[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Swami-devel] Re: [fluid-dev] Copyright Issues was: Re: [ANN] Beta t

From: Ebrahim Mayat
Subject: Re: [Swami-devel] Re: [fluid-dev] Copyright Issues was: Re: [ANN] Beta test of the Resonance Instrument Database
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:09:09 +0200

On Aug 31, 2005, at 7:57 PM, Pieter Penninckx wrote:
Now, if I were to create my own patch (as opposed to using a factory patch) on any recent synth (a Nord Lead or Korg OASYS, say) then sample and package that using SWAMI, would that be legal to distribute?


I agree that this is a grey area.

It is notreally: you may not distribute samples from synthesizers

Sorry, not entirely true. There are many samplers (both hardware and software) on the market presently that contain samples from other synths and keyboards in general (Hammond Organ, Fender Rhodes, Wurlitzer, ARP, Oberheim, Moog…just to name a few)

I think that depends on how much of the patch is contains artwork by the manufacturer. If enough is user created (for instance, when you recorded it yourself with a microphone into your synth), I think you can distribute a recording of your hardware synth playing what you
created (although it's rediculous of course).

No, you can initialize a synth and create a patch of your own from scratch. I am talking soundware programming as opposed to sample and synthesis.

There was a synth in which you could draw sounds with a light pen, that is allready less user-created stuff. When you only change the attack and delay, there's manufacturar created stuff on which you infrige copyright. Don't ask me where exactely a judge would draw the line, but only changing attack and delay etc. is not enough.


Microsoft's eula gives you the right to distribute documents that include photographs, clip art, ... see <http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/tou.aspx> article 1.2. If that article wouldn't be there, Microsoft could sue you if you distribute a book that contained some clipart from word. But please read the first point of article 1.2: you may not distribute the clips photo's
etc. as such or in a collection.

That is totally NOT what I am talking about. Ask JK Rowling.

Also Adobe Photoshop's license <http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ pdfs/cs_combined.pdf> has an article about "Stock Files" (images, photographs, ... artistic works): you may display, modify, ... them (if you have a licence, of course), but you may not distribute them in a product of which they form the primary value.

See above.

The same is true for synthesizers: you may distribute music made with it, but not the samples as such or in a collection.

Sure. Agreed.

The problem arises with tools that have an artistic creation in them. For instance, imagine a stamp that is being sold, that's a tool, but
it also contains an artistic work.

Nit-picking. I do not see the analogy here. Is the stamp a tool for creating an artistic work? Again, I am NOT talking about samples here.

Hope this clears things up.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]