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 9th May 2019
  #211
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehrenebbage View Post
They did...they removed the term 'derivative work' from their Splice Sounds TOS altogether.
That is a relief! Thank you!
Old 9th May 2019
  #212
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ehrenebbage View Post
I went to great lengths to sort it out, actually. Not sure why, other than feeling responsible because I've used Splice sounds in various productions.

Upon reading Derek's warning, I read the entire Terms of Service and realized that, although he was mistaken about some key points, he was correct that the language implied a requirement to register derivative work copyrights. But that made no sense, so I investigated further.

Splice customer service reps told me different things and it was clear that they didn't understand the issue internally.

So, I wrote to a number of friends; the head of a major label, the head of music at a major network, directors of music at a couple of major publishers, etc., and asked if they saw this language as being problematic. They said yes.

I relayed this info to Splice and asked that they consult with their legal reps to clarify 100% one way or the other.

After a number of days they came back and said that their policy was clear but their TOS language wasn't, and that they might revise their TOS for clarity.

They did...they removed the term 'derivative work' from their Splice Sounds TOS altogether.

Also, when this thread started the TOS was one big document for both Splice Sounds and Splice community users. They've since created a separate TOS for Splice Sounds, presumably to clear up the sort of confusion that led Derek to start this thread.

So no, I didn't just get my info from Johnny on the phone.
This is pretty much the most amazing thing I've read on any forum, ever. Things actually can be changed!

Unbelievably impressive and you deserve a lot of thanks.
Old 9th May 2019
  #213
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohwell View Post
This is pretty much the most amazing thing I've read on any forum, ever. Things actually can be changed!

Unbelievably impressive and you deserve a lot of thanks.
Ha! I'm not sure if it changed because of my efforts. I know that other folks were writing to them at the same time.

It's in their best interest to clarify any points of confusion about their business model. To be clear...they didn't actually change their policies, they just updated their TOS doc to better reflect their policies.
Old 10th May 2019
  #214
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ehrenebbage View Post
I went to great lengths to sort it out, actually. Not sure why, other than feeling responsible because I've used Splice sounds in various productions.

Upon reading Derek's warning, I read the entire Terms of Service and realized that, although he was mistaken about some key points, he was correct that the language implied a requirement to register derivative work copyrights. But that made no sense, so I investigated further.

Splice customer service reps told me different things and it was clear that they didn't understand the issue internally.

So, I wrote to a number of friends; the head of a major label, the head of music at a major network, directors of music at a couple of major publishers, etc., and asked if they saw this language as being problematic. They said yes.

I relayed this info to Splice and asked that they consult with their legal reps to clarify 100% one way or the other.

After a number of days they came back and said that their policy was clear but their TOS language wasn't, and that they might revise their TOS for clarity.

They did...they removed the term 'derivative work' from their Splice Sounds TOS altogether.

Also, when this thread started the TOS was one big document for both Splice Sounds and Splice community users. They've since created a separate TOS for Splice Sounds, presumably to clear up the sort of confusion that led Derek to start this thread.

So no, I didn't just get my info from Johnny on the phone.
Wow. You forgot to drop your mic at the end, but bravo man. Great job!
Old 10th May 2019
  #215
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohwell View Post
This is pretty much the most amazing thing I've read on any forum, ever. Things actually can be changed!

Unbelievably impressive and you deserve a lot of thanks.
Agreed. He just won the internet with that reply.
Old 10th May 2019
  #216
Lives for gear
 

It's worth mentioning that some of the issues discussed are still problematic, whether you use Splice or Sounds or whatever.

If you're using an identifiable sample, especially for a hook or melody, you could run into serious issues of ownership and exclusivity. Coke is not going to be happy if the hook of their exclusive global campaign music is the same exact hook in a theme song for a Tiny House show on HGTV. Doesn't matter if the sample is from a legitimate source; if you're selling or licensing it on an exclusive basis it could be a big issue because it's not actually exclusive.
Old 11th May 2019
  #217
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehrenebbage View Post
They did...they removed the term 'derivative work' from their Splice Sounds TOS altogether.
what?!?! I just went there the other day and it still said derivative work.... I'm going to look in a second.

Great work man!
Old 11th May 2019
  #218
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
what?!?! I just went there the other day and it still said derivative work.... I'm going to look in a second.

Great work man!

https://splice.com/terms/sounds

No mention of derivative works.
Old 13th May 2019
  #219
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehrenebbage View Post
It's worth mentioning that some of the issues discussed are still problematic, whether you use Splice or Sounds or whatever.

If you're using an identifiable sample, especially for a hook or melody, you could run into serious issues of ownership and exclusivity. Coke is not going to be happy if the hook of their exclusive global campaign music is the same exact hook in a theme song for a Tiny House show on HGTV. Doesn't matter if the sample is from a legitimate source; if you're selling or licensing it on an exclusive basis it could be a big issue because it's not actually exclusive.
Good job!

I did notice that it says "Effective June 29th, 2015". I wonder why they picked that date and how is anything from before that date effected? Was that the start date of the company? Or were they doing business before then?
Old 13th May 2019
  #220
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
Good job!

I did notice that it says "Effective June 29th, 2015". I wonder why they picked that date and how is anything from before that date effected? Was that the start date of the company? Or were they doing business before then?

I think Splice existed before then but Splice Sounds (the subscription service) was released around that time.

https://www.musicradar.com/news/tech...-sounds-624037
Old 13th May 2019
  #221
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
Not all lawsuits are public knowledge. .
All filed lawsuits (not threatened lawsuits or pre-suit settlements) are a matter of pubic record in the U.S.

Admittedly, that doesn't mean that they are easy for a lay person to find because the feds only provide a search facility through their Pacer/Racer Court Information System. However, they are pubic records, are searchable, and you can download copies of the various motions and pleadings for 10c/page.

https://www.pacer.gov/login.html
Old 13th May 2019
  #222
Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolk martin View Post
All filed lawsuits (not threatened lawsuits or pre-suit settlements) are a matter of pubic record in the U.S.

Admittedly, that doesn't mean that they are easy for a lay person to find because the feds only provide a search facility through their Pacer/Racer Court Information System. However, they are pubic records, are searchable, and you can download copies of the various motions and pleadings for 10c/page.

https://www.pacer.gov/login.html
No they are not. I'll PM you a company name that have been sued 6 times in the last 3 years for copyright infringement. You'll see you can't find info about it anywhere.
Old 13th May 2019
  #223
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ehrenebbage View Post
I went to great lengths to sort it out, actually. Not sure why, other than feeling responsible because I've used Splice sounds in various productions.

Upon reading Derek's warning, I read the entire Terms of Service and realized that, although he was mistaken about some key points, he was correct that the language implied a requirement to register derivative work copyrights. But that made no sense, so I investigated further.

Splice customer service reps told me different things and it was clear that they didn't understand the issue internally.

So, I wrote to a number of friends; the head of a major label, the head of music at a major network, directors of music at a couple of major publishers, etc., and asked if they saw this language as being problematic. They said yes.

I relayed this info to Splice and asked that they consult with their legal reps to clarify 100% one way or the other.

After a number of days they came back and said that their policy was clear but their TOS language wasn't, and that they might revise their TOS for clarity.

They did...they removed the term 'derivative work' from their Splice Sounds TOS altogether.

Also, when this thread started the TOS was one big document for both Splice Sounds and Splice community users. They've since created a separate TOS for Splice Sounds, presumably to clear up the sort of confusion that led Derek to start this thread.

So no, I didn't just get my info from Johnny on the phone.
Good work. As I sad a few posts back, people often use the phrase 'derivative work' generically, without understanding that it has a specific legal meaning under copyright law. I'm glad they cleared it up.
Old 14th May 2019
  #224
Here for the gear
 

Hey guys awesome work on clearing this up!

Just to clarify (pretty new to music sync licensing), does that mean we are free to use splice samples in our compositions for commercial purposes?
Old 17th May 2019
  #225
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by daniela12 View Post
Hey guys awesome work on clearing this up!

Just to clarify (pretty new to music sync licensing), does that mean we are free to use splice samples in our compositions for commercial purposes?
Yes
Old 31st May 2019
  #226
Here for the gear
 

This is great thread, thank you, Etch a Sketch. I have a question please:
How about this scenario: a film production company downloads a splice sample/sound and uses it as is, without changing it, in a movie (I am very certain this has happened many, many times all over the world in many, especially indie movies- Splice even offers, very specifically, sounds for use in Horror movies etc). Does the film production company now owe royalties to Splice if and when the movie is shown anywhere?

Second scenario: Film production company takes the same sample, adds 1 sound to it (such as one long note played on a keyboard, for example)...now they would no longer come after you for royalties?
Old 31st May 2019
  #227
Here for the gear
 

This is great thread, thank you, Etch a Sketch. I have a question please:
How about this scenario: a film production company downloads a splice sample/sound and uses it as is, without changing it, in a movie (I am very certain this has happened many, many times all over the world in many, especially indie movies- Splice even offers, very specifically, sounds for use in Horror movies etc). Does the film production company now owe royalties to Splice if and when the movie is shown anywhere?

Second scenario: Film production company takes the same sample, adds 1 sound to it (such as one long note played on a keyboard, for example)...now they would no longer come after you for royalties?
Old 31st May 2019
  #228
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelv03 View Post
This is great thread, thank you, Etch a Sketch. I have a question please:
How about this scenario: a film production company downloads a splice sample/sound and uses it as is, without changing it, in a movie (I am very certain this has happened many, many times all over the world in many, especially indie movies- Splice even offers, very specifically, sounds for use in Horror movies etc). Does the film production company now owe royalties to Splice if and when the movie is shown anywhere?

Second scenario: Film production company takes the same sample, adds 1 sound to it (such as one long note played on a keyboard, for example)...now they would no longer come after you for royalties?
first of all... in my own experiences dealing with LOTS of film production companies and film studios (big and indie alike)... I don't know of a single editor that would do something like that. It just isn't how the workflow goes.

Horror sounds are added by the sound effects editor. horror score is added by the composer. The Sound effects editors use Sound Ideas and other buyout catalogs, or a lot of the times they make their own from scratch specific to that film. Film composers might use splice as part of a horror/sound design composition. But they are for sure putting their own names on it.

most of what I have seen on Splice is sound design and musical elements/loops for use in musical compositions. Maybe they have a separate section for hard FX and horror sound design that I haven't seen...?

Anyway... also please realize that it IS NOT the film studio that pays royalties. A lot of people try and say that but it is false. that is not how the system works. The broadcasters airing the film are the ones who pay for the royalties through a blanket annual license. They pay a flat fee once a year and that fee covers any and all music that might play from their network. Same thing with movie theaters in Europe. they pay the PRO a yearly one time fee. All royalties are derived from that one fee.

So... this is where cue sheets come in and why royalty free isn't really "royalty free" the way composers think of it...

Whoever created the composition gets listed on the film's cue sheet. That cue sheet is required by any broadcaster so the film studios need to get it from the film production company and they send it along with bunch of other info about the film for various union special payments for the actors and musicians and whatnot.

sound effects are not listed anywhere. They are not considered "compositions" and the use of them is paid for by an upfront "buyout" license of the master recording. What most people think of as sound design is usually considered a composition and is usually done by the composer... so it gets included on the cue sheet. Sometimes original sound design from the sound effects team is considered buyout...other times it might get added to the cue sheet (but that is rare). Like Ben Burtt creating the sound of the Star Wars light saber and blaster might be considered "sound design" by some... but it's technically a sound effect. It's not considered a composition and is not listed on any cue sheets... and there are no royalties for them.

So to summarize... only musical compositions can get listed on a cue sheet and eventually end up making performance royalties. Because contractually, the film score composer and the music supervisor are the only people who add musical compositions to the film's sound track AND they get (or give) clearance/permission for those uses in the sound track... those are the only two people who are putting anything in the film that will make performance royalties.

Because all of the stuff I've seen on splice is considered a composition with a composer attached... I don't think you are going to see sound effects editors using it, even if Splice is trying to market the service to them. If splice is trying to offer their service to SFX editors, then it's just another example of Splice not understanding the industries they are trying to service (just like the whole "Derivative Works" debacle).
Old 31st May 2019
  #229
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
Hi Everyone,

This issue just came up with me and so I figured I'd share with everyone.

If you are writing music for use in Film/TV licensing or for any sort of work-for-hire agreements... DO NOT USE SPLICE.

When asking splice about using their loops/samples in musical compositions, they wrote back and said:



A DERIVATIVE WORK!!! SPLICE IS NOT BUYOUT!!!! Anything you create using splice content, splice still owns and you have to negotiate a percentage split with them and include them as co-composers on any deals you do.

Just to be clear for everyone...



Anyway... I remember seeing a thread a little while ago about some people starting to try out and use Splice. Just letting you know it is a very bad idea for anything you are going to try and sell or license commercially.

Cheers!
This end of the business is soo F'ed up right now.

I remember a few years back when the cue orders became STEM orders, meticulously labeled STEMS.

I told the guys who were getting the cue orders and passing the work onto us for a %........"You DO realize they are setting the table to no longer need composers, right?... You understand what they are doing?"

"Nah...Nah...It's all good"

Later....

"Were closing up"

Yeeeeeah,

If it weren't for a top contact, I wouldn't even be doing this kind of thing right now.

It is SO WEIRD to watch "Scorched earth" happen right in front of your eyes, its the moment when you realize, there is something evil afoot.
Old 31st May 2019
  #230
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrible.dee View Post
This end of the business is soo F'ed up right now.

I remember a few years back when the cue orders became STEM orders, meticulously labeled STEMS.

I told the guys who were getting the cue orders and passing the work onto us for a %........"You DO realize they are setting the table to no longer need composers, right?... You understand what they are doing?"

"Nah...Nah...It's all good"

Later....

"Were closing up"

Yeeeeeah,

If it weren't for a top contact, I wouldn't even be doing this kind of thing right now.

It is SO WEIRD to watch "Scorched earth" happen right in front of your eyes, its the moment when you realize, there is something evil afoot.
weird... I do stems all the time and send stems to film, tv and trailer production companies all the time. I never have a problem. Even if they use one stem from one of our compositions, we get listed as the publisher and the composers get listed as the composers.

What's fun is when they do overlays. the PROs hate that but the composers love it! LOL

But we have all our stems watermarked... so if anyone uses anything, I see it's watermark being detected. I see a lot of people using the drum stems and the string stems.

But they always license it and list it as though they are using the full piece, no mention that they just used a single stem. Even if they only use a 3 second drum hit from the end... it's a :03 use of the full cue on the quote request and on the cue sheets turned over to the PROs.

If you guys aren't doing that then you should have a talk with your licensing and publishing departments.
Old 31st May 2019
  #231
Here for the gear
 

Wow, thanks a million for your very detailed reply, I really appreciate it. Yes, Splice now offers various FX which are very clearly geared towards use in movies (Foley type stuff, doors slamming, footsteps, Horror type sounds). While some producers may wish to use such sounds in songs (last time I came across it was in 'Thriller'), it is relatively obvious, unless I am missing something here, that Splice are making those sound banks available for use in movies rather than merely for use in sampling/musical works. I will write to them and ask them for a definitive answer regarding those sounds. Will post reply here.
Old 31st May 2019
  #232
Here for the gear
 

Have received a reply from Splice. At the beginning it sounds like we can use any loops or sounds in any commercial project, by itself, with nothing further, in terms of fees, owed to anyone. But towards they start talking about what you may NOT do, which is the part I find confusing:

My question was:
Hello, I need to please get a definitive answer to this question: can I use loops and sounds AS IS (without adding anything to them or using them in combination with other self made sounds or musical works) available on Splice in a movie, which will be commercially released? If I do, will I owe royalties or any fees whatsoever to anyone/Splice/the creators of those sounds/loops?

Reply from Splice:

Hey there!

Thanks for writing in. You have a broad royalty-free license for every sample that you download from Splice Sounds. This means you can use, reuse, remix, and otherwise modify and mangle downloaded samples in any of your productions, including commercial projects, from block bangers to movie scores to voicemails.

This excerpt from our Terms of Service sets the tempo:

Sounds are licensed, not sold, to you. We grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, perpetual right to use Sounds you obtain through Splice Sounds in combination with other sounds in music productions to create new recordings. This means that you may modify, reproduce, publicly perform, distribute, transmit, communicate to the public and otherwise use Sounds, including for commercial purposes. However, you may not (a) use the Sounds in isolation as sound effects, loops, or as source material for any other form of sample (even if you modify the Sounds), (b) use Sounds in a manner competitive to Company or its licensors, (c), sell, loan, share, lend, broadcast, rent, lease, assign, distribute, or transfer all of the Sounds to a third party except as incorporated into a new music production; or (d) redistribute Sounds in new sample packs. Additionally, for clarity, you may not use the name, image, or likeness of the artist associated with a Sound in any way without that artist’s express written permission.
Old 1st June 2019
  #233
Lives for gear
 
elambo's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
But we have all our stems watermarked
Out of curiosity, are you creating audible anomalies as watermarks, or are they subtle enough that only you would recognize them?

I've not had to get into this because my steady clients haven't (to our knowledge) made watermarking necessary, but I'm aware that some companies do watermark.
Old 4th June 2019
  #234
Here for the gear
 

I have written to Splice again, demanding a clear answer to my question:

Hi,

Thank you for your response. I am still not 100% clear on the terms. I find the explanation slightly confusing and contradictory. Please let me use your reply to clarify what I mean.
Again, my question is: May I use unaltered loops from your Splice library in a commercial production and if so, will I be liable to Splice and/or the creator of the sounds for any future payments, fees or royalties?
Your reply does state that I can use downloaded samples in any productions, including commercial projects. However, it does not clarify if there will be future royalties due to the creator and/or Splice.
I have highlighted the unclear/contradictory terms in black bold and red bold.

In need an answer in clear, unambigiuous language, explained in laymen's terms please (ie. Yes, you will be liable to pay royalties or No, there will be no fees whatsoever etc).

Reply from Splice:

Hey there!

Thanks for writing in. You have a broad royalty-free license for every sample that you download from Splice Sounds. This means you can use, reuse, remix, and otherwise modify and mangle downloaded samples in any of your productions, including commercial projects, from block bangers to movie scores to voicemails.

This excerpt from our Terms of Service sets the tempo:

Sounds are licensed, not sold, to you. We grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, perpetual right to use Sounds you obtain through Splice Sounds in combination with other sounds in music productions to create new recordings. This means that you may modify, reproduce, publicly perform, distribute, transmit, communicate to the public and otherwise use Sounds, including for commercial purposes. However, you may not (a) use the Sounds in isolation as sound effects, loops, or as source material for any other form of sample (even if you modify the Sounds), (b) use Sounds in a manner competitive to Company or its licensors, (c), sell, loan, share, lend, broadcast, rent, lease, assign, distribute, or transfer all of the Sounds to a third party except as incorporated into a new music production; or (d) redistribute Sounds in new sample packs. Additionally, for clarity, you may not use the name, image, or likeness of the artist associated with a Sound in any way without that artist’s express written permission.
Old 4th June 2019
  #235
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelv03 View Post
I have written to Splice again, demanding a clear answer to my question:

Hi,

Thank you for your response. I am still not 100% clear on the terms. I find the explanation slightly confusing and contradictory. Please let me use your reply to clarify what I mean.
Again, my question is: May I use unaltered loops from your Splice library in a commercial production and if so, will I be liable to Splice and/or the creator of the sounds for any future payments, fees or royalties?
Your reply does state that I can use downloaded samples in any productions, including commercial projects. However, it does not clarify if there will be future royalties due to the creator and/or Splice.
I have highlighted the unclear/contradictory terms in black bold and red bold.

In need an answer in clear, unambigiuous language, explained in laymen's terms please (ie. Yes, you will be liable to pay royalties or No, there will be no fees whatsoever etc).

Reply from Splice:

Hey there!

Thanks for writing in. You have a broad royalty-free license for every sample that you download from Splice Sounds. This means you can use, reuse, remix, and otherwise modify and mangle downloaded samples in any of your productions, including commercial projects, from block bangers to movie scores to voicemails.

This excerpt from our Terms of Service sets the tempo:

Sounds are licensed, not sold, to you. We grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, perpetual right to use Sounds you obtain through Splice Sounds in combination with other sounds in music productions to create new recordings. This means that you may modify, reproduce, publicly perform, distribute, transmit, communicate to the public and otherwise use Sounds, including for commercial purposes. However, you may not (a) use the Sounds in isolation as sound effects, loops, or as source material for any other form of sample (even if you modify the Sounds), (b) use Sounds in a manner competitive to Company or its licensors, (c), sell, loan, share, lend, broadcast, rent, lease, assign, distribute, or transfer all of the Sounds to a third party except as incorporated into a new music production; or (d) redistribute Sounds in new sample packs. Additionally, for clarity, you may not use the name, image, or likeness of the artist associated with a Sound in any way without that artist’s express written permission.
That sounds good on paper, but still would not protect someone from a lawsuit. The threat of a lawsuit is enough to deter some people from using samples from Splice and similar services.

So in other words: proceed with caution.
Old 7th June 2019
  #236
Here for the gear
 
Guaresneider's Avatar
 

Relax guys ☺☻

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanikproject View Post
Well F* me.
I've been using Splice for long time and really thought that completely royalty-free means completely royalty-free.

"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. "

I can copyright my work, but I cannot copyright the sounds or loops from Splice. Also I cannot submit a takedown notice to anyone who just happens to use the same sound/loop that I am.

So my conclusion in this is, that it doesn´t actually change anything, but maybe need to ask the carification from the Splice.

If it is like that, then I sure will cancel my subscription.


RELAX FOLKS! ☺☻

No one from Splice, or Spectrasonics, or any of those loops / samples companies will arrive at your house banging on the door or sending you a letter for copyright infringement. They will put an eye on you, if you are Coldplay, Maluma or Dr. Dre and sell millions using some sound from their SOUND LIBRARIES that you have registered as your authorship when it is not.

For you who do music for fun or have sold a few thousand copies of your last work, do not worry, they will never reach you, because they will literally never hear your music. Relax, peace and enjoy life creating music!
Old 8th June 2019
  #237
Gear Maniac
 
DRAZERS's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guaresneider View Post
RELAX FOLKS! ☺☻

No one from Splice, or Spectrasonics, or any of those loops / samples companies will arrive at your house banging on the door or sending you a letter for copyright infringement. They will put an eye on you, if you are Coldplay, Maluma or Dr. Dre and sell millions using some sound from their SOUND LIBRARIES that you have registered as your authorship when it is not.

For you who do music for fun or have sold a few thousand copies of your last work, do not worry, they will never reach you, because they will literally never hear your music. Relax, peace and enjoy life creating music!
This sounds like one of those bad deal stories when a major label screws clueless upcoming artists, telling them to not worry, that all is fine, this is how it’s done Johny, just sign here, relax, everything will be great, you’ll be alright…and then later, when sh*t hits the fan, they’ll just look at you, shrug their shoulders and tell you how you should know better and that it is your problem now.
Old 24th June 2019
  #238
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
what?!?! I just went there the other day and it still said derivative work.... I'm going to look in a second.

Great work man!
So I was wondering, would a drum loop, without a melody not need to be registered/copyrighted as a derivative, even though a drum pattern is not considered copyright-able?

I never used melodies or arrangements on splice before. However, I'm trying to see if i need to take all the drum loops out of my compositions. I'm not sure as drum patterns aren't necessarily considered to be able to copyrighted but I remember the "Blurred Lines" case recently.
Old 24th June 2019
  #239
Quote:
Originally Posted by jevon91 View Post
So I was wondering, would a drum loop, without a melody not need to be registered/copyrighted as a derivative, even though a drum pattern is not considered copyright-able?

I never used melodies or arrangements on splice before. However, I'm trying to see if i need to take all the drum loops out of my compositions. I'm not sure as drum patterns aren't necessarily considered to be able to copyrighted but I remember the "Blurred Lines" case recently.
the drum pattern is absolutely copyrightable! It's just not considered a copyrightable composition. But the master recording is still copyrightable. It's why you can't grab a snippet of the drumset groove from James Brown's The Funky Drummer and use it in your own song without licensing the master recording from Brown's record label (I think Mowtown still owns the master recordings).

People have to ALWAYS remember there are TWO copyrights to every piece of recorded music... the ACTUAL physical recording we call the "master" and then the composition we call the "underlying work". A drumset performance or a programmed drum loop may not be considered a musical composition and can't be copywritten as one, but the master recording of that drumset or drumbeat is still a copyrightable master even if there is no "underlying work".

People tend to forget about the ownership of the master and just focus on the underlying work... but you really do have to keep both in mind and stay vigilant about both.

The best way I usually end up describing it... is like a house. The underlying musical composition is like the blueprints of the house... the master recording is like the actual physical house that was built from the blueprints. In a planned community with track homes, you could have several hundred homes that were all built from the same blueprint, but each home is it's own physical structure unto itself. No different than someone writing a song (the blueprint) and 10 different people doing versions or covers of it (the masters).
Old 25th June 2019
  #240
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
the drum pattern is absolutely copyrightable! It's just not considered a copyrightable composition. But the master recording is still copyrightable. It's why you can't grab a snippet of the drumset groove from James Brown's The Funky Drummer and use it in your own song without licensing the master recording from Brown's record label (I think Mowtown still owns the master recordings).

People have to ALWAYS remember there are TWO copyrights to every piece of recorded music... the ACTUAL physical recording we call the "master" and then the composition we call the "underlying work". A drumset performance or a programmed drum loop may not be considered a musical composition and can't be copywritten as one, but the master recording of that drumset or drumbeat is still a copyrightable master even if there is no "underlying work".

People tend to forget about the ownership of the master and just focus on the underlying work... but you really do have to keep both in mind and stay vigilant about both.

The best way I usually end up describing it... is like a house. The underlying musical composition is like the blueprints of the house... the master recording is like the actual physical house that was built from the blueprints. In a planned community with track homes, you could have several hundred homes that were all built from the same blueprint, but each home is it's own physical structure unto itself. No different than someone writing a song (the blueprint) and 10 different people doing versions or covers of it (the masters).
Oh ok, thanks! I know about the sound recording/master copyright, but didn't really think the master recording of a drum performance would be considered copyrightable.

So the master would be considered copyrightable, but hypothetically if you recreate a drum sequence of a master recording, then would that be considered a new master/sound recording copyright that could be registered?
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