different than Splice Community. Splice does not claim any ownership or responsibility for any of the sounds you get from Splice Sounds OR Splice community... they pass any and all responsibility through to the original creator. Because of that Splice doesn't do any in-depth copyright infringement checking. Some of the issues that have come up lately are that a creator made sounds FOR Splice Sounds were he was just taking stock Damage presets and calling them his own... and one guy chopped up the soundtrack to a really popular game and released them as loops, saying they were 100% his own creations. This was not from the Splice Community... this was from Splice Sounds... splice threw their hands up and said they are only middle men...they are only a store front... and the copyright holders have to go after the infringers directly... which is complete BS.

From a library standpoint... If you used one of those game loops as the basis for a cue that you then sold to a music library thinking you had 100% of the rights... you now just [email protected]#$ed the music library and yourself... When the game company sees your track in a high profile ad or film/TV placement and the composer for the game and the people at the game company go "wait a minute, that is from our game!!!?!?!!?" And they sue the publishing company... the publishing company is still going to have to pay $10,000 to $50,000 to prove they did nothing wrong... then the game company is going to come after you... and you will have to pay $10,000 in legal fees to prove you thought you have the rights to use it... and then the game company will go after Splice... who then throws their hands up and says "not responsible... talk to the creator"... and then they have to go after the creator who lifted the stuff illegally...

All the while the library and you are out $10's of thousands of dollar... why??? Because both YOU and the library said that you own 100% of the copyright of that work and that it is 100% original. But you have an illegally used sample of another copywriter work in your work... that is illegal and you are liable because you said you owned it 100%. Even though the fraud came from the splice creator... you are still screwed because YOU are now saying it was yours 100% and now you'll have to show, through lawyers, that you had a "royalty free, in-perpetuity license to use this sample in musical compositions...blah, blah, blah..."

You will kill your chances of ever working with that music library again... and if that library knows people at other libraries... most likely word will spread... or when people from that library switch companies and go work elsewhere, that stigma attached to your name will follow. When you cost people 10's of thousands of dollars... they (and their employees involved) tend not to forget it.

So while you are sitting here saying "hey, it's ok... it's 'Splice Sounds', not the "Splice Community'... it's all good..." I am warning you that under the hood it is not. Take my advice worth the grain of salt that it is. Go ahead and write your next magnum opus using all Splice Sounds packs... more power to you. Roll the dice... maybe nothing will happen to you... maybe something will... there is a higher degree of likelihood that you will run into problems using splice at this current time. That is all I'm saying...

Also... just an FYI... squeaky wheel gets the grease. I wouldn't be surprised if after Ehren called them an all these other composers started emailing them right at the same time about this very issue... they finally did something to change it... which is most likely why they changed their EULA. We'll never know for sure... But as we continue to point out the "chinks in the armor" of their agreements, they will hopefully patch them and fix them...

Who knows...maybe in another 3 to 6 months from now Splice will change it's policies and procedures to ensure that no illegally copied material makes it into Splice Sounds... and once they do that, maybe they'll be able to apply that same technique or technology to Splice Community, and then this all becomes moot and is one for the archives.

For the record... I think Splice is a great concept and could be an invaluable tool for music creators. But they kind of jumped into the deep end without thoroughly looking first and have created some problems by doing so. I'm sure they hired an attorney to draft their first agreements... but it didn't seem like they got an attorney that had a lot of experience specifically with music copyright law, it looked more like the type of thing you'd see from a software/dot com IP attorney.

which goes back to one of Donald Passman's golden rules in his book... always hire an entertainment attorney that specifically specializes in what you are looking to do and already has years of experience doing it at a firm and on their own.

anyway... I'm starting to go off on tangents...

You can agree with me or disagree with me. But I am err'ing on the side of caution here. Splice is really trying to fix the holes so that their products work for music creators... most likely in a few years these issues will all be resolved. But I for one, would rather not take the chance right now. Some people out there would... others wouldn't. But just know if you are placing your tracks with music libraries you now have a much bigger legal responsibility for the music you are turning in whether you realize it or not.
Old 10th July 2019
  #286
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
Please read the thread and follow the links posted throughout... you are incorrect in this assumption.

Read the thread and you will understand what I'm talking about. A lot of the lawsuits regarding splice IS from sample packs from Splice Sounds, not Splice Community.

Splice approaches people directly to make packs for their Splice Sounds. But their agreement with those creators is almost identical to their agreement with Splice community creators. Even though Splice puts their "name" on Splice sounds, it's all superficial. Under the hood it is really no different than Splice Community. Splice does not claim any ownership or responsibility for any of the sounds you get from Splice Sounds OR Splice community... they pass any and all responsibility through to the original creator. Because of that Splice doesn't do any in-depth copyright infringement checking. Some of the issues that have come up lately are that a creator made sounds FOR Splice Sounds were he was just taking stock Damage presets and calling them his own... and one guy chopped up the soundtrack to a really popular game and released them as loops, saying they were 100% his own creations. This was not from the Splice Community... this was from Splice Sounds... splice threw their hands up and said they are only middle men...they are only a store front... and the copyright holders have to go after the infringers directly... which is complete BS.

From a library standpoint... If you used one of those game loops as the basis for a cue that you then sold to a music library thinking you had 100% of the rights... you now just [email protected]#$ed the music library and yourself... When the game company sees your track in a high profile ad or film/TV placement and the composer for the game and the people at the game company go "wait a minute, that is from our game!!!?!?!!?" And they sue the publishing company... the publishing company is still going to have to pay $10,000 to $50,000 to prove they did nothing wrong... then the game company is going to come after you... and you will have to pay $10,000 in legal fees to prove you thought you have the rights to use it... and then the game company will go after Splice... who then throws their hands up and says "not responsible... talk to the creator"... and then they have to go after the creator who lifted the stuff illegally...

All the while the library and you are out $10's of thousands of dollar... why??? Because both YOU and the library said that you own 100% of the copyright of that work and that it is 100% original. But you have an illegally used sample of another copywriter work in your work... that is illegal and you are liable because you said you owned it 100%. Even though the fraud came from the splice creator... you are still screwed because YOU are now saying it was yours 100% and now you'll have to show, through lawyers, that you had a "royalty free, in-perpetuity license to use this sample in musical compositions...blah, blah, blah..."

You will kill your chances of ever working with that music library again... and if that library knows people at other libraries... most likely word will spread... or when people from that library switch companies and go work elsewhere, that stigma attached to your name will follow. When you cost people 10's of thousands of dollars... they (and their employees involved) tend not to forget it.

So while you are sitting here saying "hey, it's ok... it's 'Splice Sounds', not the "Splice Community'... it's all good..." I am warning you that under the hood it is not. Take my advice worth the grain of salt that it is. Go ahead and write your next magnum opus using all Splice Sounds packs... more power to you. Roll the dice... maybe nothing will happen to you... maybe something will... there is a higher degree of likelihood that you will run into problems using splice at this current time. That is all I'm saying...

Also... just an FYI... squeaky wheel gets the grease. I wouldn't be surprised if after Ehren called them an all these other composers started emailing them right at the same time about this very issue... they finally did something to change it... which is most likely why they changed their EULA. We'll never know for sure... But as we continue to point out the "chinks in the armor" of their agreements, they will hopefully patch them and fix them...

Who knows...maybe in another 3 to 6 months from now Splice will change it's policies and procedures to ensure that no illegally copied material makes it into Splice Sounds... and once they do that, maybe they'll be able to apply that same technique or technology to Splice Community, and then this all becomes moot and is one for the archives.

For the record... I think Splice is a great concept and could be an invaluable tool for music creators. But they kind of jumped into the deep end without thoroughly looking first and have created some problems by doing so. I'm sure they hired an attorney to draft their first agreements... but it didn't seem like they got an attorney that had a lot of experience specifically with music copyright law, it looked more like the type of thing you'd see from a software/dot com IP attorney.

which goes back to one of Donald Passman's golden rules in his book... always hire an entertainment attorney that specifically specializes in what you are looking to do and already has years of experience doing it at a firm and on their own.

anyway... I'm starting to go off on tangents...

You can agree with me or disagree with me. But I am err'ing on the side of caution here. Splice is really trying to fix the holes so that their products work for music creators... most likely in a few years these issues will all be resolved. But I for one, would rather not take the chance right now. Some people out there would... others wouldn't. But just know if you are placing your tracks with music libraries you now have a much bigger legal responsibility for the music you are turning in whether you realize it or not.
Thank you for the clear and detailed response. I was wrong here. I see your point.
Old 10th July 2019
  #287
Lives for gear
 
Squawk's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
Please read the thread and follow the links posted throughout... you are incorrect in this assumption.

Read the thread and you will understand what I'm talking about. A lot of the lawsuits regarding splice IS from sample packs from Splice Sounds, not Splice Community.

Splice approaches people directly to make packs for their Splice Sounds. But their agreement with those creators is almost identical to their agreement with Splice community creators. Even though Splice puts their "name" on Splice sounds, it's all superficial. Under the hood it is really no different than Splice Community. Splice does not claim any ownership or responsibility for any of the sounds you get from Splice Sounds OR Splice community... they pass any and all responsibility through to the original creator. Because of that Splice doesn't do any in-depth copyright infringement checking. Some of the issues that have come up lately are that a creator made sounds FOR Splice Sounds were he was just taking stock Damage presets and calling them his own... and one guy chopped up the soundtrack to a really popular game and released them as loops, saying they were 100% his own creations. This was not from the Splice Community... this was from Splice Sounds... splice threw their hands up and said they are only middle men...they are only a store front... and the copyright holders have to go after the infringers directly... which is complete BS.

From a library standpoint... If you used one of those game loops as the basis for a cue that you then sold to a music library thinking you had 100% of the rights... you now just [email protected]#$ed the music library and yourself... When the game company sees your track in a high profile ad or film/TV placement and the composer for the game and the people at the game company go "wait a minute, that is from our game!!!?!?!!?" And they sue the publishing company... the publishing company is still going to have to pay $10,000 to $50,000 to prove they did nothing wrong... then the game company is going to come after you... and you will have to pay $10,000 in legal fees to prove you thought you have the rights to use it... and then the game company will go after Splice... who then throws their hands up and says "not responsible... talk to the creator"... and then they have to go after the creator who lifted the stuff illegally...

All the while the library and you are out $10's of thousands of dollar... why??? Because both YOU and the library said that you own 100% of the copyright of that work and that it is 100% original. But you have an illegally used sample of another copywriter work in your work... that is illegal and you are liable because you said you owned it 100%. Even though the fraud came from the splice creator... you are still screwed because YOU are now saying it was yours 100% and now you'll have to show, through lawyers, that you had a "royalty free, in-perpetuity license to use this sample in musical compositions...blah, blah, blah..."

You will kill your chances of ever working with that music library again... and if that library knows people at other libraries... most likely word will spread... or when people from that library switch companies and go work elsewhere, that stigma attached to your name will follow. When you cost people 10's of thousands of dollars... they (and their employees involved) tend not to forget it.

So while you are sitting here saying "hey, it's ok... it's 'Splice Sounds', not the "Splice Community'... it's all good..." I am warning you that under the hood it is not. Take my advice worth the grain of salt that it is. Go ahead and write your next magnum opus using all Splice Sounds packs... more power to you. Roll the dice... maybe nothing will happen to you... maybe something will... there is a higher degree of likelihood that you will run into problems using splice at this current time. That is all I'm saying...

Also... just an FYI... squeaky wheel gets the grease. I wouldn't be surprised if after Ehren called them an all these other composers started emailing them right at the same time about this very issue... they finally did something to change it... which is most likely why they changed their EULA. We'll never know for sure... But as we continue to point out the "chinks in the armor" of their agreements, they will hopefully patch them and fix them...

Who knows...maybe in another 3 to 6 months from now Splice will change it's policies and procedures to ensure that no illegally copied material makes it into Splice Sounds... and once they do that, maybe they'll be able to apply that same technique or technology to Splice Community, and then this all becomes moot and is one for the archives.

For the record... I think Splice is a great concept and could be an invaluable tool for music creators. But they kind of jumped into the deep end without thoroughly looking first and have created some problems by doing so. I'm sure they hired an attorney to draft their first agreements... but it didn't seem like they got an attorney that had a lot of experience specifically with music copyright law, it looked more like the type of thing you'd see from a software/dot com IP attorney.

which goes back to one of Donald Passman's golden rules in his book... always hire an entertainment attorney that specifically specializes in what you are looking to do and already has years of experience doing it at a firm and on their own.

anyway... I'm starting to go off on tangents...

You can agree with me or disagree with me. But I am err'ing on the side of caution here. Splice is really trying to fix the holes so that their products work for music creators... most likely in a few years these issues will all be resolved. But I for one, would rather not take the chance right now. Some people out there would... others wouldn't. But just know if you are placing your tracks with music libraries you now have a much bigger legal responsibility for the music you are turning in whether you realize it or not.

Very well said. That was also the point I was trying to make. The letter I received from the attourneys regarding WA brought it all into perspective for me. In fact, I have to go back and check which library or sample it was, as it's possible that I had even purchased it through Splice. I now have to go back and check a couple of recent tracks that did use some vocal samples, and make sure none of those were used.

It's a pain in the ass to have to go back and unravel things, possibly revisiting a mix or composition, removing samples, remixing, and if it's already been released, dealing with those legal implications. Moving forward, I'll be very selective about any samples used, and doing as much research as possible. More likely, I'll just make my own samples to use.
Old 10th July 2019
  #288
Lives for gear
 

Worth mentioning (again) that composers can find themselves in trouble if they use identifiable loops from any source, not just Splice. There's a variety of issues...content ID, exclusivity, ownership, etc. Best to play it safe.
Old 10th July 2019
  #289
Lives for gear
 
Jeff Hayat's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ehrenebbage View Post
Worth mentioning (again) that composers can find themselves in trouble if they use identifiable loops from any source, not just Splice.
Almost (if not) all sample lib EULAs state that you can not use loops that are completely exposed; that they must be used with other instr.

From the HY EULA:

Loops (continuous repeating compositions that contain only a combination of modified Samples) must be used in a musical context with at least two other instruments or loops that contribute significantly to the composition. The Loop may be an element, but not the entire composition.

The loop(s) however, can be identifiable. As in you can pick out a loop from xyz sample lib co. That does not get one into trouble.

It can be troublesome if a content id system id's a cue incorrectly, but if there are other unique musical elements in unison with the loop, that should, in theory anyway, not be an issue.

Cheers.
Old 10th July 2019
  #290
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Hayat View Post
Almost (if not) all sample lib EULAs state that you can not use loops that are completely exposed; that they must be used with other instr.

From the HY EULA:

Loops (continuous repeating compositions that contain only a combination of modified Samples) must be used in a musical context with at least two other instruments or loops that contribute significantly to the composition. The Loop may be an element, but not the entire composition.

The loop(s) however, can be identifiable. As in you can pick out a loop from xyz sample lib co. That does not get one into trouble.

It can be troublesome if a content id system id's a cue incorrectly, but if there are other unique musical elements in unison with the loop, that should, in theory anyway, not be an issue.

Cheers.
As far as the sample lib co is concerned? Sure. But what about the corporation/music library/some other client who pays a bunch of money for an exclusive track, only to find that the amazing groove or hook element is identical to that in another track(s)?

I use samples every day, I just do my best to make them unidentifiable.
Old 10th July 2019
  #291
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Hayat View Post
Almost (if not) all sample lib EULAs state that you can not use loops that are completely exposed; that they must be used with other instr.

From the HY EULA:

Loops (continuous repeating compositions that contain only a combination of modified Samples) must be used in a musical context with at least two other instruments or loops that contribute significantly to the composition. The Loop may be an element, but not the entire composition.

The loop(s) however, can be identifiable. As in you can pick out a loop from xyz sample lib co. That does not get one into trouble.

It can be troublesome if a content id system id's a cue incorrectly, but if there are other unique musical elements in unison with the loop, that should, in theory anyway, not be an issue.

Cheers.
Great, lucid post, Jeff. You are absolutely right. However, I think this whole loops thing has got to be the most ******** thing ever. I can understand that samples/loops that are used in songs can have additional instruments added to it. But, as stated in my earlier post, Splice also offers loops very specifically geared towards use in movies. Those loops are perfect in and of themselves- for use in movies. If one HAD to add more instruments to it, simply to satisfy the terms of agreement, one would only mess up those great sounding loops.
My post (COMPOSERS: DO NOT USE SPLICE [Public Service Announcement]) gave a good example:
...

They market samples for use in movies...but UNLESS you add another, additional sound to such samples/loops you can NOT use them in a movie. How does this make any sense?
This is akin to going to a store that sells milk and when you buy it they tell you 'you can use it/drink it...but not by itself. You have to add cocoa powder to it...or chocolate syrup because otherwise you'd be using our milk 'in isolation' which is against our terms.
What am I getting wrong here?

And yes, Splice (and similar libraries') loops and samples are most definitely being used by indie film makers in movies. I thought that was the whole point of Splice- using offered cues and samples in music and movies.

The terms of agreement/terms of use of sample loops basically dictate that you have to add something to the loop you want to use (in a movie). It is like taking a perfectly painted house and HAVING to add some blots of red paint to it in some places, just to be 'safe'- and in the process ruining the perfect paint job. That is just plain nonsense and a stupid clause.

Also: if that is the case, how come nobody ever started a sample loop library service where all loops really can be used any way anyone wants, royalty free and with the composers agreeing that their samples can be used any way the library/ customers of the library sees fit, without the chance of filing any legal action? That would be a gap in the market; guaranteed headache free sample loops.
Old 10th July 2019
  #292
Lives for gear
 
Jeff Hayat's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelv03 View Post
This is akin to going to a store that sells milk and when you buy it they tell you 'you can use it/drink it...but not by itself. You have to add cocoa powder to it...or chocolate syrup because otherwise you'd be using our milk 'in isolation' which is against our terms.
Old 10th July 2019
  #293
Lives for gear
 
Jeff Hayat's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ehrenebbage View Post
But what about the corporation/music library/some other client who pays a bunch of money for an exclusive track, only to find that the amazing groove or hook element is identical to that in another track(s)?
So, when you said "in trouble" - you meant clients paying for an exclusive track.... yeah - you have a point there. I actually didn't think of that 'till you mentioned it.

Cheers.
Old 10th July 2019
  #294
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelv03 View Post
How does this make any sense?
This is akin to going to a store that sells milk and when you buy it they tell you 'you can use it/drink it...but not by itself. You have to add cocoa powder to it...or chocolate syrup because otherwise you'd be using our milk 'in isolation' which is against our terms.
What am I getting wrong here?
No, to use your analogy - it means you cannot SELL the milk alone - unmodified. You can drink it all you want - but you cannot SELL it unless you add chocolate syrup, etc..
Old 10th July 2019
  #295
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Hayat View Post
So, when you said "in trouble" - you meant clients paying for an exclusive track.... yeah - you have a point there. I actually didn't think of that 'till you mentioned it.

Cheers.
Yep. Clients paying you for an exclusive track, or licensing a track on an exclusive basis, or another composer using the same key element in an exclusive track even if yours isn't under any such agreement.
Old 11th July 2019
  #296
So are there any sample sites that verify the materials that they sell?
Old 11th July 2019
  #297
Lives for gear
 
Jeff Hayat's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desire Inspires View Post
So are there any sample sites that verify the materials that they sell?
I dunno , but more importantly, I am making me some chocolate milk tomorrow.
Old 11th July 2019
  #298
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Hayat View Post
I dunno , but more importantly, I am making me some chocolate milk tomorrow.
Yes, priorities.
Old 11th July 2019
  #299
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
No, to use your analogy - it means you cannot SELL the milk alone - unmodified. You can drink it all you want - but you cannot SELL it unless you add chocolate syrup, etc..
quoted and highlighted for emphasis.

+1000

too many people do not realize what they are actually doing with music, intellectual property, and SOMEONE ELSE'S intellectual property.
Old 11th July 2019
  #300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squawk View Post
Here’s a real world example of the ****storm headache that can happen with sample libraries. This is a potential scenario that I think has been mentioned earlier, but is now playing out... it can bite you in the ass.

Beware When Using Sample Libraries
this is a great real world example of what I'm talking about...

but in this example, WA Productions is the owner of the infringing material and has to resolve the problem with the product and financially compensate Extreme for the violation.

The way splice is different... they say they aren't responsible for anything and give the contact info they have for the content creator over to the lawyer. So there is never any incentive for Splice themselves to police and do a "deep dive" check on the product they are selling. If they only released sample packs from "reputable" companies that do a lot of vetting and checking on their own, then no problem. But they aren't. Some of what they sell is that. But even on Splice Sounds there are individual content creator "artists" who create directly for Splice. there is no company/publisher there vetting anything the creator creates.

From a marketing standpoint they are trying to be perceived like a traditional source of content no different than an Ilio, EastWest, Big Fish Audio, etc... But behind the scenes/under the hood they are merely operating like a marketplace with no legal responsibilities to the IP they are selling.

When you buy a defective Samsung Phone that catches on fire randomly, and you bought it from Walmart... Is it Walmart's responsibility and negligence that the phone catches on fire or is it Samsung? If you buy a book from Amazon and the book plagiarized another book, is it Amazon's fault or the original publisher of the book? But what if there was no "publisher"? what if amazon just took the unchecked manuscript from a writer and released it themselves? Amazon then becomes the publisher technically, but is not looking at themselves as having the legal responsibility a publisher normally has, because they are just an eMarketplace and are selling the book for the author. But the author isn't a publisher... and Amazon in this scenario is claiming to not be the publisher... so who is legally responsible for checking the work for infringement???

As the consumer, people are assuming Splice is the owner/publisher and has been vetting their material because we think splice is the one producing the material and owns it, but that is not the case. Splice is not vetting any of the material and they are taking material from people that are infringing the copyrights of others and these creators don't realize it's illegal, or do realize it but think they won't get caught.

I've had a composer turn in a track before where the entire main 4 bar acoustic guitar riff was from an Otmar Leibert album. But Otmar is kind of new age/smooth jazz and this track the composer made was more hiphop/urban. When I figured it out and called the composer out on it, he literally said "wow man, I am shocked you caught that. I didn't think anyone would know that track. How did you know that song? You must be some kind of music encyclopedia or something?!!? Damn, well... ok... I'll swap out that guitar with something else..." Uh, no... your done. Don't bother. contract cancelled. Never call me again, thanks!

The composer knew it was an infringement. But he went ahead with it anyway because he thought nobody would notice and he would never get caught!!!... but you know who would definitely notice it when it was used in a famous film, TV show or national/international Ad???? Otmar Leibert, his label and his publisher, that's who!! And you can be sure they would sue like crazy over it (as they rightfully should)!!!

Same goes for sample/loop creators... there are some out there who either don't understand copyright law or just don't care, and think because of what they are doing to a sample or how small the snippet is or because of the part of the song they sampled that they won't get caught. that is why there needs to be some sort of stopgap to check for infringements and stop them before they are ever released. I know from working with guys from Spectrasonics and Big Fish Audio, they do extensive checking of every piece of audio they are preparing to release. That doesn't mean something isn't going to slip past them... but that at least means they will catch a lot, and so the risk of something bad happening (copyright-wise) when using them is low.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump