Using Samples and copyright

Hi folks, have seen a lot of videos on this subject but still find it a little confusing. Until recently I was using Splice to download the occasional sample to help with inspiration, until I started seeing videos discussing the potential pitfalls of using Splice samples . As I understand it, if someone happens to use for example a splice loop and manages to make a full commercial track from this, then I use the same sample (whether it is the whole loop or part of it) as a paying Splice customer - I will encounter potential copyright issues (basically because the other dude used the 'royalty free sample' first)?

If this is true, does this also extend to things like MPC Expansion packs which might have very distinctive loops / sounds as part of the pack, if someone makes a commercial track from one of these expansions and I want to also use this sound from the same expansion pack which I have paid for, I might run into problems if I plan to release a track with the same sounds?

And if this is also true, where does it end? Can I use instrument one shots?

Thank you in advance all and apologies if this has been covered.
MJ.

whatever license Splice or expansion pack makers grant to their end users are (almost certainly) non-exclusive, i.e., you have the same rights of commercial use for the Splice sample as any other Splice user. that doesn't mean some other Splice users might not be assholes about trying to transform their use into some claim of exclusive ownership but, legally, they can go kick rocks.

other than Tracklib (which i understand has some forms of restrictions on commercial re-use of some samples in their library) I've never seen a sample pack/expansion that didn't grant the user full license to use the samples however they wanted to in their own original tracks

This isn't a splice issue, this has always been an issue when buying 'non exclusive' sounds from any developer, all the way back to the sample CDs from 30+ years ago.

When a developer licenses you the use of, say, a melodic loop, that license typically gives you the 'non exclusive' right to use that loop 'within a musical composition', but it does not give you the ownership rights of that specific loop. Non-exclusive means they are continually offering that same loop under the exact same license to everyone else on the planet.

If you choose to use it as a hook for your track then that's perfectly fine under the granted license, but you cannot then claim that part of the song as 'yours' (and you should not submit that portion of your track as part of any content ID fingerprinting).

If someone peruses you for copyright infringement over a non-exclusive sample that you have legally licensed, then you should refer them to the relevant URL where you bought it and point out that it was a 'non exclusive' license' and you consider the matter closed. I'm sure the original sound designer would like to know about this as well.

chrisroland wrote: I've never seen a sample pack/expansion that didn't grant the user full license to use the samples however they wanted to in their own original tracks

MSX Sound Design (and a few others on sold Drumbroker) have some packs that are 'non-royalty free'. This is from their license:

2) Non-Royalty Free: If a sample pack does NOT say "This sample pack is royalty free" in the description, it falls into this category. A.) If you place a record on a major label, by major artist, or for commercial use using our sample(s), you will split the publishing, royalties, mechanicals, points & advance fees (along with co-production credit) with MSXII Sound Design. B.) If the sample(s) are used on any independent platforms or for non-commercial use, you can do anything you'd like with them (upload to Soundcloud, sell the beats to indie artist(s), include on beat-tapes, etc)

fair enough, i've never encountered MSX etc (but also unless their samples are an order of magnitude better than Loopcloud or the like, kinda silly to be that aggressive about claiming royalty shares from bedroom producers just looking for some basic samples/loops)

Thanks for the reply folks and useful info, particularly with regards to non-exclusive rights. I think theres a lot of missinformation regarding this subject and whether or not you should expect a battle if youre using these kind of samples, im sure there are grey areas here and there but its good to know that people cannot 'claim' a sound which has been sold on the understanding of non-exclusive rights - as their own.

but its good to know that people cannot 'claim' a sound which has been sold on the understanding of non-exclusive rights - as their own.

Yes unfortunately there's nothing stopping these guys causing you grief, for example automated contentID takedowns (which could lead to your youtube account being taken down), dealing with spurious legal threats (which is stressful even when you know you are in the right). There are really little or no realistic consequences for these guys.

I know some people are wanting the likes of Splice and other sound designer to somehow wave a magic wand over this, but I'm not sure there's much sound designers can do, assuming they've issued a clear license which details exactly what your ownership rights are.

I guess Splice could take these people to court for illegally claiming copyright, but perhaps the more effective option would be to include a clause in the license which allows then to immediately invalidate the license in these instances (which would mean the artist would have pull the track).

Now imagine how murky it gets when sound designers are themselves using copyright material that they are passing off as their own (e.g. classic breaks etc).

chrisroland wrote:fair enough, i've never encountered MSX etc (but also unless their samples are an order of magnitude better than Loopcloud or the like, kinda silly to be that aggressive about claiming royalty shares from bedroom producers just looking for some basic samples/loops)

I believe they tend to use this on their 'compositional' style construction kit packs, I guess they argue that they've effectively written the track for you. But in the context of this topic, it seems like a 'cake and eat it' situation where they want an ongoing share of the pie (typically associated with an exclusive license), but still want to retain the right for it to be non-exclusive and license it to other parties as well.

And this is surely even more messy if multiple people start receiving takedown notices for a track that they not only licensed, but also continue to pay royalties on.

Another one to check are 'Kingsway Music Library', they have various clauses covering commercial usage and potential royalty payments. I doubt many people read these licenses, so are probably not aware of what they are actually paying for.

It's definitely a confusing area. It sounds like as long as you're using samples and loops that have been clearly licensed as non-exclusive, you should be in the clear legally. But I can understand why some artists might still give you trouble just to be difficult. It's a shame there's not more protection from fraudulent copyright claims.