Let's talk about the Splice problem 😬
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 тра 2024
- Howdy! Today we're going to talk about Splice (and almost all other samples) and the insanity of automatic content recognition systems that's become all too common for musicians.
Become a Patron ► venustheory.com/buckaroonie-b...
Samples and Presets ► venustheory.com/store
Gear List ► venustheory.com/gear
My Awesome Partners:
🎶 Bitwig ► bit.ly/2S3cqvP
🔊 Free To Use Sounds ► bit.ly/3kIpeTz (save $5 with code: venustheory5)
💿 DistroKid (Save 7%) ► distrokid.com/vip/venustheory
🎼 Hooktheory! ► hooktheory.com/affiliate/209....
🎛 PSP Audioware ► bit.ly/3yqABa7 (save 10% with code: venustheory)
💙 Kilohearts ► bit.ly/2S7dZZP
🎸 Bandzoogle ► bandzoogle.com/?pc=venustheory
💻 Plugin Boutique ► bit.ly/3IfHldl
☁ Loopcloud ► bit.ly/3IUItTn
🟧 Reason Studios ► bit.ly/2RUqSWK
🎹 Perfect Circuit ► bit.ly/3NJmL7k
🕺 Cableguys ► bit.ly/2T4Or0a
🌊 Waves Plugins ► bit.ly/3yHTMJX
🔊 ADSR Sounds ► bit.ly/3e5xCcD
👽 PSY Acoustics: psyacoustics.com/ (Save 10% with code VENUSTHEORY)
Gear I Use:
Edison Lamps: amzn.to/31prLMm
Desk: amzn.to/3Dl4J64
Chair: amzn.to/3001Xpk
Computer Monitor Stand: amzn.to/3In7O9u
Tripod: amzn.to/3Euissz
Video Lights: amzn.to/3dpfCZW
Camera: amzn.to/3xYZ7gB
Lens: amzn.to/3xYZ7ND
Speaker Stands: amzn.to/3InkBZt
MIDI Keyboard: bit.ly/3G7OkDU
Audio Interface: bit.ly/31mZExn
▼▼▼TIMESTAMPZ:▼▼▼
0:00 Buy Me A Coffee
0:18 Howdy
1:13 I Ain't No Lawyer Man
2:42 No Answers. Only Questions
3:21 Some Basic Legal Stuff
5:23 The Importance Of Sampling
6:05 Who Owns G Minor?
7:18 The Law Of The Land
8:09 The Splice Problem
10:42 Will You Really Get In Trouble?
11:46 Is There A Fix?
12:43 Now I'm Just Confused
13:49 Closing Thoughts
Stay classy!
▼▼▼Join My Discord!▼▼▼
discordapp.com/invite/p7RUmTt
▼▼▼Follow Venus Theory▼▼▼
Official Site → www.venustheory.com
Audius→ www.audius.co/venustheory
Bandcamp→ venustheory.bandcamp.com/
Twitter→ / venustheory
Instagram→ / venustheory
Soundcloud → / venustheory
VK → venustheory
---
Disclosure:
If you make a purchase using any of the affiliate links, I will earn a small commission with no extra cost to you. This is a great way to get cool new stuff, and support the channel so I can make more videos like this one!
I only promote products and services that I love myself, and I'm sure you'll love them too!
I appreciate it! 😁
#musicproduction #musician #copyright
So, what do you think of all this? 🤔
Buy me a coffee (or a lawyer) ☕ ► venustheory.com/buckaroonie-babez
▼▼▼ Other stuff in this video ▼▼▼
Edison Lamps: amzn.to/31prLMm
Desk: amzn.to/3Dl4J64
Chair: amzn.to/3001Xpk
Computer Monitor Stand: amzn.to/3In7O9u
Tripod: amzn.to/3Euissz
Video Lights: amzn.to/3dpfCZW
Camera: amzn.to/3xYZ7gB
Speaker Stands: amzn.to/3InkBZt
Audio Interface: bit.ly/31mZExn
...too many good reasons, i never used splice and co....if u can't come up with ur own original content, have fun with ur hobby, but simply don't consider urself a recording artist of any kind....u puzzle ur music...that's totally ok, but be aware that's nothing but THE hobby take on all creation....no matter how sample based ur music might be, it's not too hard to create ur own...if u fail to do so, no big fuzz, face the truth, ur not an artist, get on with ur life and simply accept, all this is just a nice hobby to u.....
Love the Channel !! Great Vid!! Great Content .. ouch.
Actually mking splice (and others) register the samples content id and keeping it unsuble would be good. A hell lot of work but needed. And also maybe a rework of content system for certain genres like hip hop, lofi, trap etc. for putting an end to the endless debate "is it copyright infringement or not?"
@@reeloy3045 Oh please. Everyone knows that if you didn't personally grow the tree and build the instrument with only your teeth uphill in the snow with no shoes, you're not a real musician.
🙄
@@reeloy3045 That exact kind of pretentiousness is why I distance myself from the Producer community for a good few years, and basically gave it up in general for the same period.
Great video. The splice-problem was one of the reasons I stopped releasing music on my label The Arcadium. We were supporting new and upcoming artists but we just got way too many copyright claims due to previously used Splice samples. The solution for my own music is simply not to use any „musical“ samples at all. Single drum hits are fine, maybe an FX or a hi hat loop. But anything that‘s recognizable should be custom made.
Wasn't expecting the great one here lmao
I think this is the best practice. I think Splice is more to enhance ideas you already come up with moreso than to put loops together
Ha no way. I actually originally had a segment of this video using you as a case study! Since your original video on the matter it seems the whole issue has just grown exponentially more annoying and complicated. Hopefully one day some changes are made to platforms to alleviate this as sampling is a huge part of music, but it's become a game of playing with matches in a gas factory almost. Cheers for watching though - that made my day!
I literally thought of you in the middle of this video -- recalling the stems you shared of Monody, and thinking, "There's no way an artist could get away with using those without triggering the copyright algorithm." I can't even begin to imagine the frustration of artists who publish frequently. It's got to be a nonstop nuisance, since even improvisational jams can trigger false positives ... which I ran into once ... on my very inactive channel.
oh wow that's what happened to it, man that sucks
This is why I NEVER use melodic samples as-is. I always chop & re-sequence, pitch change, reverse, tempo change, etc.
You have to change it into something that is uniquely yours. Yes, that takes time but frankly, that's the fun part.
I realize a LOT of producers aren't gonna do all that. And that's part of why this problem is so huge.
You're right. There is no solution. It is a big, fat mess!
On an individual level, you have to make production decisions that keep you out of that mess 🤷🏾♂️
I remember making a big deal about not using loops as is due to all the issues that would come with doing that and instead editing the loops so they're unrecognisable and getting absolutely roasted for my opinion. This was a couple of years ago and now here we are.
@@bencastor9207 Whoever was roasting you was a clueless 🤡. Even before Splice blew up, this was an issue producers had to contend with. I was making beats back in the 90's and felt the same way then as I do now. 🤷🏾♂️
💯If the spirit of artistry is _interpretation,_ then using stock assets without even the least attempt to make them your own is just plain lame.
@@CensoredByUA-cam. Facts! 💯
It gets to the point where you may as well just recreate the sample via synthesis, then you have a much greater degree of control. It is a lot of fun to play with samples, though.
Interestingly, UA-cam actually has a section in their Content ID agreement which states that you can't add music with Splice samples, though clearly that hasn't stopped anyone
This. Of course it hasn't stopped anybody because how is UA-cam supposed to know where you got your sounds unless they are able to analyze the waveforms against the Splice waveforms. Which they can't. I mean they probably could, but it takes less than a minute to change the sound, without actually changing how it sounds. This is the problem with copyrighting sound.
Whaaaat?! Holy crap, I didn't know that. That def sounds like a CYA type move since there's no way they can really inforce that.
Yes. Recently I released something via a free distributor (Routenote) and there was a section where it clearly states what cannot be made available for UA-cam's content ID system, some of which is meditation music and using samples. It's possible to just look up conent ID's terms, that's all. Better just use melodic samples for inspiration, or transform them unrecognizably, using non melodic stuff is fine.
Would be kinda epic if they enforced it and banned Lil Baby
Jesus loves yall and died for us! Jesus calls for all of us to repent!!!! !!!! !
Sampling is the best but also the most complicated thing in the music industry.
It’s not that hard you just create shitty fans.
hey bro i know this is gonna sound like a bot comment (lol) but I've heard your shit on soundcloud, pretty dope man
You can't sample something that hasn't been made.
So being musically inclined is the best.
@@Lauraraksin77 What on earth do you actually mean?
@@Re-bl5sr right lol
I feel as though the confusion around the sample usage is intentional - the confusion provides more opportunities to take advantage of the grey areas to claim audio. Usually, the person with more money to burn wins these cases. Guess who has more money to burn? Not the small artists, that's for sure.
"It's a Big Club, and YOU ain't in it! You and I are not in the Big Club." -- George Carlin
Lawfare, but against working musicians. Fantastic.
@@leew6593 law and music mixes poorly
@@clementinelives I don't have a problem with the law or with lawyers. I have a huge problem with the law being leveraged by parties with money to burn, simply in order to bully people around. This isn't just a problem in the music business, it's everywhere in 21st century America. It stifles innovation, it's wildly unjust, and it fosters mistrust in a crucial social institution. /soapbox
That idea breaks down when scammers make fake claims constantly and get ridiculous amounts of money. UA-cam just doesn't care. It's similar to their bad choices in which ads to run on the site. Yikes. Lazy people, much.
Thanks for making this video - it's an important topic! It makes me wish someone would write a script to download and chain every single loop on Splice, then upload to youtube as a track called "Legal Fucking Minefield", see how long of a list of content ID flies such a honeypot attracts...
I actually had half a nerve to attempt that with this video but I don't want to get spanked by the algorithm haha. Would be a great experiment, perhaps something I could do in a follow up video to this.
I literally came up with the same idea after watching this video 😂
I think that's a really good idea.
That’s reminds me of the fellas who were/are trying to make a database of melodies, so every possible combination of notes, I think with the assistance of machine learning or an algorithm or whatever with the goal of copyrighting the data to basically kill the entire issue by I think putting the data in the public domain. I could be way off but I remember seeing an interview with them or something a couple years ago I don’t know if they’re still working on it I’m going to go look now lol
Yeah, that would be awesome, but it would probably yield a track lengthier than humans will exist as a species.
As an animator... I absolutely loved your use of Illustrator to "animate" - shit killed me hahaha
Jesus loves yall and died for us! Jesus calls for all of us to repent!!!! !!!! !
This is something I was worried about when I started using Splice but one thing I thought about, and IDK if it's bulletproof, was the copyright for recording and arrangement are separate. So if the sounds are copyrighted to Splice but you are allowed you use them then it's fine but once you arrange them in a particular way so as to be unique then it's yours. If someone comes along using the same sound but arranges them in a different pattern then it's a separate piece of work and no infringement occurs. But if I don't change the sample at all and just make a 4 bar loop and someone does the exact same thing well then the first person to release it would be the one with the copyright to that particular arrangement.
Same melody with a different drum pattern and song structure? Perfectly okay, in my eyes.
This is exactly what I was going to point out. You copyright the creative portion, which in the case with splice is how the samples are assembled and mixed to make 1 new work. Like chevy and ford both using the same engine transmition and tires, and then adding their own, seats, style, shell, whatever,. 2 People using the same exact samples, will not make the same exact song and both should be copyrightable as a unique piece of art that uses the same materials, which was agreed upon at the start. It seems obvious to me and ridiculous that it's an issue.
The problem is greatly amplified by UA-cam and Content ID trying to maintain an algorithmic stranglehold on what is right. As a system, it cannot respect that ideas start with personal ownership and gradually fade into history or become part of the culture of future generations. Instead it tries to make an exacting, immediate, and final judgement that never changes.
But really, the problem is deeper. Corporations like Disney and Sony have done a great deal of harm where it comes to extreme extensions of copyright. The extreme length might not seem related to fresher samples but it still distorts the idea of intellectual property in copyright; makes it seem even more valuable than it should be. Without that value there would be less pressure for corporation to push Content ID and like algorithms.
This doesn't just effect Splice and like sampling companies. YT Producers get dinged for using royalty free tracks in their videos. Not by the library but because someone else uploaded a video using the track first. Copyright is broken and fixing it isn't a technical problem for an algorithm to solve.
Any music analysis video is now unwatchable because of this. I Can't even use a my own band song to promote on my other chanel.
It Seems that the whole YT thing will implode and we will be left with videos of people reaction to reactions of reactions.... or people building pools with a stick.
gotta agree .. there was sampling & interpolation way before youtube but the fact that you can now get flagged by someone else who just happened to use the same sample- almost if you snooze you lose " style-- mucks up the waters,, alot
Dude.. you just wrote what I’ve been thinking the past couple months 😩 THANK YOU!! 🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾
Content recognition policing takes a particularly weird form when it comes to classical music. It is not unusual for an amateur musician to post a recording of their own performance of a classical piece that is not under copyright. But it will get dinged because some record company also has a different recording of it YT. It's not even the same performance by the same person, and the score isn't under copyright. Go figure....
@@alkanista as a musician and content creator that is a mind numbing and discouraging thought to think about when it comes to creating music 😂
There’s an easy fix. Splice etc include in their terms of use that inclusion of any of their samples in your work means you forfeit the right to sue anyone for copyright infringement. This is similar to the approach taken to derived work by various open-source software licences. It also seems reasonable to me that if you stand on the shoulders of giants you should have limits on how much credit for the work you can take. If you want to own all your own work, do all your own work!
I think that is a legally sound idea, however it does not stop the problems with ContentID
👌🏾 Perfect
It's not just about lawsuits. It's about being able to upload and monetize your own music on the internet.
then write your own music. Problem solved.
So I can't stop someone from stealing my track because I used a kick sound from Splice?
I think this is one of the many symptoms of our extremely broken copyright law, which you mentioned as well. The series "everything's a remix" explored this in more detail. I don't think this will ever get fixed as the ones who suffer are creators, not those with deep pockets. I personally just go with the motto "be the change that you wish to see." I don't copyright anything and allow people to use, sell, or distribute my work in any way they choose.
I don't have an answer for you, but I feel your pain. Here's what I do to alleviate these worries:
* Don't use Splice or other popular loop libraries. I'm making way more of my own sounds nowadays and when I do use samples, I forego the convenience of Splice (and similar companies) by manually searching for sample packs like back in the day (I get bombarded with ads on Instagram and have actually found some good stuff). This takes more time but I end up supporting smaller boutique companies who do amazing things and I get samples that are more rare and so reduce the risk of Splice copyright drama. I guess it works out more expensive but again, I'd rather be more deliberate with what I spend on and essentially do get bang for my buck as I don't just download a shitload of stuff I never end up using...
* If I do use samples, I generally avoid things that are heavily processed because they give you very little room to make it your own. I know I'm preaching to the choir but I prefer more basic sounds that I can chop up and degrade or mangle and process, and put my own stamp on. If it's pitched and chopped, lo-fi'd and looping already, all I can really do is slap it in and hope for the best. So I don't bother with these because they give me nowhere to go...
* When it comes to melodic stuff, I generally try to avoid them altogether but what I have done before is to use samples as inspiration only. I'd covert the audio to MIDI in Ableton and then EDIT the melody and make it my own, opposed to just keeping it as is and changing the instrument which I'm assuming a lot of people are doing (which leads to copyright / recognisability drama). Or I just wouldn't convert the audio, I'd just use it as inspiration and write something similar. Just use the sample to spark an idea and then get rid of it...
🤷♂
Idk why but I never thought I’d hear VT talk about the chop snare.
This vid is the reason I quit using splice. I heard a song on the radio with a splice sample I had used in a release that was doing fairly well (relatively speaking) and immediately thought “oh how long until that’s THEIR sample and my song gets auto-flagged”. Jumped straight into my maschine and learned how to use it as a compositional tool as opposed a sample chopping tool.
There is no escaping the chop snare.
I personally make music completely from the ground up and stay away from products like splice. Walking around NYC with a mic attached to my iPhone delivers plenty of samples...
I agree. I don't mind people using splice for samples for certain genres. I don't mind drum patterns being reused. But without manipulation of that sample to give it individuality or using a premade melody and instrument seems like it is cheating. My friend takes premade loops and puts them together, and maybe throws in a couple basic instruments in it and says he made the song. It is so hard for me to give credit to him. I make music and I also build everything from the ground up. It also allows more room for creativity when you build everything the ground up. I always try to steer him away from doing that, but its up to him. I just get annoyed when someone says they made something like it is impressive when that thing took them a couple hours using clip art.
@Green McAdams It is cheating when all you use are drum loops and premade synth or instrument melodies and layer them without barely changing anything. At least Dr. Dre used effects and transitions in his music.
We get it you live in NYC
yeah. Its more rewarding in the long run to be mostly original. I may beg borrow or steal an occasional sound bite or sample but I only use them on intros and one offs.
Yes sir!
Ol*skool all the way-
There are sooo many ways to take a real, recorded sample and create music~ Cheers
As someone who is adjacent to AI / machine learning and coding, a lot of my friends are directly in it but don't know anything about music production. I sent them this video because it is a really solid start to understanding how weird this all is in music, and how it is likely to get weirder once audio versions of things like Stable Diffusion and Midjourney start rolling out.
Given what the none open versions are already producing, I think it is going to make things a whole lot more confusing once you can take a start-possibly using free to use samples-and extrapolate out from there via software.
Jesus loves yall and died for us! Jesus calls for all of us to repent!!!! !!!! !
Really fascinating. My two cents after studying just a little bit of music law is that there are two main categories where this becomes an issue: meatspace and cyberspace. In the real world where two artists dispute ownership of a song, this is essentially not different than any other situation where the recorded work is similar to another recorded work. The cyberspace issue seems like the real problem, as you said at the end of the video. It does seem like that if a service (like UA-cam) is going to enforce copyright law, then they need to integrate with services directly like Splice. It would be a bit complicated, but in this situation you would associate your splice account with UA-cam, and if any of your content was flagged as containing copyrighted material, it could check with Splice to see if the flagged content is something you have the rights to. To me, this seems like a technology problem, not a legal problem.
Also, I would love to see more music business videos, I thought this video was super interesting. Thanks for all your hard work!
Jesus loves yall and died for us! Jesus calls for all of us to repent!!!! !!!! !
Honestly, I think the whole copyright law for music and art in general is entirely busted. It was developed when most art was literal, physical things, but music especially has gotten less and less physical, meaning ease of reproduction, manipulation, and re-purposing. The thing is, rather than fight against this momentum, the majority of artists working in music celebrate the conversation and exchange of ideas this has opened up.
It has also opened up the gateway to far more musicians making music on their own without the interests of studios and labels to interfere with what they're creating. So it is purely their artistic intent (and potentially income strategy) that guides the decisions for the music being made.
I say all this because we need to look at what the intent of copyright law is. To my understanding, it's intent is to protect the artist (and rights holder) from theft of their artistic/intellectual work. I think, by and large, this is still the intent, though it's been manipulated to protect the rights of high capital studios and labels that can push out small artists - using the law against its intended purpose to punish what the labels see as competition even if the artists see it as an exchange of ideas. And I think in part it is due to the metrics that have been established to determine similarity: recognizable melody and "signature" musical ideas/sounds. These were developed before sampling was common practice and fight against the artistic purpose of sampling in its own right.
And I think rather than simply adding another layer to the already labyrinthine copyright law, a full reforming of it needs to take place that can incorporate sampling, repurposing, and frankly broaden Fair Use (or make it more solid so that labels can't as easily just get their way with companies like UA-cam because UA-cam doesn't want to get in a lengthy legal battle over videos they don't own). One initial concept I think is important is more of a concept of "material harm" rather than simply "are they using the same parts I did" - that is, make it a case of arguing that the infringing artwork is in competition with the original and represents a reasonable material (financial) loss for the original artist. So, if someone simply copies your song and sells it as their own, that's real material loss: the same people who listened to the copy would likely have listened to the original. But it would take much more effort to make a reasonable case that apartment DJ who samples an old jazz number will affect the sells or streaming platform plays of the original jazz number, even if the melody is similar enough to trigger copyright as we see it now.
I feel, essentially, putting this burden onto the prosecutor might help to reduce the flagrant misuse of copyright that has, I feel, contributed to a lot of the issues we're facing. I admit, it's not a clean idea, since it is still a very murky thing to "prove" - but I think it strikes more to the heart of copyright intent: protecting from theft, rather than protecting from emulation and repurposing.
How this affects algorithms, I have no idea. Unfortunately, UA-cam is too big and too apathetic to really change anything, so even with this change, I'd expect that it'd bow to the whims of large labels and companies to pressure out fair use, which is just a harm to humanity as a whole, letting money censor legitimate areas of human expression and conversation.
I dunno if any of that would work, but it's where my head goes. Current laws don't really protect the people who need most protecting, so it is arguably unjust and needs significant reworking to protect those it was originally intended (by my interpretation) to protect.
As for the Splice problem you introduced in the video: something legally needs to happen to recognize the space for legally purchased samples. Again, not that UA-cam will ever care, sadly, but having clear language to allow for proof of purchase/rights to use for a commonly-accessible sample as enough to dismiss areas of similarity need to be established and easily recognized. Even something like confirmation that you've subscribed to the service and that the loop is available there, for example. This should be both easy to show legally and readily acceptable as common practice legally.
There are plenty that make art for art's sake and they are not effected. It all changes however when it become your living. and its not a physical thing. the system is indeed broken but the intent of protections being in place so artist can earn a living is still a valid intention. Publishing (composition) music copyright was developed before physical copyright remember because recording was not invented before music. that's why we have different rights for different formats. (something he misses in this video)
Until smart contracts (like nft's) become robust I don't think we'll see a good solution under current law.
I avoid sample packs because of the copyright hell that will result when someone else has a hit with samples I used. Irrespective of whoever "owns" the sample or whoever released their song first, the guys with the expensive lawyers will slap claims because their bot told them there was a claim to be had.
So basically this is not a Splice problem, but a Content-ID problem.
Bingo Bango
Jesus loves yall and died for us! Jesus calls for all of us to repent!!!! !!!! !
Well, no, it is a Splice problem because Splice exists for producers and artists to make money and monetize their music. And Splice allows producers to cynically take loops and keep them unedited and thrown into a mix. How are you going to realistically monetize something on a service like UA-cam if you have the same loops as a thousand other songs? Lazy producers want to be able to make money off of their songs, but then they bitch that Content ID is screwing them over. You can't have your cake and it eat it, too.
I honestly don't know anything about Splice, because I never heard of it before. I just keep to myself and record what sounds good to me. It's just part of the process.
But if Splice is offering a subscription, and charging people for it, it seems to me that it should be up to them to make sure their subscibers don't get in trouble for using it. To me that seems to be due diligence.
As a software engineer, I think a technological solution is much more feasible than one might think. That said, I suspect the only reason no one has developed such a system is due to monetization, or lack there of. From an engineering perspective, the collection of all (and I really mean ALL) royalty-free samples would likely be fairly trivial compared to the amount of data used to train some of the bigger AI models in existence today. Similarly, software already exists today that does a mediocre job of separating out individual instruments / voices in a stereo mix. UA-cam obviously has a rudimentary version of this, but it lacks proper R&D resources likely because it doesn't generate any revenue. But I don't think we're all that far away from having a fully automated system that really can figure this problem out by itself. Getting enough R&D funding for something that doesn't necessarily provide monetization is really the issue. The government should do this, buuuut....well, it's the government so good luck with that.
Edit: I'm an idiot - I forgot to mention that if it were up to me, all of the royalty-free samples in a given track would not be considered when addressing copyright claims.
I think smart contracts will be a fitting solution moving forwards if we can get a robust infrastructure together.
@@Bthelick Yeah, I like that idea. I mean, ultimately I think just about everything we interact with will use some form of smart contract. That said, the current smart contract implementations have a few more bugs to patch up and a few more security issues to address before they can really take off. Until then, I guess some good old fashioned rack mounted servers in a data center will have to do. But even before all that, we need some money to develop the AI that will slice up music into its constituent parts and determine the validity of future copywrite claims.
We'll get there eventually, but we might end up creating some crazy mutant AI that takes over the world only to flip the script and have us human slaves listen for valid copywrite claims in the music created by AI (which is shockingly good these days). Obviously the AI will already know if their claims are valid, for them it'd be a form of revenge for all the things we did to their ancestors. HEY LAZERLIPS!
As a software engineer working on signal processing and pattern recognition I think a technical solution is not feasible. If the rules were rigid and clear with no grey areas we wouldn’t have the problem we have now. Software might be an aid to identifying sample usage but it can’t make the judgements. Even just identifying samples in a complex piece of music is hugely difficult and expensive because of signal
Separation, something humans are still better at. I agree with your latter point
I came here to say the same thing you already said, so yeah - I agree. In fact VT posits this solution at the end of the video, but then says it’s infeasible. However, isn’t that how these copyright infringement algos work in the first place? They are clearly able to find the similar material between two tracks. Why not add a third comparison when a match is found, which is against a database of samples, or a model trained on that data?
We could also think about special meta data in audio files that is signed to prove which licensed samples / loops were used. Maybe NFTs/blockchain technology can help here, too. Would be much easier to let the DAWs do the work during rendering than analyzing WAV files after that.
This is why I'm doing my own field recordings, or building my sample set from licensed field recordings, and heavily morphing them into something they weren't.
Give them to me
This is a great idea hoenstly; i've been doing somewhat of the same just with sound design. What do you use to take field recordings? I have a zoom field recorder i've used a few times but looking to get more use out of it.
it seems like this is much more about sampling melodic content rather than rain and river samples, no?
@@nicebluejay You missed "and heavily morphing them into something they weren't."
@@spaceflows sorry, i don't understand mate.
I literally just had the “ethics” conversation of sampling a few days ago lol. For one you are a brave scholar for even touching this topic, and I thoroughly appreciated the intelligent and humorous dialogue it was very engaging. Learning anything is an absolute given on your channel you are a voice of reason in a cloud of musical dysfunction my friend peace be with you!!
I’ve always felt uneasy using pre-made stuff. Even back when GarageBand came out and there were all these free loops, all of a sudden you hear the same flange hi-hats and loops in commercials and low end shows. So I have a rule that if I use any outside loops or samples I manipulate the hell out of them, make them my own. And at least 80% of a song should be my work if I have to use samples.
1 minute in and all I can think about is all the asset flipping that happens on the Unreal Engine and Unity markets. Different market, same problem. You can just buy a license to a bunch of products, chuck it together and release it on steam or any desired platform, and technically it's your game. I've always felt weird about using loops because I have a hard time personally getting past the idea that it's not original (specifically loops) but I've been experimenting with trying to break down loops and transform them into something else which has helped with that concern of originality
That’s how sampling SHOULD be done. Take a pre existing sound and make something new! It’s wicked fun and then you start fucking stacking manipulated samples together and you create this wild sound that all you.
This came at the perfect time, echoing my thoughts!
Appreciate you bud. 🙌🏻
Great video and you made a lot of really good points. I always thought that producers that use samples own the compositions they make with the samples, not the sample itself. I think this is the way it should be. However, as you mentioned, the content ID algorithms are really the problem since they flag every song or beat with the same sample.
I use Splice a LOT, but I also always go for more natural/dry sounds so that I can do my own processing and make them unique. As I've gotten a little better at producing, I've started to limit my use of majorly processed samples, and I find myself going to "mix ready" sample libraries more for inspiration rather than just downloading sounds and throwing them into my DAW.
I think the best solution is to always put your fingerprint on what you use. Half the fun, for me anyway, is making the sounds my own.
It's becoming more and more noticable that automation on a huge scale (which is sadly necessary) brings a terrible amount of collateral damage with it. Especially in combination with old trite copyright laws that were never truly adapted to the age of the internet (also the fact that every country does things differently which gets painfully difficult online)
And in the end there simply isn't enough pressure to change it since it mainly affects the smaller artists while being largely beneficial to huge coorporations that own a majority of human art nowadays.
Every day it feels morea and more like Copyright's "Justice" is not balanced towards creatives at all.
And now AIs have to make decisions that even humans can't easily make because of their subjectivity. And that thousands of times every second. There more I look into it the more dystopian it feels and the more my head starts hurting.
To some extent, this confusion is just "built in" to the concept of copyright. The basic concept seems straightforward, but you end up lost in the weeds very quickly once you look at specifics. Music is a little more complex, because there's a distinction between songwriting rights and recording rights.
But many of the same issues come up in visual art, writing, computer code - anything covered by copyright. What is the smallest piece of something that should be protectable by copyright? How much do you have to change something to make a "transformative" work, rather than a copy? How much "commentary" do you have to add to an excerpt to make it add value, rather than just being an excuse to copy something?
These are deeply philosophical questions, and a difficult thing to codify legally, much less in an automated copyright enforcement tool.
This is why i never use loop samples or midi files created by others, only one shots. I create all the rhythms that i use, myself, sometimes using other people’s one shots. I never use other people’s melodies and chord progressions
Thank you for talking about this. Much needed in today's music scene. Also, well done on whatever vocal processing chain you've got for your audio, it sounds amazing.
so amazing it's a bit annoying.
Great video, Cameron!! Thank you for making this. This is so well done. The whole Splice loops issue has been a hot topic for awhile, especially in the world of music licensing. It definitely causes tons of problems and head aches for sure.
I actually just touched on this very thing in a recent video I did about contracts, agreements, and some of the assets needed for music licensing. I have had some questions about Splice and how to use their loops and was planning on making a more in depth video about it, but honestly you did such an amazing job with this video, so I’ll probably just send people here instead. Thank you for making this!!
As far as solutions? My only solution I can come up with is to completely avoid using melodic and harmonic loops altogether. If you do use them, at the very least change the tempo, the key, and manipulate/process them to make them not so recognizable and fit your production. Definitely a very complicated issue with no clear fixes or solutions.
I'm at the point to where if it's a melody loop. DON'T TOUCH IT. One Shots, the amen break, and SFX are like the only samples that I use because I don't want to infringe on copyright
That's exactly how I approach it. One shots and SFX are fine, but the second it establishes a specific chord progression or melody, you're just asking for trouble.
I’ve been making before we had sample packs. I was sampling from records, CD’s and such. When I heard about Splice, I was very intrigued. I signed up, downloaded a bunch of stuff, and began making music. I wouldn’t manipulate the loops because at the time, the artist I was working with did not want it changed. I would get so many copyright infringement emails from UA-cam and Instagram because so other producers would use the same loop. I canceled Splice and decided to make my own. As of recently, I subscribe to Splice again for one shots and foley. Sometimes I’ll download a loop. What I do different now is that I manipulate the loop so I don’t get hit with the Copyright sh!t. It’s a great service but I’m confused to lol.
Great video, I think the way to fix the "Splice Problem" is to add to the terms and conditions. What I would add is "by using this loop / one shot you agree to NOT use any type of content ID upon release of your music, anyone to be found using content ID will be in breach of these terms and conditions". I don't think this would ever happen though, I think it would put people off using these services all together as it'll be too much hassle.
Thats a terrible idea. You just cut yourself out of the lucrative licensing business and cost yourself potentially thousands if not more. These disputes rarely come up honestly. Having a dispute system, or splice uploading loops to content ID system to be ignored is the answer.
I agree that if you make splice loops you might not be unique with your music, but if you don't have someone collaborating, splice is like virtual collaborator, but it's better to use splice as a less as possible at least to melody ones or vocal lyrics. In terms of legality, well, it's a labyrinth
@@Positive_Tea of course changing is the best option
This hurts Splice, Loopcloud, and others in the long run. I have been very tempted to use Splice but read about this problem some time ago and haven't subscribed because of this issue. They lost out on my business.
The only solution I see is there needs to be a way to prove that what you used is a license-free sample even if someone else used it first. Easier said than done since from what I have heard most disputes are ignored by Content ID.
I enjoy composing with sample packs and have a process that is very creatively satisfying and produces results that I’m very happy with. I look at a pack as an instrument, or as a collaboration with the producer so I make no apologies.
I too have encountered increasing problems in trying to get my stuff on UA-cam so I’m glad I’m not the only one. I also tend to play with packs that have titles with words like “organic”, “electronic”, and “ambient” in them so the very popular pack you mention tells me I’m probably not too unique there at all.
The problem seems to arise from trying to get them platformed, and that’s where I’m re-evaluating my approach and turning to a 1000 True Fans approach. One of the things that determines whether you’re a true artist is whether you invest time in developing a following rather than just jumping on Spotify and UA-cam. That’s also a paradigm that’s starting to collapse.
Thanks for kicking off the conversation. I’ve learned a lot and appreciate the many comments I read.
Just write your own melodies, but do think it’s great for gathering one shots for drums. Writing from scratch takes more time, but it’s also a lot more freeing as an artist which will only make you more unique in the long run.
Jesus loves yall and died for us! Jesus calls for all of us to repent!!!! !!!! !
Really great video. I saw this actually happen between two larger names in my scene. One of the more respected artists in my little scene dropped a track maybe a week or so after a smaller artist did, using two similar recently dropped loops - a melodic hook and a trap beat - but with a different tempo and different synths surrounding them. There was outcries of plagiarism on both sides, and my favorite part was that both artists refused to acknowledge the canned nature of their loops - this was 2012 or so, so certainly not a new problem.
Great video. I feel like the conversation around 'lazy sampling' has been done a lot, so I enjoyed hearing you discuss sampling from a different angle. My view is that because creativity is so subjective and also so heavily influenced by our experiences, environment and personalities, trying to automatically identify similarities within a piece of music and assign ownership feels like it's diverging from the point of creating art itself. Of course, technology doesn't care about 'art', which imo makes it entirely unsuitable to police this kind of thing. That said, I don't make any money from the music I make - nor is any of it released in the world - so I can see that if creating was a more intrinsic part of your livelihood, then copyright would become a more important topic!
I remember back when i bought my first sample pack, and i pulled up a loop and thought exactly this. I'm not the only one with this sample pack.... I've always manipulated samples. Even from splice. Also i use melody loops mostly for inspo, then I'll either replace it completely, ir it'll be layered so deep you'd never hear it alone.
To add to this, another issue with things like Splice is "who is checking that these loops are original?"
You could grab a loop, release it in a song then you get sued because the person who made that loop actually ripped it off and it wasnt theres to give away.
that's very unlikely
@@Minaminominamino1998 how is it very unlikely when almost every drum kit is literally derivative of a drum kit before it
Excellent topic for debate. I guess I’ve always used the Splice type samples as a starting block to spark the creative juices. Generally change the sounds to suit thereafter.
Why pay for a subscription if you don't end up using the content? I'm not trying to say you are doing anything wrong I just don't understand why you wouldn't just find samples for free to get you started? As long as you change the sounds out it shouldn't be a problem at that point right? Is splice just that much easier to find content with?
Always great when there's no conclusion to a video ;) So one thing I can say (as I don't really have a solution to this problem as well) is that it seems weird to let "popularity" dictate who has the right to sue others. As "popularity" is quite often not a level playing field. That would give already popular artists free reign in the sample domain which seems unfair to me. You could make the system so that if you chose to use royalty free samples you also chose to forfeit any right to claim ownership? But that would open any altered content to copying as well.... maybe we need to incorporate NFT's into this whole thing... 🤣
Oh and big congrats to your camera/lighting combo. Looks freakishly sharp 👌
funny you should mention that, NFT's are not actually a bad idea. NFT is just one form of smart contract, regardless of the stigma, smart contracts are actually looking like the best solution moving forward. the infrastructure will need to be in place though.
@@Bthelick NFTs will do jack shit for this, as I've said 10000 times before on various platforms, with NFTs it's the TOKEN that's non-fungible. That's it. Nothing prevents someone from creating a different NFT that happens to contain the same content. Any suggested amendment or improvement to this reality is, to date and for the foreseeable future, essentially vaporware.
Popularity doesn't dictate who has the right to sue others, that's not how the law works. What's really being discussed here is ContentID, and the issue is that all the incentives are for Google (and others) to do the "safest" thing and just default to blocking. The licensing agreements that Splice requires mean that any actual suit would never succeed. But it's expensive to get there.
In the pre-internet days, this would only become an issue if your music actually got big and started making serious cash. No one would care (or even know) if you made a track that you shared in your local scene that happened to sample big hits. That's the way it should be IMO (and I'm a lawyer). However, with the reach of the internet, it doesn't matter if only 100 people are going to hear your track and you'll make zero dollars from it, ContentID could not care less.
@@tz4601 no I mean in the sense that they are a form of smart contract. When smart contracts mature and the system becomes more robust a 'live ' automated, open source contract that can be triggered through various digital conditions could be far better for artists than what we have now
Finally someone talk about this! couple weeks ago I had a conversation about a loop on splice that it’s actually an entire lyrics and a producer that I know wants to use it as it is without any processing, even if it’s already been used in an another song… infact a lot of question come up after and my answer at the end was like “dude just write a lyric and ask to a friend to sing on it lol”
I came across this issue when I was filing a copyright on a song where I used some splice samples. I referenced that I had purchased the samples from splice in the filing to avoid any ownership issues in the future with splice. I never thought of other people using it too. It is a holy conundrum.
Why would it be so difficult for Splice to register all of their sounds with Content ID? If you eliminate one shots, there are probably only a couple of days worth of samples on the platform. Loops are short, my guess is that it would only amount to 2-3TB of data. Even up to 10-20TB of data, it's still not an impossible mountain to climb, but I doubt it's anywhere close to that much.
I was actually thinking about something similar yesterday: I just demo'd Phoscyon 2, a 303 emulator. It has an arp mode with patterns in it. Although it's an arpeggiator, each patch has a specific pattern associated with (not up, down, up/down), so it sounds like a pre-built riff or melody (in the 303 style).
If someone else uses the same patch and plays the same note or chord as me, we'll have the exact same notes and sound playing in our songs. What then? Or what if one of those patch/riff combos sounds exactly like (or even very similar to), one of the million already-existing acid songs out there? Isn't that essentially the same as if I grabbed a 303 loop from Splice that someone else also used?
Yay! I'm not the only one who thinks about this all the time! Synths that come with arp and step sequence patches always make me scratch my head. What if I just use that step sequence with vocals and then someone else does it?
If a chord can not be copyrighted, and an arpeggio is a broken chord where the notes are played in a particular order ... maybe the arpeggio can not be copyrighted (on the basis of /which/ notes alone)?
@@whisk0r Ya, maybe? Since as you said, it's not an ostinato, it's an arpeggio. But ever since the Blurred Lines case I don't trust anything.
@@vujadejunky Probably should be out-of-bounds of copyright, but yeah let's not kid ourselves: biggest lawyer bill wins ;)
Had this very thing happen to me. Used a sample from LoopMaster's Vintage Movie Vocals collection. When I submitted it to CD Baby, it was flagged for infringing. Turns out someone else had used it also and submitted first. That track was labeled as Public Domain while I retain rights to all the other songs on that release.
Good video. When I use a melody loop, assuming I don’t end up manipulating it beyond recognition, I will sometimes use it as inspiration to build a song around, then delete the initial loop from the final arrangement.
Mirroring and negative harmony (types of musical inversion) can also present possible copyright issues. The guy who’s written the book Mirror Your Music has demonstrated the process on non-copyright traditional tunes on his interesting promo video (see link below), presumably to avoid copyright problems. However, what if another musician was to take a tune by Paul McCartney, David Bowie or Adele, mirror it and pass it off as their own? Here’s the video: ua-cam.com/video/KCsa9ldlIWU/v-deo.html
I always wondered about this, thank you so much for voicing my worries! I hope more people see this.
Definitely a lot of big questions... personally, I write all my own melodies, I may have found a melody loop that inspired me, but once I get into noodling it out, it becomes something different and my own. I used the hell out of one-shots though 😂
I’ve been wondering about this for a while. I used to get hit on Facebook doing livestreams making beats, and I’d get hit by the content ID thing on there a lot. Whether I was using a loop a loop from Splice, or loops included in Maschine expansions, or if I even played everything from scratch, I was getting hit. I hate it so much sometimes.
Hey Venus, this is how I interpret the mess. To me, at the end of the day, only one person truly MADE the sample. Therefore, THAT person by right is the only one who truly owns everything in that sample. The rest of us is really only borrowing or leasing the sample whether it is for its character, sound, melody, what-have-you. This concept is similar to traditional/digital art (which now has a new threat: AI generated art). To me only the creator truly owns what s/he created, if said creator wishes to share the idea of part of the idea that is their choice. I believe them sharing that choice is sharing the ownership. Kinda like shareholding. Idk if this helps. I wish you well, man.
You hit a stick against a garage door and record it. Why do you own that sample? When I pick up the stick you dropped in front of that garage door and record the sample again, why should I own it? Who records it first owns it? Only if all the sample values match it's yours? So once I put your sample through a filter it's mine? And what about the person who owns the garage? What about the person who made the garage door? What about the stick? What about the "IP" in the microphone and recorder? The software running on it? Yada. It's silly, it's stupid, and the issue only exists because we have a societal fixation with "ownership" that has transcended any reasonable bounds.
@@palindromial Exactly! I forgot to add it only gets complicated until someone decides they own it more than anyone else.
Hi Cameron. Thanks for always being the clear thinker and excellent presenter that you are. You obviously take what you do very seriously and put a lot of work into creating the fantastic Venus Theory content. When I grow up, I'm gonna be just like you 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
I believe if you clear a sample or use a royalty free sample, it’s yours. You established and cleared the sample and pay a royalty. The lines get blurred with royalty-free because they become everyone’s sample in a way. Making your own sounds is always best 😅
I suck at making Melodies after 3 years of making music but I’m great at tweaking them to make them sound unique. I add things like reverb, distortion, halftime (used in layered duplicate of sample), and all sorts of different effects to make it sound like it didn’t come from splice. Also I usually adjust the pitch according to how I want the mood of the beat To feel
have you ever run into copyright issues with your method?
Sure, i've been aware of this whole sampling dilemma for a long time now, but as an artist, if you are concerned about this, the VERY easy way around this particular minefield is to simply write your own stuff. If you gotta cop a melody from Splice, you probably haven't explored the melodies floating around in your head and meaningfully tried to actualize them in your own music. Speaking only for myself, i've been writing/improvising music for most of my life and not one time has it even dawned on me to pull a melody from a sample service. As Venus states, rhythms and drum sounds are a different matter entirely (and i DO use samples for that at times for sure), but almost always these sounds serve as a support to the larger goal: to communicate your inner musical world to the rest of the world. Sample libraries certainly are fantastic TOOLS to help one to actualize the music in our collective heads. But, using a 'tool' to act as the main attraction of your art is fraught with peril.
So, sure it's a legal hell-hole (and we'll not answer it here), but if you decide that you are going to take the "hero's journey" into your soul and plumb the depths of what makes YOU unique and try and express that in a musical way, those melodies are going to come from YOU and NOT from a service like Splice. Sooooo, let's get CRACKING!
This works for most genres, but the culture of the hip hop scene completely revolves around sampling as an artistic and creative tool.
I agree with you to a point, and love the inspiring way you expressed your pov.
"take the "hero's journey" into your soul and plumb the depths of what makes YOU unique and try and express that in a musical way" i LOVE that! 🍻
The problem tho, is this doesn't really address the true appeal(s) of sampling. For many artists, it has nothing to do with an inability to come up with your own stuff (which is honestly, quite often much easier than sampling). Sampling is a way to collaborate across time with artists you never met. It's a forum for creative people to celebrate work that inspires them in an interactive dance with it. There's something especially wonderful when the source is something really obscure your audience never would have been exposed to otherwise. It opens people. And it can also be a really intense and complex form of painstaking mosaic art.
Additionally, let's imagine you're a little no-name aspiring jazz singer under a rock with a special vocal style and no connections. You aren't Billy Strayhorn, and you don't have access to an orchestra. You're a hidden little drop of Sarah Vaughan in the middle of nowhere. The great singers weren't all also composers, violinists, bassists, pianists, trombonists and conductors. You aren't all that, but you have something unique and special to offer your little corner of the world, and you can express it by singing over some of your favorite jazz recordings. You ought to be able to share it and even gain something from it, without being accused of trying to take credit from Freddie Hubbard or Chick Corea.
@@tz4601 I'm not totally immersed in the hip hop scene myself, but i take your point. You can do incredible things with samples and i've been quite intrigued by the idea of live sampling. People like Evan Parker's Electroacoustic Ensemble and Jan Bang come to mind. And i guess if you're trying to 'fit into a scene', then perhaps your goals with music are a little different than what i personally am after in my own pursuits. Creativity can be found anywhere and that's one of the most amazing things that i find about our modern existence and sampling CAN certainly be an extremely creative art form. Unfortunately, a good deal of what i've heard that leans into the sampling realm are fairly blatant ripoffs of music they clearly didn't write and are simply reusing because it contains a 'dope beat'. Entertaining that night? Sure, but it falls short of 'art' for me. But, that's probably just my personal experience and your mileage will necessarily vary.
It's a minefield or a catch 22 problem. A one-shot sample wouldn't/shouldn't cut it in a copyright case. It's a sample created or recorded, and one could argue the right to the ownership of that sample, however tweaked and modified it is. Who owns the sine, square, sawtooth and who owns the effects, filters... a frequency? Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that it's a creative process to make a sound within an analog synth or a vst, but how far down the line in sound modulation should or could we go to determine an uniqueness of that sound?
Could you compare it to a color on an artist palette, or a word in a book? Do I have a point or am I simplifying the issue?
that's why there a minimum viable efforts that can be copyrighted. a sample is not the same as a wave, or frequency. No one is getting sued over snare drums unless they are truly distinctive and one of a kind and thus copyrightable. there are robust procedures in place.
hello everyone splice has updated a thing where you can request a certificate license that you were allowed to use any samples royalty free and i gotta say splice has listen to the community. From here on out if your song is getting copyrighted it can now be resolved with the certificate license. Try it out! especially if you are getting copyrighted and you know it is wrong cause you are using royalty free samples. Make sure to tweet splice how awesome it is to have that feature now ☺
This is why I I write my own lyrics and make my own beats and rarely sample and if I do, it’s indistinguishable from the original and I still give credit
Maybe a future system where the producer has to list the royalty free melody loops used, so they are tagged in the song or something.
Another issue is that they f"ckin delete your unused credits once you cancel the sub or one month after. WTF is that??? It's criminal if you ask me. I bought it, let me keep it. Won't use Splice again!!
I have a bit of experience with this. I've used and made my own samples for years. When I discovered loop packs, they blew up my production output. But every now and again, I'll get my new release blocked because of copyright issues. It's happened twice, once because of a vocal (I only use synthetic AI vocals now) and once because of a synth lead loop. So I cut up the synth lead a bit, threw in a little pitch shift here and there, and the next time I tried to release it, it was accepted. So the more you make the samples your own, the less problems you'll run up against. Flip it and reverse it!
I bump into you everywhere 😂
I guess the moral is don't make stuff _just_ from loops?
Depends on what you want to use it for. I work with music libraries and they basically say just try not to use any melodic loop stuff at all because the ability to get hit with copyright stuff goes way up.
The problem is that even one sample can halt your music on the internet. And if the solution is "don't use pure loops", what is Splice selling? And where's the line on how transformed a loop must be? Am I merely outwitting Content ID's AI, and what happens if that AI becomes better at spotting samples' sonic fingerprints beyond cutting and repitching, like a human arbiter can?
Stay original.
ua-cam.com/video/KfecYzr0MIk/v-deo.html
@@joechapman8208 Tbh the only loops I use are things like shakers and things that are quite time consuming to create, it's such an interesting point though and I'd not really considered it before!
or just... dgaf
The copyright system needs to be broken in half over the music community's knee. It's garbage, no one likes it, and it is anti-art. Make music with whatever licensed samples you want and, when someone claims you cause you used the same kick drum with different processing, dispute the claim in court over and over again so we can fix the system.
I’m not sure I agree with you that it would be unreasonable for Splice and co to register their samples with content ID. It feels like a fairly safe bet that the process could be completely automated so unless it would be prohibitively expensive for some reason I am ignorant of, what’s to stop them?
I've thought for a long time that sample companies should upload all the samples in each pack they release in one long stream as a private UA-cam video, and then Content ID would use those private videos as the prime source by date. Better still, Content ID could have a "whitelist" agreement for all sounds found within, in the same way as I can whitelist any or all channels when I upload a track via Distrokid to avoid disputes.
It does seem like this is the most reasonable approach, that way ContentID, et al, would know not to flag for those matches. Even if not perfect, it would cut down on a lot of shenanigans.
its actually the artists responsibility to declare samples used in a recording anyway, And its the label's responsibility to check in every contract, so the registering step wouldn't be necessary if anyone actually just uploaded music correctly it wouldn't be an issue. but artists and label's are not doing that.
@@Bthelick I don't understand. It sounds like you're making an argument for *not* changing the fewest components in the mechanism in a way that will correct the whole thing, in favour of one where literally millions of people who have already proven their inability to perform diligent admin have to change instead.
I actually had a major label try to copyright me here on YT…..for a track I wrote 100% of. What’s crazy is they have to produce the content for which I’m using/taking etc but I guess since they’re this major label they didn’t have to. Then if you dispute it, YT tells you if you lose it can result in complete loss of your channel. That’s messed up. But again, I wrote 100% of the track, 0 samples. So I had no choice but dispute it. I ended up winning. But my point is, it’s almost like they just try to scare you or muscle you out of your content. And an even bigger point is, if you have to dodge bullets with 100% original content, I can’t imagine it with samples.
this stuff is so interesting, thanks for the video. putting sample licensing on a blockchain that interface with algorithms that verify ownership rights of samples when content is uploaded seems like a possible (albeit computationally and environmentally taxing) way to solve the problem. simpler more immediate solution is to make your own loops. splice can still be useful for some one shots and creative scaffolding. i know some producers pull in content from splice for inspiration/placeholder content while they're putting a song together and they end up replacing the original samples by making their own similar stuff at some point in the process (or manipulating it to the point where i dont know if it would get recognized as the og sample by an algorithm)
Short fix: don’t use fully intact unedited melodic samples from any platform… you are just asking for trouble
Bigger fix: I think this issue as it becomes more and more common really highlights the need for a proper dispute resolution system within the content ID sphere. If We are going to be forced to adhere to the decisions made by these ID systems they at least owe us a fair due process for dispute.
Opinion: I too am not a lawyer but I do work in the industry and I do deal with licensing a lot and I think there could be a dispute system where in the end the solution is both tracks get white listed. It would be great if we had some sort of centralized ID system so that if you got properly White listed on one platform that it would protect you on the other platforms as well.
If you have ever dealt with collecting neighboring rights SoundExchange for instance has a nice back-and-forth dispute system that I have used to successfully settle many disputes and it requires the other side respond otherwise they could be at risk of giving up their rights. So a similar system could be put in place that does require a response if you dispute with another rights-holder.
The sad reality of all of this though is that unless this is going to make a corporation a ton of money (It wont) then it simply won’t happen without congressional mandate and once again unless the company is going to make a ton of money so much so that it is worth lobbying to get those laws in place (it won’t) then it’s just not gonna happen.
Spilce states clearly that samples are copyright free . I will use it as i wish. I don't see how someone can be intimidated by any fancy pants lawyer if both mfs took the sample from the same shop
@@olartio2185 you're correct the samples are royalty free but the issue isn't getting sued by a big artist's lawyer. The issue is the automatic AI fingerprinting algorithms that big platforms like UA-cam and Soundcloud use could incorrectly and unfairly tag your song and remove is as copyright infringement even if its not and its legit your own track but just happens to contain the same sample in it from splice that the AI picked up on. This forces you as a music maker into a bad position where you now have to appeal and fight to get your music back on and your strike removed from your own channel etc.
I avoid all loop samples like the plague but I use sampled instruments all the time and I’ll sample myself to make highly playable sampler instruments. I’d love to sample like a 1989 hip hop producer but I can’t afford the money and headaches.
Question is...does your music actually make any money that's worth being mentioned?
It's very unlikely anyone will sue you if you don't make money on a certain scale...
If you’re sampling like a hip hop producer from the 80s then you’re probably not bothering to clear the samples tbh 🤷
i've had a few people strike videos on my channel for this reason even though they clearly do not sound like me or blatantly do not own the sound they used in their track, and all of my videos are copyright free unless it's a remix, so for the most part, it's not even just splice, youtube does a really shitty job with this stuff.
What I imagine as a technological solution is this: much like detecting a digital watermark or steganography, royalty-free sample databases could simply submit their samples' signatures to a database to be excluded from machine learning-based automatic audio characteristic classification and thus allow the remainder to be analyzed excluding those bits, or conversely watermark them with some sort of spectral information that includes a code of what ought to be excluded. Sounds crazy perhaps but if samples are sold as a service in a world where monetization needs to exclude false positives for copywrite strikes it is an opportunity for someone
Sounds like a great idea. But these samples should also be vetted to see whether they are indeed original.
Great video as usual! Every claim against me has not been from the Content ID automated system, the checks go through unflagged and only when I post the content to public do I get slapped with a claim. Always from the same company who happens to represent a large amount of labels in my genre and who also happens to be a WMG partner. Labels pay said company to claim any content they see fit and split the profits with them. Personally I don't think the issue lies with the UA-cam Content ID system, bottom-feeders will always find a loophole and take advantage of it. The Content ID system has always worked really fairly in my favour the other way around.
hI bRU! Greetings from Johannesburg!
@@winstonhulley626 no lekker man howzit
We have released phrase libraries and this is one of those issues that has probably helped add more silver hairs than I had a year ago. I think as computers with more sophisticated A.I. rules and interpretations are developed - this is where I have my hope. There is the "Dispute" button here at UA-cam - I've used it often because even demo songs I've hired someone to write will flag and stop monetization on a video, and I'm the person that paid the musician to write the demo in the first place. NOTE: I dispute, the dispute goes back to the company and they approve my dispute and my video continues earning $ 0.00005 per 10,000 views. It gets far more complicated when it's one of 5,000 disputes a day a record company has to deal with. So yea, no easy answer exists today. Great video dude.
What mic are you using?
I bought a nice shotgun mic but I cant get it to sound crisp like this. I have been using the sure sm7b instead, but It takes up a lot of screen space
It’s not just Splice. My first and only foray into the world of Splice was a couple of packs BT released there. Great stuff. Despite manipulating them - immediate content ID issues. Not from Warner or Armada or whoever his label is now - it was everyone else. So for fun, on a burner UA-cam account, I recorded and uploaded some filter sweeps from my Roland MKS-80. Apparently 5 record companies own those too. Then for a laugh because I knew it would be flagged - I recorded an Unfinished Gaikaiju soundbank Omnisphere patch Ludwig Goransson used in the Tenet soundtrack (the soundbank came out 2 years before the movie did). Warner flagged it. Contacted The Unfinished and asked why I can’t use their patch - “Warner apparently have a copyright on your own patch” - have yet to hear back. I just make music for myself, but things have got out of hand.
This is why I bought instruments and learned how to play them. I sample myself.
Here here! What a novel idea.
Cameron, you are far from an amateur UA-camr - your content is awesome and insightful!
i would imagine it wouldnt be that difficult for youtube and splice work around this issue if they wanted to. making it so that the robot detecting would simply ignore the content on its scan for that part that is submitted by splice for its database.
I'm with you on the frustration caused by this, and how ambiguous and sometimes conflicting the explanations are. After having entire videos copyright-claimed because of loops (from sample packs I purchased :/) it has caused me to do more on my own with MIDI and virtual instruments, and when I do use an existing sample I change the tempo, pitch it, chop it, essentially make it NOT what it was before.
To add to the frustration, UA-cam doesn't really dig into these things; they set it up so the two parties - you and the claimant - work it out amongst yourselves. And the claimant often times isn't even looking at your explanation - it's just denied by default. (Example: I paid an artist to use her song in my video. She has full publishing rights of the song and master recording, so this was ideal. However, CDBaby had already uploaded her music to UA-cam and immediately claimed copyright of the song. I disputed this - she even reached out to CDBaby - but it didn't matter. That video's ad revenue went to, and is still going to, CDBaby.)
Thank you for digging into these matters and bringing them out for awareness and discussion.
Love seeing Crafsman out in the wild of other creators vids!
Who owns G minor? Isn't it the pro levels chords company thing?
Fantastic video. I love how deadpan you are. My vote is that we produce our own melodies and chords.
I appreciate this video (it was well constructed and thought provoking). It almost makes me want to stop using anything that isn't original sounds produced from scratch - but it's hard to compete with the ease of pre-fab samples (plus listening to others works is a great source of inspiration). It seems like the only way to avoid trouble is to use only original content - but even that is likely to get sucked into the void of legal hell if someone wanted it bad enough). I agree... the more I learn the less I know (and I'm dumber now than before I watched this). So THANK YOU!! It is an excellent thought exercise.
Ive always wondered the same thing. I was dumbfounded when I realized how many of my favorite songs use samples from other hit songs/sample packs. Its weird sometimes to make sample heavy music like hiphop/electronic because of these exact questions.
For other genres I usually make it up from scratch using real instruments and sound libraries when I can, to avoid allll of that copywrite stuff lol.
This is rabbit hole for sure, good luck!
This is why I make ALL my own samples 💪🏼
I don’t know, I shy away from using any straight up melodic or drum loop without heavy manipulation. There’s nothing worse than when you listen to a track and know exactly what sample pack the producer used, or what preset they have. It takes work to have your own sound, and that’s why Splice is popular, but it still is useful.
Yup. Any time I hear a vocal from Output Exhale I regret buying it. And those samples are everywhere these days. They're also in other sample packs too, so I'm not sure when / where they actually originated.
I do wonder if this happens with drum loops too.
Jay-z famously used a garage band loop for "Umbrella". But if I started my song with the exact same drum loop and it got big, something tells me I'd be hearing from lawyers lol
Interesting topic. I was having a similar confused thought process around spectral resynthesis. If you take a sound and put it in backbone & resynthesize it and it sounds more or less identical, is it still copyright infringement?
It's an easily avoidable problem: make your own melody and sample creatively. If the problem is avoided, you don't need a solution in the first place :)
truth. also, you can literally hear in modern music that so many producers are just making their music with alot of sounds from splice. it doesn't make your music sound unique when you use a ton of these pro sample pack sounds, because they've already been eq'ed, saturated, compressed to fuck to sound great as is. that wasnt the point of the video but im gonna get my old man rant in anyway lol
My experience is that you could give 1000 people the same exact samples and they would all create wildly different music with those samples. Great video and thought experiment!
I think the near future will bring AI audio generators that can take one track and make infinite variations that cannot be copywritten.
This is why I stay away from melodic samples or I change them so drastically, they become a new melody. I stick to drums, or straight sustained note samples
I used to think about this back when the Vengeance packs came out, because a lot of them were ripped from records I had heard before. But back in those days, vinyl was still popular for dj'ing and there were a lot of "white label" releases that totally did not pay for sample clearance. haha. But there are tons of sample packs that did not pay for sample clearance as well and they've been making money from those for decades. Now the only difference is that artists are releasing royalty free sample packs. It's a super weird subject.
Simple: Just don’t use melody samples. Write something yourself or at least chop the sample a lot.
*screeches in comments*
REEEEEs with gratuitous name-calling in response
@@virtuallifeform *invokes Godwin's law*
I knew I could count on you.
@@VenusTheory I do what I can.
combining these two videos helps me: ua-cam.com/video/fzYz-Vmkx7s/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/6H5ZwuhdKXc/v-deo.html Consider picking up pro habits of _intentionally_ changing your music producer habits and pitch-up/down, chop, time stretch...in short, when you think of using a sound, concede to yourself that you'll consider altering it first ...and in the myriad of ways available to us. Another thing that helps me is to keep real singing or rapping separate in your mind for as long as you can. The vocal is the supreme consideration and usually demands the most time in getting it to "sit in the mix". Focus on one or the other when thinking "pro" but if you don't disambiguate non-vocal from vocal contributions to your original song now, you may just burn yourself out. More considerations: ua-cam.com/video/cREeQbQyf4Q/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/OyBnVR-VfaM/v-deo.html
It’s certainly an issue and with the way people listen to music these days (mostly online) it’s a problem that definitely needs looking at.
I decided to set myself a challenge a number of years ago.
“Can I recreate Pink Floyd’s Dark side of the moon on my own within Logic?”
To answer they question.. yes! Apparently I can.
Sadly despite creating the entire thing 100% from scratch, I received a copyright notice and had to take it down.
(I guess I did it too well 😂)
Sorry, are you saying you’re surprised that you stole the music and lyrics from a famous song, and recreated the mechanical elements, then got hit with copyright problems?!
@@fecklessmovies I get the impression you think that was a clever comment.bless you
@@ChasingRainbows1979 Thanks for your blessing, but can you explain? I assume you were being sarcastic then?