Moderators: Sharp, X-Trade, Pepperpotty, karmathanever
I think you missed the point.About Spectrasonics, I visited the link you mentionned and I do agree with you. However, they were fair enough to describe what they used (true or not) to make Omnisphere its still a good star
I've already answered this in other posts in this thread and others. It makes no difference what you are sampling so long as what you sample sounds nothing like the original sound.What is your opinion about sampling physical modeled softwares ?
On the other hand, a computer program is defined under the 1976 Act as a "set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result."84 Because samples are merely data and do not "bring about" a result, they are probably not programs under the Copyright Act, no more than are word processing files or musical notation files
I can think of many reasons, one of which is that it simply makes all the sense in the world to do so from a “selling the product” point of view. In all fairness, it's a pretty epic list of classic hardware.Why did Spectrasonics give the list of what they used in your opinion?
If you are sampling custom patches you made yourself in the software, then it makes no difference how the sounds are generated by the software.For physics modeled softwares, I still don't understand
Because there is no base sound, and if you can't sample something like that, it just prevents you from using the software.
Yes and No. It all depends on what point you are starting from.Its the same as if microsoft was saying that you can use Microsoft Word but they have some rights to claim about how you will use it and what you will create with it ...
Thanks for the link. I will have to ready though it all, but the opening few lines are something people have been successfully sued over.I can understand your point for sampled-based software but not for modeled-based ones ...
Its old but :
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/bt ... /text.html
I didn't have any specific one in mind but Korg electric pianos, Pianoteq or any instrument from http://www.samplemodeling.com/en/products_horntuba.php could be examples.If you are sampling custom patches you made yourself in the software, then it makes no difference how the sounds are generated by the software.
All that matters is the “unique sound” you created with the software. This unique sounds is your your creation to do so with as you please.
It would help if you told me what VST you had in mind because I can clearly tell you seem to have your eyes on something very specific.
I am happy the link helpsThanks for the link. I will have to ready though it all, but the opening few lines are something people have been successfully sued over.
Products by Sample Modelling are not Virtual Modelling at all in my opinion as they are entirely driven by PCM data running scripts in Kontakt. Kontakt is not a Virtual Modelling sound engine either by any means. It's an advanced Sampler. So in my opinion it would be extremely dangerous to touch any of their products for the intention of reselling as samples in a natural form close to the original sounds.Pianoteq or any instrument from http://www.samplemodeling.com/en/products_horntuba.php could be examples
What does "sounds nothing like the original" mean?As I previously said, would have to create something unique that sounds nothing like the original
I guess it depends whether or not Pianoteq is considered as a software or as an instrument ...Pianoteq on the other hand is entirely based on virtual modelling, so it's an instrument all onto itself just as much as a real piano is
For example, take a Violin sound and I warp it in a sound engine to turn it into some dreamy pad sound that bears no relation to a Violin whatsoever.What does "sounds nothing like the original" mean?
Creating a violin sound from another violin sound is ok?
Haven't got a clue because the question of weather or not that's even legal or illegal is unanswered by anyone able to quote the law on this.What would you do to have basic instruments's sounds (from piano, violin, etc ...) without needing to record them?
It's a possibility. Vengeance / ReFX do that all the time for their Nexus products for example. So do many others. I've listened to their libraries and I was able to easily identify sounds from KORG and Roland products in their libraries.I read in one of your post that mixing could be the solution?
I personal don't think so and I don't know of anyone doing that. What Vengeance / ReFX do is take something like a Guitar sound, tweak it, and then mix it with a Analog Pad tweaked, then sample the two combined down into a single sound.Violin1+Violin2 would be considered as "new" sound
Absolutely not as the source of the data is from many different websites which directly prohibit that kind of use. They data is to remain free to download / share and the future development is supported by donationware.Is this completely safe for commercial sampling redistribution?
RegardsI have no idea who the original authors were or what licensing might apply
then?You are free:
To sample, mash-up, or otherwise creatively transform this work for commercial or noncommercial purposes.
They have no rights to the data whatsoever so you need to ignore everything they say. It's not their property, and they even admit they have no idea where it all came from or if it's all legal.blackmamba wrote:Why is it written :
then?You are free:
To sample, mash-up, or otherwise creatively transform this work for commercial or noncommercial purposes.
I didn't see anything in 3 of the links that cleared up the copyright either way so you would have to contact them. Only the second link directly forbids the resale of the sounds as sample or instruments for a sampler.IOWA samples : http://theremin.music.uiowa.edu/MIS.html?
LSO samples (mp3) : http://www.philharmonia.co.uk/explore/make_music?
DSK (not amazing but still): http://www.dskmusic.com/category/vsti-all/?
Piano One : http://www.supremepiano.com/product/piano1.html
