Oops, thanks, corrected 
Yeah but no.
You can program a kick and snare with fast ratchets and drain it in reverb.
To some this will be a drumbeat.
To some this will sound like “sound effects as a sequence of musical events”.
And so if Polyend decides it is the latter, they prrhaps have a chance in successfully kicking your butt in court. Depending on how the jury will interpret the “sequence of sounds”
I read that as you can use the samples in a musical context ie mixed with other sounds in a song or track but you cannot use them in isolation (individual samples as sounds effects) or in a sequence of individual samples because even in a sequence you”d be able to isolate individual samples. That makes sense to me anyway.
The whole EULA for hardware intrigues me too. If I download a VST I have to accept the terms and conditions but if I buy say a Digitone in a shop with cash money does that imply I’ve entered into a EULA? If I don’t have to sign or accept anything? doesn’t there have to be ‘fair warning’ or some other legal term to say I’m entering into an agreement with the manufacturer? Genuine question.
1 Like
They’re a business that makes instruments. It doesn’t benefit them to sue musicians that use them commercially. Again to repeat, they’re preventing the re-sale of the samples.
I think reading that passage, with the full context - makes it clear what the intention is, and why Polyend have included it, and I don’t consider there to be any risk in you using those samples commerically in your arrangements.
You have to consider that if they simply said “You can’t re-sell the samples”, then you could just record them and sell your recordings - it’s an unsound legal statement that doesn’t cover the extent of what’s required. The irony is that the complex legal wording is there to prevent other people taking advantage of Polyend.
Step outside of what you seek to do and look into cheap, mostly undigested sample and loop “packs” being sold.
The context of concern exists in Omnisphere’s programming work being ripped and resold with the most minor alteration of file (re)packaging.
If you are not transformatively using their work, consult a lawyer and they can explain any conceptual framework. Otherwise the logic makes sense, you can always email presales to get their approval for your particular musical use.
1 Like
EULA’s are specifically for software so they don’t exist for hardware. If you enter into an EULA you’d do so when using the software on that hardware.
They’ve also been demonstrated to be largely unenforceable.
3 Likes
That analogy breaks down because water is needed for survival, music samples are not, nor are musical instruments, they are tools for entertainment.
3 Likes
That’s so strange
A lot of VST synths use samples as a sound source, so copyright still applies to derivative work unless rights were specifically granted. Mostly those rights only include music productions.
That restriction doesn’t apply to VST’s that only use algorithms to generate their sound.
Except for the presets, those do have that restriction, as if they were samples.
The irony is that even though you can’t distribute samples from Omnisphere sounds that use Spectrasonic’s samples, a lot of those samples were made with other VST synths.
So technically you could recreate those sounds with the original VST’s that were used, sample and sell those, and legally still be in the clear.
The preset is copyrighted. You’re using copyrighted material to create derivative work by using a preset and changing it. Whether it’s enforcable will depend on how much you change it.
If you’re creating a sample pack and you load up a big complicated synth that has arpeggiated patterns, you hold down 1 note, sample a 4 bar loop, and start selling that, I don’t find it at all surprising that someone might come after you legally.
Of course this is going to be incredibly difficult for simple presets, but personally I often struggle with any kind of arpeggiated patterns, even though they’re often quite good and useful, but then it creates a potential problem down the line.
What about any kind of preset that has an envelope on the wavetable shape? Seems that that immediately samples the whole wavetable if the envelope is slower than the sample rate / wavetable resolution.
Something like Digitone is not just hardware though. You’re not buying circuits like with a Moog Matriarch, you’re buying a computer in a box with software on it, and that software has a license.
If you buy a Windows laptop, you also can’t take the default wallpaper and sell it on a stock image site.
This part is pretty interesting to think about. In some sense it’s stupid that they could just sample other synths, on the other hand, you might not have access to those and thus are paying Omnisphere for their “had to get the synth”. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be paid, just that the line even with this is incredibly blurry.
Often times people say things like “I never use presets” and “I never use samples of synths I just sample my own synths”, but then I browse what interesting and heavily processed samples people sometimes upload and very often they lead to instant inspiration just from one sample. Not because I couldn’t create it myself, I think most people have enough gear to create what they need, but rather the “I wouldn’t have thought of this otherwise”. This is also mainly why I use presets, not because I don’t know how to do a thing, but there is something about just scrolling a button and pressing keys and looking for “inspiration”, only to follow the inspiration and destroy the preset entirely in the process.
1 Like
Really long post, again. Don't know what it is with this topic...
I bet that in practice, it doesn’t really matter how much you’ve changed it.
I think it will depend on how unique and identifiable the original sound was.
But I also don’t think it’s enforceable to begin with.
Because if it mattered how much you’ve changed the sound, every preset would basically copyright a small range of settings on the synth, which will essentially copyright every setting on the synth if there’s a lot of presets. You could never sample a Syntakt if that were the case, it has a ton of presets and not that much options.
And that is just about the sound itself, or the timbre if you will.
When you talk about programmed arpeggiator patterns, you talk about another form of copyright.
It’s technically a written melody.
And when it comes to melodies, it actually does matter how much you change them.
Is that envelope linear? Is there a filter in the signal path? Is there an envelope on the amplitude? Are there any effects? Any modulation? What exact frequency are you playing?
There are so many variables, you need to go out of your way to get the exact wavetables.
And even then it might still not be possible to dial in exactly.
That’s why I added this:
There is nothing wrong with getting inspiration from presets, not even with mangling them to something you like. But in my experience you learn quicker by recreating them or trying to get a similar sound.
If you practice enough, browsing presets is actually a lot slower than just going into the synth and creating a patch from scratch. It also helps with forming a more personal sound.
Not that I don’t get it, I sometimes hear samples that sound amazing and I don’t immediately hear how it’s done. I still won’t use that sample, but I will look up how to make a similar sound or something that points me in the right direction.
For example, I like Doctor Who and some dalek samples would be cool to use creatively.
But I didn’t sample the TV series, I looked it up and it turned out you just need a ring modulator.
Transformers sound effects? A lot of it is just amplitude modulation over deep electronic sounds and it looks a lot like the process for drum n bass type sounds.
In the end for me, if it feels like I’m using something that wasn’t created by me, I don’t use it or change it. I think people instinctively know when they’re stealing, and when they don’t they probably didn’t care anyways.
But when it comes to drums, I don’t care that much either. I don’t know why that is. Maybe because the loops I chop up have been used countless times already. And the loops I end up with usually consist of snippets of a couple different ones. Maybe that’s wrong too, when using drum loops from old records it technically is.
It really pisses me off that we live in a world that has caused people to even have questions about this.
2 Likes
A world where all individuals have an implicit and exclusive right to their creative product backed by the rule of law?
It does, we’re in agreement. My point is simply that IF you are to agree to an EULA, you will do so when engaging with the software. Like when you buy that Windows laptop, you’ll tick a box when you first login to it. There is no EULA for Digitone.
1 Like
Interesting post - however it’s curious where you draw your personal lines. It seems for you the creativity is more in the ability to create sounds than songs.
Consider that a guitar or a grand piano could be considered a ‘preset’.
It’s also interesting that you wouldn’t sample a Dalek, but would happily recreate that sound yourself - in the end will the listener know or care? It’s a Dalek either way - whether you use an original recording or recreate the sound you’re just as much ‘stealing’ the work, in the same way an art forger might replicate a famous painting.
Please note that I’m not disagreeing or challenging your perspective - just noting that it’s interesting where we all draw the line with this stuff
I do like the process of sound design a lot, as much or maybe even more than creating songs.
I think it stems from the fact that drum n bass is very sound design heavy.
Usually I don’t recreate sounds exactly, I just study the techniques to make certain sounds that I like.
I’m at a point now that I have lots of my own samples and presets that I haven’t even used yet.
I probably create more than 10x the presets and samples that I need for each song.
Not all of it is good, but it allows me some shortcuts because I can resample my own samples.
A real guitar or piano is not the same as a preset. You can sample your piano all you want, but you can’t sample a sample based Yamaha preset of a similar piano.
Because even if you record the same note of a real piano 100 times, you’ll still end up with 100 unique samples.
You can’t copyright a timbre, only exact sounds. The same way that you can’t copyright a preset of an analog synth that has no memory. Even if it stores presets, some synths will sound slightly different each time you turn it on. So you can’t legally distribute the preset itself (publishing right), but you can legally sell a sample of it (recording right).
It’s weird, I know.
It’s interesting that you would say this, because that is what your feeling is telling you.
Both of these examples are however, completely legal.
There are again two things at play here, publishing rights and recording rights.
When I recreate a sample, I immediately pass the recording rights because it is now my recording and I did the work to create that.
And in the example of a dalek, I’m pretty sure that you can’t copyright single words like “exterminate” so no publishing rights can be claimed on that. However, longer pieces of dialog would fall under these rights and need clearing from the writer or publisher, in this case the BBC.
There are actually multiple companies specialized in recreating samples, just google “sample replay”.
This is an interesting write up about clearing samples:
http://www.recreatingsamples.com/recreating-sample/how-to-clear-samples.html
off-topic
Also recreating a painting is totally legal as long as you don’t try to pass it off as the real thing.
The Louvre doesn’t have exclusive rights to the image of Mona Lisa, but they’re the only entity allowed to pass it off as the real thing.
Pictures made of the Mona Lisa, however, are copyrighted to whomever made the picture. And since you’re not allowed to take pictures of the Mona Lisa and it sits in a glass case, the best of those are actually from photographers working for the Louvre.
It’s certainly not - but I presented it as a demonstration that simply ‘using presets’ isn’t any less creative than sound designing them. You appear to have moved to a different point that wasn’t being addressed with that example. My point is merely that creativity doesn’t lie in shaping sound, that’s merely an activity some of us enjoy that’s a tangent to music creation.
I appreciate that, maybe my point was missed there, I’m talking purely philosophically. It appeared that you were making a distinction that copying a sound was somehow more noble than recording it - my point was that the end result is identical.
That’s totally on topic and kind of the crux of the discussion IMO
Nothing is stopping any of us using, creating and selling samples from presets in any machine. But the moment you package and make commercially available a duplicate of a preset in its entirety, and represent it as such, you’ve stepped over the line.
It’s not a perfect analogy but it’s fairly close!
1 Like
I don’t fully agree with that, certain music types heavily lean on sound design.
But I get your point, I was merely talking from a legal point of view because the law does make a clear distinction between the two when it comes to sampling.
I agree that the player makes the guitar, the guitar doesn’t make the player.
I fully disagree, as will any sound designer.
I would agree if you said it doesn’t only lie there, but it looks like you’re saying sound design is not creative. That hurts my feelings a bit. 
Well, I think it is more noble because you actually did the work to create it, but my point was more about the fact that the law also makes this distinction.
And rightfully so, because you can’t copyright a timbre. That would end in all sound being copyrighted and that doesn’t seem good. Imagine if you could copyright the kick or the piano.
Exactly.