View Single Post
Old 10th January 2019
  #15
Lives for gear
 

Splice support's response when I asked if they require registering tunes as derivative works and naming them as owner of the copyrighted material:

"We do not ask for co-writer credentials, nor do we stake claim for a percentage of your master.

As mentioned in our terms, this simply means you can use, reuse, remix, and otherwise modify and mangle downloaded samples in any of your productions."

As the copyright holder they can authorize use according to their own terms. In this case, their license grants the ability to use sounds for any commercial purpose but (of course) doesn't transfer ownership of sounds. Their use of the term 'derivative work' is confusing, but their license doesn't specifically state that they must be recognized as copyright holder of a sound used in a song registered as a derivative work. They make it clear that their sounds are royalty free.

"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."

This seems clear, and it would apply to any sample or loop from any source. You can't use a sample and then issue a takedown notice to someone else because they rightfully use the same sound in their own work.


Derek has good cause for alarm; if composers are using identifiable loops as key elements of tunes it could cause enormous confusion for a publisher. But using a shaker loop or a drum one shot from Splice is the same as using one from any other sample library...I guess it's up to the publisher to decide if that's acceptable or not.