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
  #61
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehrenebbage View Post
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.
Hate to break it to you buddy but a contract is a contract... everything preceding a clause in a contract effects that clause and everything after it.

Notice they specifically DO NOT state anything about ownership is section 6???? why is that? If the ownership of the Subscription sounds is different than that of the user community then they have to state it. They do not.

Again... this is why I said my lawyer would have a field day with this.

If the subscription service were subject to a different set of rules, then it would have a completely separate EULA. It does not... it is added as section 6, after section 5 which talks about ownership of the samples. Section 5 is APPLIED to section 6 since they are part of the same contract unless there is a clause that specifically excludes it, which there is not.

Hey, you can use Splice all you want. If you want to take that risk go ahead... but don't be surprised if you start seeing things like "ABSOLUTELY NO SAMPLES FROM SLICE.COM" in composer agreements you start getting from some of the companies you write for.

Companies aren't going to care if there are a separate set of rules for one side of their business versus the other... they aren't going to want to pay the $1000's to $10,000's of dollars in legal fees to sort all that out. They are just going to avoid it all together and move on.

Even if legally in court the library could win... they'd have to pay $50,000 in legal fees to prove they were right... and in that case they've already lost. Even if you may be on the right side of the law, the money it would take to prove it outweighs just avoiding the situation all together.

And like i've said... 3 instances in the last week people have told me about. and now DX_FXall is the 4th instance I've heard where a problem arose with Splice. so now that is 4 instances.

If there was a dispute over a song you wrote that YOU licensed to ABC/Disney... do you want to be the one to have to walk in and tell them they have to pull the track YOU told them was 100% cleared even though it wasn't and is technically a derivative work of someone else's copyright? Do you know what that does to how the staff at ABC/Disney is going to look at you... do you know how much money it is going to cost them to go back, and re-edit music into a show that has already aired and may even already be syndicated?

Or your track and someone else's track sound identical and Tunesat, Soundmouse, BMAT, etc all flag the track as belonging to both of you... and then the network (like ABC/Disney for example) is stuck in the middle of a legal battle between the two catalogs that released the tracks that both feature the same sample... only to find out that NEITHER catalog can claim it because the rights technically belong to someone else and these tracks were fraudulently registered as original works when they were actually derivative works... and so then the network black lists both of your companies and just pulls ALL of your music off their internal servers so the network will never have to be sucked into this kind of dispute again...

At the end of the day... it doesn't matter what is technically right or wrong... it's all about confusion and the amount of effort it is going to take to clear it up... and how much of a pain in the butt it is for all parties involved to clear it up.

This is exactly the reason why the networks stopped using non-exclusive libraries to begin with. It has nothing to do with if you have to pay again... it's about who has the right and authority to control and issue the license. In a derivative work, YOU do not. You only have that right over the stuff you added, not over the entire work.

So go ahead, take the chance and roll the dice... And when a catalog says "no Splice" and you send them a long email about trying to explain the difference between splice sounds and the splice community service and how they should allow splice sounds but not splice community sounds, take a guess what their answer is going to be?
Old 1 week ago
  #62
Quote:
Originally Posted by clearside View Post
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.
Are his sample packs on Splice Sounds or the Splice Community?
Old 1 week ago
  #63
Quote:
Originally Posted by clearside View Post

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?
Exactly... technically since the only mention of ownership on Splice says they do not own anything and all ownership goes back to the original creators then the Audio Imperia EULA still stands.


Quote:
I may email them the same thing and see if we get a different response. Maybe they should come here and chime in!?
Just realize, even if they chime in it doesn't matter. They need to rewrite their EULA and post it publicly for anything to change. An email from an employee or a post on an online public forum from an employee does not change what the EULA says and the confusion it creates.

Maybe if they come here and read this they will go back to their attorneys and try to rewrite the EULA so as to make it more clear. But without taking ownership of the samples themselves, they really can't say anything other than what they already say. I guess they could try and say that by posting sounds you are offering them as buyout when used in a music work, or something like that.
Old 1 week ago
  #64
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
Hate to break it to you buddy but a contract is a contract... everything preceding a clause in a contract effects that clause and everything after it.

Notice they specifically DO NOT state anything about ownership is section 6???? why is that? If the ownership of the Subscription sounds is different than that of the user community then they have to state it. They do not.

Again... this is why I said my lawyer would have a field day with this.

If the subscription service were subject to a different set of rules, then it would have a completely separate EULA. It does not... it is added as section 6, after section 5 which talks about ownership of the samples. Section 5 is APPLIED to section 6 since they are part of the same contract unless there is a clause that specifically excludes it, which there is not.

Hey, you can use Splice all you want. If you want to take that risk go ahead... but don't be surprised if you start seeing things like "ABSOLUTELY NO SAMPLES FROM SLICE.COM" in composer agreements you start getting from some of the companies you write for.

Companies aren't going to care if there are a separate set of rules for one side of their business versus the other... they aren't going to want to pay the $1000's to $10,000's of dollars in legal fees to sort all that out. They are just going to avoid it all together and move on.

Even if legally in court the library could win... they'd have to pay $50,000 in legal fees to prove they were right... and in that case they've already lost. Even if you may be on the right side of the law, the money it would take to prove it outweighs just avoiding the situation all together.

And like i've said... 3 instances in the last week people have told me about. and now DX_FXall is the 4th instance I've heard where a problem arose with Splice. so now that is 4 instances.

If there was a dispute over a song you wrote that YOU licensed to ABC/Disney... do you want to be the one to have to walk in and tell them they have to pull the track YOU told them was 100% cleared even though it wasn't and is technically a derivative work of someone else's copyright? Do you know what that does to how the staff at ABC/Disney is going to look at you... do you know how much money it is going to cost them to go back, and re-edit music into a show that has already aired and may even already be syndicated?

Or your track and someone else's track sound identical and Tunesat, Soundmouse, BMAT, etc all flag the track as belonging to both of you... and then the network (like ABC/Disney for example) is stuck in the middle of a legal battle between the two catalogs that released the tracks that both feature the same sample... only to find out that NEITHER catalog can claim it because the rights technically belong to someone else and these tracks were fraudulently registered as original works when they were actually derivative works... and so then the network black lists both of your companies and just pulls ALL of your music off their internal servers so the network will never have to be sucked into this kind of dispute again...

At the end of the day... it doesn't matter what is technically right or wrong... it's all about confusion and the amount of effort it is going to take to clear it up... and how much of a pain in the butt it is for all parties involved to clear it up.

This is exactly the reason why the networks stopped using non-exclusive libraries to begin with. It has nothing to do with if you have to pay again... it's about how has the right and authority to control and issue the license. In a derivative work, YOU do not. You only have that right over the stuff you added, not over the entire work.

So go ahead, take the chance and roll the dice... And when a catalog says "no Splice" and you send them a long email about trying to explain the difference between splice sounds and the splice community service and how they should allow splice sounds but not splice community sounds, take a guess what their answer is going to be?

Well, I have some more info. We're both right.

First, Splice has a totally separate agreement with the sample labels and artists who create the sample packs for Splice Sounds. When you download sounds from Splice Sounds, you are not downloading from the users music being discussed in section 5 of their ToU. You are downloading fully vetted and cleared samples. No question about it. The whole song split/license negotiation clusterf*ck is not going to happen, ever.

You are still mistaken about this aspect. Their Terms of Use are confusing, but I'm certain that section 5 doesn't refer to the Splice Sounds catalog.

Now, for my admission of error...

Users are required to register songs using Splice Sounds as derivative works. Holy cow. You are correct about this...I triple checked with their service rep and she confirmed it in no uncertain terms.

So, in spite of the fact that there is no need to negotiate splits or license fees, and there is no need to worry about the legality of using their samples, they do require registration as derivative works.

That alone is enough for me to tuck my tail between my legs and second your suggestion to stay away.

Last edited by ehrenebbage; 1 week ago at 07:02 PM..
Old 1 week ago
  #65
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?
BINGO!!! I rest my case...
Old 1 week ago
  #66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
Are his sample packs on Splice Sounds or the Splice Community?
Splice Sounds.

Etch, I totally get where your concern and caution is coming from and totally heed the warning on my end.

I certainly don't ever blame a library from staying away from certain sample and software companies as nobody wants a mess like this on their hands. I personally stay away from Omnisphere because their ELUA freaks me out.

I think exorcising caution and understanding how all this works and its possible pitfalls is such a great topic and worth all of our time contemplating, discussing and debating about.

Bottom line, your library/clients say "Don't use Splice" don't use Splice! Not that big of a deal. With that being said, thats all fine and well when considering the future...
Old 1 week ago
  #67
Holy ****, my head is going to explode....

So whats the bottom line here?
Old 1 week ago
  #68
Lives for gear
 
VitaEtMusica's Avatar
 

I just don't see how this is different than any other sample library out there. Again, and again, and again:

------
c. Ownership. You are free to register a copyright in a derivative work you create using a Sound (“Your Work”). However, you do not own the copyright in the Sound, and if you submit a takedown notice to any third party sites for Your Work, then you are responsible for ensuring that such takedown notice is not being issued for a different work on the basis that the different work includes the same Sound. Submitting a takedown notice in violation of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (the “DMCA”) may subject you to liability for damages under Section 512(f) of the U.S. Copyright Act.------

Also from their website...

------
Using royalty-free samples
Copyright is obviously not an issue when you record musical instruments or make your own field recordings, but what about when you use existing material? You would usually need to get the owner’s permission to use their audio, usually in the form of a license. In addition, you might be required to pay a “royalty” (a fee) for every time the audio is featured in your project, as well as for each time your track is played on a radio station or in a club. If you think this would require a lot of work and money, you’d be right. This is where royalty-free samples come into play!

When you purchase a royalty-free sample library, you also get a comprehensive license that allows you to use the included samples in your music without having to pay any additional royalty fees. These sounds are now free for you to use in any personal or commercial music project! By removing the risk and hassle associated with re-using copyrighted material, royalty-free samples allow producers to focus completely on the creative process and make some truly innovative music.------

It doesn't state or even infer anywhere that you have to give the creator of the sound a writer credit when registering a copyright or even a piece of the master recording ownership. It says you don't own that sample, just like every other sample library on earth. You don't own them, you license them in perpetuity and without obligation to pay or credit the sample owner anything beyond the initial license fee. That's the deal... as long as they're used in your own composition.

When they say a composition using a Splice sound doesn't need to pay any amount of royalties from a radio station or PRO, then you can't technically call it a derivative work (which they are doing), unless they want you to list yourself as 100% writer and the sample creator as 0%, which is never stated anywhere. A derivative work by its very nature requires an agreement in regard to both copyright and the SR/Master shares. Can anyone show me anything, anywhere in the Splice universe instructing users to negotiate this kind of clearance? Nowhere are they asking for a share of your writer's or the master.

I personally think the bit about bouncing stems being a violation of terms is ludicrous as that's the very nature of multitrack production.

Truth- as far as Splice users go, there are much bigger fish to fry than any composer here. When Splice executes their evil plan, you'll hear about their troubles first. Out of over 1.5 million users, has anyone heard of anyone having trouble using these samples as they would any other sample library besides Derek?

Derek, you have an NDA to not discuss other company's problems? Or are the 3 libraries you're talking about distributed by Megatrax? We distribute over 100 catalogs of music in the US alone and I've not heard anything regarding Splice troubles... yet. If you know something about the nature of these problems, why not share at least the basics of what is happening? Are Splice content providers or Splice themselves showing up asking for ownership? Or is this a case of mistaken identity just like everyone using the same 10 Stylus RMX loops?

Don't mean to sound snarky (though I'm quite sure I do!), but I'm just not buying any of this.
Old 1 week ago
  #69
Quote:
Originally Posted by clearside View Post
Splice Sounds.
So much for vetting! Doh!
Old 1 week ago
  #70
Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaEtMusica View Post
I just don't see how this is different than any other sample library out there. Again, and again, and again:
Every other sample library the company assumes ownership and control of the samples. With splice the user who created the samples still owns and controls it... Splice has basically absolved themselves from any issues dealing with ownership. So now you are dealing with 10's of thousands of owners who can at any time decide to flip the switch and start policing their tracks. And if you didn't list the track as a derivative work you are technically in violation of the license they granted you, regardless of what Splice says because splice is just a middle man and does not actually own any of it.

Let me ask you this... can you sign a work-for-hire agreement for a track that contains copywritten material from someone else, and in the license you got from that person for that copywritten material it specifically states that you have to list this work as a Derivative Work and list the original owner as co-owner?
Old 1 week ago
  #71
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
Every other sample library the company assumes ownership and control of the samples. With splice the user who created the samples still owns and controls it... Splice has basically absolved themselves from any issues dealing with ownership. So now you are dealing with 10's of thousands of owners who can at any time decide to flip the switch and start policing their tracks.
You are wrong about this.

There is no question that a Splice Sounds license is perpetual, and that their Splice Sounds catalog is fully cleared and vetted. I don't know how else to say it. Section 5 of their ToU refers to the community feature, where Splice members can upload their tunes and collaborate. Splice Sounds is a separate source of sounds altogether, and it has a separate entry in their ToU.
Old 1 week ago
  #72
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ_FXall View Post
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.*

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaEtMusica View Post
Are Splice content providers or Splice themselves showing up asking for ownership? Or is this a case of mistaken identity just like everyone using the same 10 Stylus RMX loops?
did you not read the post from DJ_FXall?

Sorry, i can't talk about the other ones. 3 incidents across two different catalogs. That's all I can say. None were owned by MX (we try to be as strict as possible with this stuff so as to avoid this sort of thing anyway).'

I will say that the issues are not involving drum loops or one shots, but samples of melodies and melodic passages from Splice that composers assumed they could "own" because of the "royalty-free" license they were given by Splice and the owners of the content through splice.

just a reminder to everyone... the ONLY thing that is copyrightable in a musical composition is the MELODY. It doesn't matter how many hi hats or snare drums or kick drums you layer on top of it... Melodic lines and the sound recordings of those melodic lines are copyrightable, and with splice they are not transferred to you with the license. It is a license. period. you cannot sign over the rights to the samples as your own if you only have a royalty free license and that license states you need to register your new work as a derivative of the original sample.

Here's the other kicker... what if you take a melody from one splice sample kit, a guitar riff from another splice kit, and a then put two drum loops from other splice kits...

you now how a composition that you own none of the content in and have to list it as a derivative work of all it's components... then you and all the content creators get to fight over how much of a percentage you should all take...

and you can never sign it over in a work-for-hire since you don't own and control 100% of it.

Yay!
Old 1 week ago
  #73
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaEtMusica View Post
I just don't see how this is different than any other sample library out there. Again, and again, and again:

------
c. Ownership. You are free to register a copyright in a derivative work you create using a Sound (“Your Work”). However, you do not own the copyright in the Sound, and if you submit a takedown notice to any third party sites for Your Work, then you are responsible for ensuring that such takedown notice is not being issued for a different work on the basis that the different work includes the same Sound. Submitting a takedown notice in violation of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (the “DMCA”) may subject you to liability for damages under Section 512(f) of the U.S. Copyright Act.------
It's the 'derivative work' part that hangs me up. I'm not sure why Derek is still unclear about the rest, but he's right about this.

Last edited by ehrenebbage; 1 week ago at 07:08 PM..
Old 1 week ago
  #74
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehrenebbage View Post
Also, I called Big Fish Audio and was told that they require users to register 'derivative work' copyrights.
who did you talk to? I know their VP of Production and A&R and have talked to him about this extensively.
Old 1 week ago
  #75
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
who did you talk to? I know their VP of Production and A&R and have talked to him about this extensively.
Are there any VPs you don't know?
Old 1 week ago
  #76
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
just a reminder to everyone... the ONLY thing that is copyrightable in a musical composition is the MELODY.
I hadn't thought about this point...So how can they require registration as a derivative work if you're only using drum one shots?
Old 1 week ago
  #77
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
who did you talk to? I know their VP of Production and A&R and have talked to him about this extensively.
Didn't get his name. Their license uses language very similar to Splice's, and when I called to clarify he said "yes, you should register as a derivative work".
Old 1 week ago
  #78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehrenebbage View Post
You are wrong about this.

There is no question that a Splice Sounds license is perpetual, and that their Splice Sounds catalog is fully cleared and vetted.
If it's fully cleared and vetted then how is there problems with KSHMR? How could he use audio from Mick Gordon as well as from Damage without permission if it's all vetted and cleared?
Old 1 week ago
  #79
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehrenebbage View Post
Didn't get his name. Their license uses language very similar to Splice's, and when I called to clarify he said "yes, you should register as a derivative work".
well then they are getting added to the list and I'll call Steven over there for clarification.

In the past you only had to list them as derivative if you were making another sample library with it or if you made a musical composition that had less than 3 other original musical elements on top. I've sent many compositions over to them for approval (as use as an original composition and not a derivative work) over the years and have never had a problem.

If they changed it then so be it. No BFA anymore either.
Old 1 week ago
  #80
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
If it's fully cleared and vetted then how is there problems with KSHMR? How could he use audio from Mick Gordon as well as from Damage without permission if it's all vetted and cleared?
The same way music libraries, labels and publishers occasionally miss a composer or producer who uses uncleared samples?


Also, KSHMR didn't admit to stealing sounds. He says he got too close with his own sound design. Splitting hairs, but that's what he said.


Splice has a different process for acquiring sounds for their Splice Sounds library. I'll say again that section 5 of the ToU is in reference to something entirely different.
Old 1 week ago
  #81
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehrenebbage View Post
I hadn't thought about this point...So how can they require registration as a derivative work if you're only using drum one shots?
the copyright on the sound recording.

There are always two copyrights for every recording. One for the underlying work (if there is one) and one for the sound recording. A publishing company would control the underlying work, a record label would control the sound recording.
Old 1 week ago
  #82
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
the copyright on the sound recording.

There are always two copyrights for every recording. One for the underlying work (if there is one) and one for the sound recording. A publishing company would control the underlying work, a record label would control the sound recording.
If there is an issue with the composition and the sound recording copyright, what was your point re: melodies?
Old 1 week ago
  #83
What does this mean, exactly?
Quote:
You may not (i) use the Sounds in isolation as sound effects or as loops
For example, if you start up a song with a few bars of just their loop, or drop other instrumentation for a few bars exposing just their loop, does that violate the EULA?
Old 1 week ago
  #84
Lives for gear
 
Jeff Hayat's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jweisbin View Post
What does this mean, exactly?


For example, if you start up a song with a few bars of just their loop, or drop other instrumentation for a few bars exposing just their loop, does that violate the EULA?
Yes.
Old 1 week ago
  #85
Lives for gear
 
jimmydeluxe's Avatar
this is...eye-opening.

What about Noiiz?
Old 1 week ago
  #86
Gear Addict
 

No idea about anyone else.

Here's a transcript from my chat with their customer service rep:

(06:50:28) ehren ebbage: Thanks. First, do the Terms of Use refer to content creators for Splice Sounds?

(06:52:19) Abbie: Terms of use are directed towards users of the platform. When a sample label, artist, or sound designer creates content for our platform, we create an individualized contract with them to provide their content via Sounds which allows us to provide the content royalty-free while still paying out the creators. Last year we paid $10 million to content providers.

(06:54:26) ehren ebbage: Thanks, and congrats! Second, the use of the term 'derivative work' in the Terms of Use is confusing. Can you confirm that users are NOT required to register songs using Splice Sounds as 'derivative works'?

(06:57:24) Abbie: So to clarify what the term 'derivative work' means is a work that uses copyrighted material in a new original work. Because you're using copyrighted content that does not belong to you, you do need to register the work as a derivative work. However because the license granted to you allows you to use the work without needing to pay out any royalties if used for commercial purposes, you don't need to create a split with the copyright owner or third party distributor of the samples you use.
Old 1 week ago
  #87
Lives for gear
 
VitaEtMusica's Avatar
 

Two suggestions here-

1- Let's get Steve Martocci on here and ask him directly whether or not a composer is required to register any original composition as a derivative work. And if so, do they require any share of the writing or master? Do they have a section on the website dedicated to contacting and working out deals between the content providers and the 1.5 Million users x a billion samples they're using?

2- Until someone goes after Demi Lovato and Oak Felder for "Sorry Not Sorry," I'm not sure anyone should be worrying too much about this.
Old 1 week ago
  #88
Lives for gear
 
VitaEtMusica's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ehrenebbage View Post
No idea about anyone else.

Here's a transcript from my chat with their customer service rep:

(06:50:28) ehren ebbage: Thanks. First, do the Terms of Use refer to content creators for Splice Sounds?

(06:52:19) Abbie: Terms of use are directed towards users of the platform. When a sample label, artist, or sound designer creates content for our platform, we create an individualized contract with them to provide their content via Sounds which allows us to provide the content royalty-free while still paying out the creators. Last year we paid $10 million to content providers.

(06:54:26) ehren ebbage: Thanks, and congrats! Second, the use of the term 'derivative work' in the Terms of Use is confusing. Can you confirm that users are NOT required to register songs using Splice Sounds as 'derivative works'?

(06:57:24) Abbie: So to clarify what the term 'derivative work' means is a work that uses copyrighted material in a new original work. Because you're using copyrighted content that does not belong to you, you do need to register the work as a derivative work. However because the license granted to you allows you to use the work without needing to pay out any royalties if used for commercial purposes, you don't need to create a split with the copyright owner or third party distributor of the samples you use.
So, on ASCAP, this requires providing the name of the sample and the creator of the sample. But you don't have to assign that sample creator any share of writers or publishing. And Splice is giving you perpetual clearance on the sample in your master. I'm sure BMI has something similar (too lazy to look) like checking a box if the piece is derivative or uses a sample. Sooo.... what's the problem?

The nitty gritty of it is that Derek is saying sample creators can change their minds about their deal with Splice... but that's not what the agreement says. I don't think the content provider can wiggle out of the deal on a whim. IF this is the only concern, someone will go to court... and once they do and they get a verdict, well then precedent will be set. We'll see whether Splice's contract with sample creators is binding or not.
Old 1 week ago
  #89
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaEtMusica View Post
So, on ASCAP, this requires providing the name of the sample and the creator of the sample. But you don't have to assign that sample creator any share of writers or publishing. And Splice is giving you perpetual clearance on the sample in your master. I'm sure BMI has something similar (too lazy to look) like checking a box if the piece is derivative or uses a sample. Sooo.... what's the problem?

The nitty gritty of it is that Derek is saying sample creators can change their minds about their deal with Splice... but that's not what the agreement says. I don't think the content provider can wiggle out of the deal on a whim. IF this is the only concern, someone will go to court... and once they do and they get a verdict, well then precedent will be set. We'll see whether Splice's contract with sample creators is binding or not.
I think Derek is wrong about that. We're not seeing the Sounds provider agreement so it's hard to say 100%, but it would make no sense if the provider agreement contradicts the license agreement.

I'm checking with BMI about the registration process.

I'm not at all concerned about the license being revoked on a snare sample. That just isn't going to happen. For me, the concern is that publishers won't accept derivative works (or register them as such) when they commission original works from me.

Other than the derivative work thing, Derek's issues would be the same with any other sample company; if a composer uses an identifiable loop or melody there's the chance that another library has a track using the same identifiable sound.

How could a library defend against a claim if a client pays for an exclusive license and then hears a key element in another spot?
Old 1 week ago
  #90
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
...and in the license you got from that person for that copywritten material it specifically states that you have to list this work as a Derivative Work and list the original owner as co-owner?
This thread has me stretching the limits of my understanding of copyright law...

First, I don't see anything in the Splice agreement or copyright registration instructions about naming the original owner. In fact, the copyright instructions make it clear that registrations should NOT include the name of the original owner when entering author info on the application.

Second...

If Donald Trump gave me a nonexclusive royalty free license to make a film based on Art of the Deal, including the right to use the book's cover graphics within the film and on movie posters, etc., I could make the film and sell it to Sony, and Trump would have no claim or right to withdraw the license.

If another filmmaker got the same license and made a similar film, using the book cover graphics in the film and on marketing materials, they could sell the film elsewhere, right? And they'd have no claim against my film, nor I theirs.

Am I missing something in my analogy?

So, from a music library's perspective, the issue must boil down to situations where they license a track to a client with some degree of exclusivity.

So how would this differ from a recording or arrangement of material in the public domain?

Do libraries prohibit the use of public domain recordings? If not, aren't they exposed to the same potential issues?

Do libraries grant exclusive licenses of PD arrangement recordings and, if so, do clients understand that their competitor might use a different recording or arrangement of the same piece?
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