The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
COMPOSERS: DO NOT USE SPLICE [Public Service Announcement] Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 1 week ago
  #31
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
as a side note... when you go to sign these tracks over to a library, somewhere in the contract it always says something to the effect of "you certify that you own and control 100% of all copyrightable material within all the music referenced in this contract and you have the right to assign the copyright over to other entities..."

It's usually part of the indemnity clause.
This is an important distinction, and I'm not really sure how to make sense of it with the use of any sample or loop product. 100% of sample companies specify that they are granting a license, not ownership. I'd wager that most production music made in the last 10 years has used a sample. By the letter of the law, those samples aren't actually owned by the libraries who commissioned the work. I've taken it for granted that this is understood by everyone involved.
Old 1 week ago
  #32
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
look at what he wrote back to you...



Please notice the...




he tells you you don't have to register it as a derivative work but in the sentence literally right before this he said their samples have to be part of a derivative work... do you not realize he just told you, you have to register it as a derivative work but he himself doesn't understand what that means you he thinks you are fine if you don't. LOL

My lawyer would have a field day with this! Hahahaha
I know. They're using the word 'derivative' in an utterly confusing way.

But...

There is absolutely zero evidence (other than the word 'derivative' in the EULA) that they operate as you describe. The co-founder describes the model as I understand it. The marketing does too. The FAQ and the blog do as well. If there is a requirement to negotiate song splits, their own support staff isn't aware of it.

They've been operating for over 4 years...I would be very, very, very surprised if they are planning a sneaky bait and switch, just waiting for the right moment to cash in on a hit song.
Old 1 week ago
  #33
Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolk martin View Post

the only question that comes to mind is this: Splice appears to have granted YOU a royalty-free license to use the sounds in derivative works.
they actually haven't... Royalty free has nothing to do with copyright. It has to do with reoccurring payments for the copyright. people who post samples to splice STILL RETAIN OWNERSHIP of their samples as stand alone musical compositions. They GRANT an automatic permission for others to use these samples to create derivative works. They do not transfer ownership of the samples to anyone who uses them.

By stating that the permission granted is royalty free... it means that your payment to splice pays for the permission to create the derivative work. You do not have to continually go back and pay the creator of the sample over and over and over each time you create a new derivative work from the same sample. But make no mistake about it, ownership of the sample is never given to the new creator...

please read 5a(iii)...

Quote:
5a(iii) “Splice” means to access, download, use, perform, transmit, display, reproduce, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works of, synchronize, and combine a Track with any other material, in whole or in part, and in any media formats, now known or hereafter created.
And 5a(vi)

Quote:
(vi) “Track” means any User Content you Post that is a musical work or sound recording, including any embodiment of a musical work or sound recording, such as an Ableton Live session file.
and 5a(vii)

Quote:
vii) “Use” means to reproduce, distribute, publicly display, transmit, synchronize, communicate to the public, make available, publicly perform (including by means of digital audio transmissions) on a through-to-the audience basis, create derivative works from, transmit to Third Party Sites, and otherwise use and exploit.
and lastly the most important part... OWNERSHIP... 5b

Quote:
b. We Claim No Ownership. You or a third-party licensor, as appropriate, retain all intellectual property rights to the User Content you Post to the Service. We do not acquire ownership to any User Content Posted to the Service. This also means that you are responsible for protecting any of your rights in your User Content (including any User who violates the license you grant to such other User pursuant to Section 5.h (e.g., a User who Uses a Spliced Track for commercial purposes), and we need not enforce a violation of these Terms by another User as it pertains to your User Content, although we reserve the right to terminate the rights of such Users to use the Service.
So the ownership rights to a sample are never transferred to a new "creator". Which is why everything you create using Splice sounds are derivative works.

Quote:
if you then transfer the rights to YOUR work to third party, does this also transfer the rights to uses the Splice sound royalty free?
good question. It cannot and does not. A royalty free license to create a derivative work literally specifically means that the original copyright owner still owns and controls their original copyrights. You do not have limited power of attorney to transfer their rights for them nor did they sign over those rights to you making you owner of their sample as part of the deal.

Royalty Free has nothing to do with this. royalty free, with the way it is used in this agreement, simply means you do not have to keep going back and paying the original content provider for additional licenses to make additional derivative works of the same sample.
Old 1 week ago
  #34
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehrenebbage View Post
There is absolutely zero evidence (other than the word 'derivative' in the EULA) that they operate as you describe. The co-founder describes the model as I understand it. The marketing does too. The FAQ and the blog do as well. If there is a requirement to negotiate song splits, their own support staff isn't aware of it.
doesn't matter... I refer you to 5b of their agreement...

Quote:
b. We Claim No Ownership. You or a third-party licensor, as appropriate, retain all intellectual property rights to the User Content you Post to the Service. We do not acquire ownership to any User Content Posted to the Service. This also means that you are responsible for protecting any of your rights in your User Content (including any User who violates the license you grant to such other User pursuant to Section 5.h (e.g., a User who Uses a Spliced Track for commercial purposes), and we need not enforce a violation of these Terms by another User as it pertains to your User Content, although we reserve the right to terminate the rights of such Users to use the Service.
That means Splice has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter what they say to you in person... the ownership is still with the sample creator and this clause right here says that the sample create has the right and responsibility to PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS IN THEIR USER CONTENT INCLUDING ANY USERS WHO USE SLICED TRACKS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES!!!!!!!!!!!
Old 1 week ago
  #35
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehrenebbage View Post
This is an important distinction, and I'm not really sure how to make sense of it with the use of any sample or loop product. 100% of sample companies specify that they are granting a license, not ownership. I'd wager that most production music made in the last 10 years has used a sample. By the letter of the law, those samples aren't actually owned by the libraries who commissioned the work. I've taken it for granted that this is understood by everyone involved.
yes but none of those other sample library companies state that any music created needs to be registered as a derivative work. They all claim that the samples become 100% owned by the new composer when used within a musical work. THAT is the distinction. The devil is in the details.

And to your point about big fish... they have had some people take their construction kits and just use them stock and put their names on them as composers. That is why the EULA you posted exists. Their EULA is different for different products they release. And we are keenly aware of that and are always checking to see who used what.

But to further this point in relation to Splice's 5b OWNERSHIP clause... with Splice each content creator retains ownership of their own samples as musical works AND sound recordings. That is different than Big Fish or Spectrasonics or Spitfire where those companies then become owners of the samples. Why is that a distinction? Because the company can say "our policy across the board is this..." and all their products fall within it...

With Splice, they can say whatever they want, they have no bearing on the ownership and what the owners do. It even says so in 5b by stating....

"We do not acquire ownership to any User Content Posted to the Service. This also means that you are responsible for protecting any of your rights in your User Content (including any User who violates the license you grant to such other User pursuant to Section 5.h (e.g., a User who Uses a Spliced Track for commercial purposes),"

So... it is solely up to each creator how tenacious they want to be. Some may not care at all if they are hearing their samples used in national ad campaigns, featured in Film and TV, and on top 40 radio...

but you know what... everybody changes when money is involved, specially a lot of money. So just be prepared to start seeing lawsuits over this or artists going back after the fact to add splice content creators as cowriters just to avoid lawsuits.

Last edited by Etch-A-Sketch; 1 week ago at 08:55 PM..
Old 1 week ago
  #36
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
doesn't matter... I refer you to 5b of their agreement...



That means Splice has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter what they say to you in person... the ownership is still with the sample creator and this clause right here says that the sample create has the right and responsibility to PROTECT THEIR RIGHTS IN THEIR USER CONTENT INCLUDING ANY USERS WHO USE SLICED TRACKS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES!!!!!!!!!!!
You're quoting from a different section of their EULA. They have a whole separate community component to their site, where people can upload tracks and find collaborators. This part of the agreement is in reference to that.

Their 'Splice Sounds' subscription, which is detailed in section 6, is different.

Yes, if you download tracks or sounds from their community user area, you're in danger. If you're getting sounds from their 'Splice Sounds' subscription, it's just like Big Fish Audio (whose EULA reads very much the same).
Old 1 week ago
  #37
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
yes but none of those other sample library companies state that any music created needs to be registered as a derivative work. They all claim that the samples become 100% owned by the new composer when used within a musical work. THAT is the distinction. The devil is in the details.
They don't actually say 'registered as a derivative work'. They say:

"You are free to register a copyright in a derivative work you create using a Sound (“Your Work”)."

Are we splitting hairs over as vs. in? What are we, lawyers? : )

I'm pretty sure they're using 'derivative work' the same way Big Fish Audio does here:

All samples remain the property of Big Fish Audio and are licensed only for use in the creation of a live or recorded performance that includes the licensed samples as part of a derivative musical work created by the licensed end user. This license expressly forbids resale, rental, loan, gift, or transfer of these samples in any format or via any medium, except as part of a derivative musical work. The samples may not be included, whether unmodified or as part of a derivative work, in any sample library or virtual instrument product. If you use this product in the creation of a music library, or music intended to be included in a music library catalog, you cannot use the demonstration mix track files or recreate the demonstration mix track, you can only use the other files to create a derivative musical work.

Based on every shred of public info, marketing, FAQ, founder statements, etc. I've seen, I really don't think they want users to register songs as derivative works. There's just no way that makes sense with their model.
Old 1 week ago
  #38
I'm just letting everyone know as a head's up. You can use them if you want, but don't say I didn't warn you!

In the last week I've now had 3 different libraries tell me they have run into problems that lead back to Splice samples. One library is now pulling any and all tracks that use Splice loops because of it. I wouldn't be surprised if others start following suit.

Use at your own risk.
Old 1 week ago
  #39
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
I'm just letting everyone know as a head's up. You can use them if you want, but don't say I didn't warn you!

In the last week I've now had 3 different libraries tell me they have run into problems that lead back to Splice samples. One library is now pulling any and all tracks that use Splice loops because of it. I wouldn't be surprised if others start following suit.

Use at your own risk.
Point taken.

I'm curious as to why this is Splice-specific though. Legalese aside, isn't it problematic to use an identifiable loop from any source? Are libraries generally ok if someone uses an identifiable loop from somewhere else?

I've always understood the consensus to be that it's ok to use one shots, shaker/tambo loops, etc., but highly frowned upon to use, say, a melodic phrase, distinct vocal part, distinct solo, or really anything that a listener might be able to identify.

Back in my first year writing for tv I worked on a show that wanted tons of 60's era cues. I found a drum loop company that makes legit 60's drum loops and used them a ton on that show. Then I heard the same loops in someone else's cues and it made my stomach turn. Lesson learned. No legal issue, but it's a creative line I don't want to cross.
Old 1 week ago
  #40
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehrenebbage View Post
Point taken.

I'm curious as to why this is Splice-specific though.
Because a sample library company vet's the material they put out. Splice does not. And because splice does not own the content the way other sample library companies do.
Old 1 week ago
  #41
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
Because a sample library company vet's the material they put out. Splice does not. And because splice does not own the content the way other sample library companies do.
I think you might be confused about their services.

Splice Sounds is a curated, vetted, and completely usable collection of samples, just like any other sample company. They commission their own samples and distribute others.

Splice

Splice Community is more like Soundcloud with a sharing/collaboration feature, which is what I think you're concerned about. This is a separate platform and Splice Sounds isn't distributing samples from these users.

Splice
Old 1 week ago
  #42
Hey guys,
This is a really interesting and infuriating topic of discussion, thanks Etch for posting this and educating/starting the discussion. This is crazy that they offer and market this service as royalty free and make it pretty plain and simple on their site. They make the language easy to understand and for all of us composers who aren't lawyers think we are getting a service as advertised. Now after going through this ELUA with a fine tooth comb we all find out that there is a bunch of dodgy wording and possibly more shady **** afoot. This sucks...

Two things i wanted to throw into the ring just for the sake of this convo;

1. KSHMR just got busted for ripping audio off from Mick Gordon and released it on Splice for one of his sample packs. Others also heard Damage samples baked into samples that he released on another pack which would violate ANY ELUA from a sample library ever. So Splice has now allowed for copyrighted material to circulate that would expose its users to copyright violations... this is ****ed up.

2. If I go to splice and grab a sample from one of the many official Audio Imperia libraries that they have on the site, who's ELUA do I need to worry about? I can buy a product from them and be subject to their ELUA but then i can get the same sample off Splice without ever seeing Audio Imperia's ELUA via the Splice site. Who's ELUA wins out?

I find ELUA's to be dodgy in the first place and just started making all my own stuff from scratch... what a ****ing joke all this is. Like all us composers need one more thing to worry about. I thought all these guys offer and sell products to make our life's easier and now all this ****...

I may email them the same thing and see if we get a different response. Maybe they should come here and chime in!?

BTW, what up Ehren! Hope you're doing good

Of course you too Etch! Thanks man!
Old 1 week ago
  #43
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehrenebbage View Post
I think you might be confused about their services.

Splice Sounds is a curated, vetted, and completely usable collection of samples, just like any other sample company. They commission their own samples and distribute others.

Splice

Splice Community is more like Soundcloud with a sharing/collaboration feature, which is what I think you're concerned about. This is a separate platform and Splice Sounds isn't distributing samples from these users.

Good find and distinction made. Etch, do you think this is for the "Splice Community" ELUA and not the "Splice Sounds?"


Of course, regardless of which ELUA Etch is referring too it doesn't change the fact that Pubs/Libraries are having issues and will more than likely totally ban the use of their samples in their catalogs which I don't really blame them for if they are starting to get spooked or feel exposed to violations and headaches.

Etch, Is there any way you can provide more details about the issues you've been hearing about?

Oy What a mess!
Old 1 week ago
  #44
Lives for gear
 
VitaEtMusica's Avatar
 

Yeah, what are the issues libraries are having that go beyond any other sample/loop library? I'm quite confident you are wrong, Derek. Everything you and Ehren have posted from their legalese points to the intention of retaining ownership of the sample itself, nothing else. They are being fast and loose with the term "derivative work," and it's quite possible that's the only thing their lawyer knew what to call it, but it's very clear that they're making a distinction between "Your Work" and "the Sound."

I don't use Splice, but I know many who do. Splice samples are being used in everything from film trailers to commercials to HUGE songs. Anyone who thinks Splice is gonna come knocking asking for a writer's share is just plain wrong. The intent of the service is very, very clear. A company can't say "100% royalty free. Use sounds for anything. They’re cleared for commercial use" then come back and demand money or ownership in "Your Work."

I just don't know what else they can say... Here's what they tell the content providers:

Quote:
For the avoidance of doubt, the rights granted in the preceding sentences of this Section 5.d include, but are not limited to, the right to reproduce sound recordings (and make mechanical reproductions of the musical works embodied in such sound recordings), and publicly perform sound recordings (and the musical works embodied therein), all on a royalty-free basis. This means that you are granting us the right to Use your User Content without the obligation to pay royalties to any third party, including, but not limited to, a sound recording copyright owner (e.g., a record label), a musical work copyright owner (e.g., a music publisher), a PRO, a sound recording PRO (e.g., SoundExchange), any unions or guilds, and engineers, producers or other royalty participants involved in the creation of User Content.
Derek, if Splice or any of it's sample providers come-a-knockin' then you can dance around and say "I told you so!" But until then, this is nothing but a massive sky is falling post. Conspiracy theory to the max.
Old 1 week ago
  #45
Did anyone actually read the terms of use for the sample/loop/sound provider which says:

"d. License Grant From You to Us. Subject to your Splice Settings, you hereby grant us an unrestricted, assignable, sublicenseable, revocable, royalty-free license throughout the universe to Use all User Content you Post to the Service, through any media and formats now known or hereafter developed, for the purposes of (i) advertising, marketing, and promoting the Company and the Service; (ii) sharing information about your User Content with third parties and Third Party Sites, including Users; and (iii) Using your User Content on and through the Service as authorized in these Terms, including, but not limited to, for the purpose of Splicing. You also grant us a royalty-free license to Use your name, image, voice, and likeness as made available by you or on your behalf through the Service in conjunction with advertising, marketing, or promoting you, your User Content, the Company, or the Service. For the avoidance of doubt, the rights granted in the preceding sentences of this Section 5.d include, but are not limited to, the right to reproduce sound recordings (and make mechanical reproductions of the musical works embodied in such sound recordings), and publicly perform sound recordings (and the musical works embodied therein), all on a royalty-free basis. This means that you are granting us the right to Use your User Content without the obligation to pay royalties to any third party, including, but not limited to, a sound recording copyright owner (e.g., a record label), a musical work copyright owner (e.g., a music publisher), a PRO, a sound recording PRO (e.g., SoundExchange), any unions or guilds, and engineers, producers or other royalty participants involved in the creation of User Content. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 5.d, if your User Content is a Track, then we will exercise our rights under this Section 5.d in a manner consistent with the Splice Setting you have chosen for such Track. For example, if you’ve indicated that a Track is Private, then we will exercise the rights to such Track under this Section 5.d in a manner consistent with your intent to keep it private (e.g., not use such Track to advertise, market, and promote the Company and the Service for so long as the Track is set to Private)."

This matters alot.

Last edited by Mechanikproject; 1 week ago at 07:24 AM.. Reason: Makes more sense
Old 1 week ago
  #46
Here for the gear
 

Any idea how this effects sounds.com? The Native Instruments sample website

I dont see the word derivative in their Ts and Cs, I assume we are good to go for them as an alternative. But I agree it looks like the community and the store T and Cs are getting confused a little in this conversation about Splice.

Sounds.com

2.RIGHTS GRANTED

2.1Subject to the restrictions set out in these Terms, we hereby grant you a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, perpetual, worldwide right to use any Audio File you download from the Service solely as incorporated into a musical work created by you (“Your Music”).
2.2You may use the Audio Files as incorporated into Your Music in nearly any work (commercial or non-commercial), including music, sound design, feature films, broadcasting, commercials, industrial, educational videos, multimedia, games, merchandise, and the internet.
2.3With respect to any online exploitation of any Audio File, you agree to use your best efforts to protect and secure your downloaded Audio Files so that they cannot be searched for, downloaded, or otherwise used by non-members.
2.4You may not sell, rent, loan, lend, give, sublicense, or otherwise transfer to anyone the Audio Files other than as incorporated into Your Music or the right to use the Audio Files. This license authorizes only one natural person to license, download and use the Service and download the Audio Files on one or more devices. We reserve the right to limit the number of devices on which you may simultaneously use the Service.
2.5The usage of the Audio Files for the creation of a sound library or as a sound library for any kind of synthesizer, virtual instrument, sample library, sample-based product or other musical instrument is strictly prohibited. Individual samples, sound sets or audio loops may not be distributed (commercially or otherwise) on a standalone basis. Furthermore, the Audio Files may not be repackaged in whole or in part as audio samples, sound libraries or sound effects.
2.6You shall own all intellectual property rights in all Your Music incorporating any of the Audio Files, provided, however, that you shall not own any underlying Audio Files incorporated into Your Music.
Old 1 week ago
  #47
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanikproject View Post
Did anyone actually read the terms of use for the sample/loop/sound provider which says:

"d. License Grant From You to Us. Subject to your Splice Settings, you hereby grant us an unrestricted, assignable, sublicenseable, revocable, royalty-free license throughout the universe to Use all User Content you Post to the Service, through any media and formats now known or hereafter developed, for the purposes of (i) advertising, marketing, and promoting the Company and the Service; (ii) sharing information about your User Content with third parties and Third Party Sites, including Users; and (iii) Using your User Content on and through the Service as authorized in these Terms, including, but not limited to, for the purpose of Splicing. You also grant us a royalty-free license to Use your name, image, voice, and likeness as made available by you or on your behalf through the Service in conjunction with advertising, marketing, or promoting you, your User Content, the Company, or the Service. For the avoidance of doubt, the rights granted in the preceding sentences of this Section 5.d include, but are not limited to, the right to reproduce sound recordings (and make mechanical reproductions of the musical works embodied in such sound recordings), and publicly perform sound recordings (and the musical works embodied therein), all on a royalty-free basis. This means that you are granting us the right to Use your User Content without the obligation to pay royalties to any third party, including, but not limited to, a sound recording copyright owner (e.g., a record label), a musical work copyright owner (e.g., a music publisher), a PRO, a sound recording PRO (e.g., SoundExchange), any unions or guilds, and engineers, producers or other royalty participants involved in the creation of User Content. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Section 5.d, if your User Content is a Track, then we will exercise our rights under this Section 5.d in a manner consistent with the Splice Setting you have chosen for such Track. For example, if you’ve indicated that a Track is Private, then we will exercise the rights to such Track under this Section 5.d in a manner consistent with your intent to keep it private (e.g., not use such Track to advertise, market, and promote the Company and the Service for so long as the Track is set to Private)."

This matters alot.

Derek and others have quoted from this section extensively. It doesn't matter in the context of this convo, because this is not the agreement for content providers for Splice Sounds, it's the Terms of Use for users of their Splice Community features.

Again for the cheap seats: This Terms of Use is not the agreement for Splice Sounds content providers.

And again for those who are just arriving: This Terms of Use is not the agreement for Splice Sounds content providers.

It's confusing at first glance. They're addressing two different services in one document, and it's understandable that one would make the wrong assumption about their business model after seeing this.

There is an entirely separate process to become a Splice Sounds content provider and they have an entirely separate agreement for those folks.

There is absolutely no chance that their plan was to spend 4 years building their subscriber base up to 1.5 million, advertising the service as royalty free, talking to the press about the top 40 tunes made from their sounds, etc., etc., as a sneaky trap to sue producers.

There is no chance that they intend to negotiate song splits and license fees with 1.5 million users. That's just not happening.

One more time:

This Terms of Use is not the agreement for Splice Sounds content providers.
Old 1 week ago
  #48
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehrenebbage View Post
Derek and others have quoted from this section extensively. It doesn't matter in the context of this convo, because this is not the agreement for content providers for Splice Sounds, it's the Terms of Use for users of their Splice Community features.

Again for the cheap seats: This Terms of Use is not the agreement for Splice Sounds content providers.

And again for those who are just arriving: This Terms of Use is not the agreement for Splice Sounds content providers.

It's confusing at first glance. They're addressing two different services in one document, and it's understandable that one would make the wrong assumption about their business model after seeing this.

There is an entirely separate process to become a Splice Sounds content provider and they have an entirely separate agreement for those folks.

There is absolutely no chance that their plan was to spend 4 years building their subscriber base up to 1.5 million, advertising the service as royalty free, talking to the press about the top 40 tunes made from their sounds, etc., etc., as a sneaky trap to sue producers.

There is no chance that they intend to negotiate song splits and license fees with 1.5 million users. That's just not happening.

One more time:

This Terms of Use is not the agreement for Splice Sounds content providers.
Yeah, I'd have to agree.

If Splice did start to sue producers, they would go bankrupt. Most small time composers would settle, but the bigger fish would just drag it out in the courts. I don't think Splice would want that headache.

I totally understand how the copyright law reads and what its intent was. But the technology moves faster than the law does. So I would not freak out if I used Splice sounds. But I wouldn't just use the same sound with no alterations or in isolation.
Old 1 week ago
  #49
Gear Head
Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
yes but none of those other sample library companies state that any music created needs to be registered as a derivative work. They all claim that the samples become 100% owned by the new composer when used within a musical work. THAT is the distinction. The devil is in the details.

And to your point about big fish... they have had some people take their construction kits and just use them stock and put their names on them as composers. That is why the EULA you posted exists. Their EULA is different for different products they release. And we are keenly aware of that and are always checking to see who used what.

But to further this point in relation to Splice's 5b OWNERSHIP clause... with Splice each content creator retains ownership of their own samples as musical works AND sound recordings. That is different than Big Fish or Spectrasonics or Spitfire where those companies then become owners of the samples. Why is that a distinction? Because the company can say "our policy across the board is this..." and all their products fall within it...

With Splice, they can say whatever they want, they have no bearing on the ownership and what the owners do. It even says so in 5b by stating....

"We do not acquire ownership to any User Content Posted to the Service. This also means that you are responsible for protecting any of your rights in your User Content (including any User who violates the license you grant to such other User pursuant to Section 5.h (e.g., a User who Uses a Spliced Track for commercial purposes),"

So... it is solely up to each creator how tenacious they want to be. Some may not care at all if they are hearing their samples used in national ad campaigns, featured in Film and TV, and on top 40 radio...

but you know what... everybody changes when money is involved, specially a lot of money. So just be prepared to start seeing lawsuits over this or artists going back after the fact to add splice content creators as cowriters just to avoid lawsuits.
I agree bit in the arse with YouTube provided royalty free music on airbrush videos I did a while back magically a few years later I was flagged for the music.* The fact any person can turn around and change there mind about a sample they created is nuts.* Why one reason I like hardware for most of my sounds and create my own samples from such.* But what about a galloping bass line for example, saw tooth used by most producers I am sure every note combo has been sampled how does that hold in a copy write situation.* I was looking at using one of these services lately just because I have bought an Octatrack and a tr-8s.* But again it is nice to educate yourself so it does not bite you in the ass down the road.* I will not use splice if they don't own the rights they don't have the control. *They have good intentions but it does not stop the creator that does not have good intentions.* Strange but happy this post came up as I was just doing my homework on splice to see what came up on it.**
Old 1 week ago
  #50
Gear Head
What I interpret what Splice is doing which is covering there ass by saying if a composer breaks there contract that is beyond their control. They are offering no protection just if **** goes south you can't sue us. But the actual composer would technically be in violation. But again if the composer posts samples they have no rights to but a claim is made again it seems like Splice really wants to cover there ass. So it would seem a situation I would not feel comfortable with. What are known good sources for samples where the seller takes responsibility.
Old 1 week ago
  #51
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ_FXall View Post
What I interpret what Splice is doing which is covering there ass by saying if a composer breaks there contract that is beyond their control. They are offering no protection just if **** goes south you can't sue us. But the actual composer would technically be in violation. But again if the composer posts samples they have no rights to but a claim is made again it seems like Splice really wants to cover there ass. So it would seem a situation I would not feel comfortable with. What are known good sources for samples where the seller takes responsibility.
You are looking at the Terms of Use for Splice users, not the agreement for Splice Sounds content creators. They are two different things. Your interpretation is incorrect.
Old 1 week ago
  #52
Gear Head
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ_FXall View Post
What I interpret what Splice is doing which is covering there ass by saying if a composer breaks there contract that is beyond their control. They are offering no protection just if **** goes south you can't sue us. But the actual composer would technically be in violation. But again if the composer posts samples they have no rights to but a claim is made again it seems like Splice really wants to cover there ass. So it would seem a situation I would not feel comfortable with. What are known good sources for samples where the seller takes responsibility.
Ok then what is correct then if I use a sample in my work can I sign the rights over to said work as a combination not a sample. And if it is brought up as that sample comes back for any reason will Splice take responsibility as long as it is not a private sample not designated for commercial work.
Old 1 week ago
  #53
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ_FXall View Post
Ok then what is correct then if I use a sample in my work can I sign the rights over to said work as a combination not a sample. And if it is brought up as that sample comes back for any reason will Splice take responsibility as long as it is not a private sample not designated for commercial work.
I can't speak for Splice, but they market themselves as a royalty free source of samples for use in private and commercial projects and their license grants perpetual use of the sounds downloaded via their Splice Sounds subscription.
Old 1 week ago
  #54
Gear Maniac
 

This is getting messier than Brexit...
Old 1 week ago
  #55
So I wrote in last night to see if I’d get a different response and this is what she wrote back:

Thanks for writing in. As mentioned in our terms and in the forum you linked you have a broad royalty-free license for every sample that you download from Splice Sounds to use for commercial and non-commercial uses. This means you can use, reuse, remix, and otherwise modify and mangle downloaded samples in any of your productions.

All works that use copyrighted material need to be registered as a derivative work and the work you're licensing needs to receive a split of royalties or a lump sum fee (in some cases) based on the license you've received to use the copyrighted material. Since you've received a royalty-free license, you don't need to payout the copyright owner or the third party supplier of the sample (Splice).

With some libraries, the tricky thing about them is they usually require the creators of a track to upload either the stems for the works you create or the project template. In our terms, we express that you're not allowed to provide the sample in isolation, which providing the stems or project template to another entity would violate these terms (sample in question could be accessed in isolation).

Please let us know if you have anymore questions!


Do we have anymore questions?

Last edited by clearside; 1 week ago at 07:03 PM..
Old 1 week ago
  #56
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by clearside View Post
So I wrote in last night to see if I’d get a different response and this is what she wrote back:

Thanks for writing in. As mentioned in our terms and in the forum you linked you have a broad royalty-free license for every sample that you download from Splice Sounds to use for commercial and non-commercial uses. This means you can use, reuse, remix, and otherwise modify and mangle downloaded samples in any of your productions.

All works that use copyrighted material need to be registered as a derivative work and the work you're licensing needs to receive a split of royalties or a lump sum fee (in some cases) based on the license you've received to use the copyrighted material. Since you've received a royalty-free license, you don't need to payout the copyright owner or the third party supplier of the sample (Splice).

With some libraries, the tricky thing about them is they usually require the creators of a track to upload either the stems for the works you create or the project template. In our terms, we express that you're not allowed to provide the sample in isolation, which providing the stems or project template to another entity would violate these terms (sample in question could be accessed in isolation).

Please let us know if you have anymore questions!


Do we have anymore questions?
The way she worded it might lead someone to believe they need to register works using Splice sounds as derivative works. I'd ask her to clarify. If that is the case, what is the protocol for identifying copyright holders?

My reading of her response is that it's not the case...I think she was describing the usual process for derivative works and explaining that Splice users need not register them as such.

I'll repost the response I got for the same question:

"This is not saying that you'd need to register as a derivative work, it's saying you may not (i) use the Sounds in isolation as sound effects or as loops, (ii) use Sounds in a manner competitive to Company or its licensors, or (iii), sell, loan, share, lend, broadcast, rent, lease, assign, distribute, or transfer all of the Sounds to a third party."
Old 1 week ago
  #57
Yes Ehren,
I had to read it twice as she worded it all confusing like, but she was explaining that’s the normal process for obtaining a sample clearance license.

SPLICE you have been issued a royalty free license and do not need to pay anyone.
Old 1 week ago
  #58
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by clearside View Post
Yes Ehren,
I had to read it twice as she worded it all confusing like, but she was explaining that’s the normal process for obtaining a sample clearance license.

SPLICE you have been issued a royalty free license and do not need to pay anyone.
Yep. This entire thread is based on a misunderstanding of their service.

Derek is under the impression that the Community user upload/share feature (as referenced in section 5 of their Terms of Use) is supplying Splice Sounds with sounds. If he were correct he'd have every reason to ring the alarm.

That's not the case. Splice Sounds operates just like any other sample company, and it's ok to use them to whatever degree you're comfortable using loops.

Of course there is the potential for abuse and publishers might want to avoid composers who use identifiable loops (for good reason), but Splice is not any different from any other sample distributor.
Old 1 week ago
  #59
Gear Addict
 

I should add:

For those who don't know him, Derek is an industry veteran and has an expert understanding of contracts and copyright law. 9.9 times out of 10 I'd defer to his opinion. In this case, he's mistaken...not about copyright law or licenses, but which part of the Splice service is being discussed in their Terms of Use.

I fully suspect that if Splice made their Splice Sounds content provider agreement available to review, he'd look at it and say "Oh yeah, that's just like every other sample distributor."
Old 1 week ago
  #60
Quote:
Originally Posted by clearside View Post

SPLICE you have been issued a royalty free license and do not need to pay anyone.
Its not about paying someone...it's about ownership and control and who has the authority to assign that ownership and control over to other entities.

I apologize that i can't go into specifics. NDAs prohibit me from stating specifics to the 3 cases that have come up. But I will just say, the mess this has created here in this thread is exactly why there is a problem. Companies that have to pay $10,000 in legal fees to sort out this sort of mess will rather just avoid it in the first place than have to spend the money.

You guys can use Splice as much as you want... but don't say I didn't warn you!
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
sigment / Electronic Music Instruments and Electronic Music Production
0
phoenstorm / Post your electronic music here
0
nuthinupmysleeve / So much gear, so little time
0
Igotsoul4u / Music Computers
1
David R. / Gear free zone - shoot the breeze
4

Forum Jump
Forum Jump