Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Getting Sued For Using Loops? (How To Avoid It)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2020
- 👀 NEW SERVICE! Get Professional Feedback On Your Sync Tracks:
www.profeedback.me Free TV/Film Sync Licensing Course:
www.syncmymusic.com/freecourse
Music Library Directory (300+ Companies):
www.syncmymusic.com/musicdire...
My Music Library Recommendation Service:
www.syncedge.me
Video Tutorials On Creating Licensable Music For TV:
www.syncacademy.me
SMM Podcast:
www.syncmymusic.com/podcast
Sync My Music Main Site:
www.syncmymusic.com
should be in the interest of splice, loopmasters etc to actually counter such claims and support pps getting sued from bad actors as its a threat to their biz model
Absolutely.
Very valid point that I actually didn't think about before
Here’s my two cents: you can’t copyright drum parts so go ahead and use all drum/top/percussion loops without fear. I never use loops as is either unless I’ve put my own spin on it. Now with melodic/tonal stuff, this is where it gets tricky. You _can_ copyright this type of stuff HOWEVER Splice and similar websites will tell you that they’re royalty free. For me, I always avoid using the tonal stuff from sample packs just because it’s easily identifiable from song to song and it sounds really “cheap” when I hear the same loop in two different songs (this has happened before, several times). If there’s a tonal loop that sounds really cool which I might want to use, just like with the drum loops I will never ever use them as is. I’ll chop the loop up, rearrange the order, Pitch it up or down, put FX on it, Reverse it, etc. I don’t think anyone should be afraid to use loops after watching this video. However you should always apply this rule when you do use them: NEVER USE LOOPS AS IS. Always make them unique from the original somehow.
Thank you.. I've been saying this to people for a long time
If the original creator can identify it, you can still be on the hook for using it to make a derivative work.
@@davidpetersonharvey If the loops have been categorized as "royalty-free" there's nothing the original creator can do
💯👍
How im supposed to change chords that I like the exact tone of though?
Thanks for the heads up Mike - all the best getting a speedy and satisfactory resolution to this.
i had a chord progression and melody loop that i wanted to use from a big fish audio sample pack called "bass pop." i never did push myself make a full song around those loops bcuz it kind of felt like i was "cheating." then one day while i was shopping in the mall, i heard a song being played using that exact same melody loop and chord progression. it was at this point that i knew i was a schmuck, bcuz here i was walking around the mall as a nobody while some other producer took that same loop and most likely has now made a career out of it.
Makes me glad I primarily make my own stuff from the group up . I started messing with loops recently using the iPad when I’m on the go . See how it goes !
So sorry to hear about this situation! Clearly very stressful and something that wasn't Mike's fault, yet he has to deal with.
Such a shame that some people are going after an easy money fix by throwing someone else under the bus. What a slap in the face :( I hope it all works out for Mike!
This was a good one. It cleared up some questions that I previously had.
WOW!! I have always tyied to stay away from melodic loops in gneral. Now I hve an even better reason. I'll stick to making my own sounds and loops. Guess It's time to start watching the sound design courses in Sync Academy.
I would think that the answer lies with the owners of the loop libraries stating in their terms & conditions that NO loop, lead line or chord progression, vocal etc can be used in a copyright claim.
As a producer that mainly deals in hip/hop Rap and R&B this is happening a lot more today than even 2 years ago.
This is a great topic I stay away from loops & just make original content but the genre of music I make loop kits are becoming the only way producers are making new tracks that are getting placements.
Thanks for the info. We also need to be careful when we licence our own melodies. I had problems with a producer using one of my vocals for his remix and conflicting with my own original track on YT id
Very Informative,
Thanks for this Video 🙏
Thanks alot for the video helps me alot clearing things! also its one of the first times i scroll down the reactions to read all the comments very intresting :D
Glad this helped!
This is pretty important and will probably become a bigger deal in the sync licensing industry in the immediate future.
These loop packs and kits are widely available and used. A great point was brought up in this video about editors sometimes using sample kits to complete projects.
I think this issue also will serve as a differentiator or standard for libraries to maintain a stock of original music.
Take for instance Native Instruments new sound pack, Magnetic Coast. There are scores of videos and tutorials on UA-cam where people make beasts with it. While you may not have a legal issue, can you stand out from everyone else?
Sound packs should be used like instruments. You can listen to saxophone music and hear a different song and melody each time. The same should go for using loops and kits I believe. Be original.
Very good point Keith!
Hate everything you said. You do not get to tell anyone what to do. Fact is they're royalty free and fact is you're letting your limited ability confine you.
Great video and advice. Even Giorgio Mooder used a loop melody/riff in one of his recent tracks (a midi clip I came across by chance when listening to one of the sample packs I had). It’s a short one and it’s been used sparsely, but hey! It’s Giorgio Moroder :)
Could you please share more videos on this topic ? Like on looping and stuff
Slippery slope indeed but thank you for raising awareness 🙏💙
Thanks for the heads-up!
You're welcome
Sorry to bust the bubble on all the super producers here, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with utilizing loops in your creations. The terms of service state what they can and what they can't be used for and music libraries will need to adjust with the parameters - Period! Use some of that money that you should be giving your composers to pay your legal fees... When the majority of the music libraries out here stop asking for exclusive music without offering substantial money upfront maybe they will stop getting music with loops being used. The base of available loops is growing larger and larger every day and producers from all parts of the music industry use them from the superstar to the bedroom artist. So whether you use them straight out of the box, chop them up, use one shots or whatever else it's still a loop. Does using a plugin to emulate an SSL make someone any less of a producer, lazy or lack creativity? No and neither does using a loop. As the the saying goes - "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
The difficulty is that the clients using your music DO NOT want problems. If your music uses a lot of loops and create problems for them, they will want to go to a different producer that creates original material that does not cause them problems.
so you cant think for your self, & also think because something is legally possible its right to do it LOL.... story of our lost generation, No integrity no foundation!. bottom line if you do what both the producers Here did ( use a bunch of loops to make "Your TRACK?" or worse form the same pack!... your not only a lazy hack your NOT a musician or producer Period i don't care who you momentarily trick including yourself. Turn off the DAW & give it to someone who will actually use to make music. stop flooding the market place with derivative Drivel in your quest for undeserved clout.. its an insult to human potential & your an inch away from an "AI Artist"
Glad I don't use other people's melodic loops on splice. I use the presets and one shots mainly and if I hear a loop I really like, I'll just make a version of it on my own with different instrument and my polyrhythmic method. I have friends who use the melody loops as it and I'm always trying to get them to stop doing that. For TV and film stuff though, I make it all from scratch using nothing from splice; getting blacklisted from that game is something I never want to experience.
I use packs but build the song from multiple different packs, as well as import some of my own sounds. It's the only way I can get the creative rush using this method. The biggest issue is placement, volume, chopping up the tones, etc. it takes a lot of work, but that's how it's supposed to be. Now, I'm at the point where I want to start using analog sounds or creating my own samples, etc.
Also, if you're song sounds too much like the original creator's pack, then Shazam will recognize it differently instead of your own.
Thanks for the confirmation on this!
Thank you for the tip 👍.
Yup, I just avoid them all together, period
The originality of the beat centers around the other ingredients added to the production. If a producer uses the same Splice melodic loop, but the drums, pads, and efx around make the beat original, then that's cool in my book. I agree when you're using the entire construction kit that's a slippery slope we don't want to be on. However, the elements around the Splice loops are what really matter.
Unless another artist has already registered a song using the same splice loop as you. In that case, you don’t get a strike for that loop, you get a strike for using part of a previously registered song. That has happened in a few major cases.
@@CRASS2047 True, I've seen that. If the producer changed up the loop, post an unlisted video on UA-cam to see if it gets a claim, then they can prevent a lot of those strikes. I see producers out here using the loop without adding any sauce to it.
Whoa. I'm entirely a noob in music production and got so excited when I just got my Arturia Keylab 49 and Splice. I'm glad I saw this video before trying out self-producing my first song. Now, either I go back to just playing instruments and singing to audio as I used to - or I make the effort to learn to produce my own sounds and loops. It's a very steep learning curve though, and as much as I tried browsing UA-cam, I haven't found something that helps you learn everything from scratch from the moment you first hook up your midi keyboard to the moment you create your first original, truly unique analog-inspired sound. Most of the tutorials teach EDM/R&B so it's very difficult for me as an indie/jazz/alternative/ambient songwriter to get started with the production part of it.
For instance: how should I reverse engineer a Splice loop/pad to create my very own sound? I watched the Splice tutorials and they didn't reverse engineer much anything, they just tweaked the knobs in the electronic interface to a minimal degree - cool but that's not what I'm after, as much as I love those Splice tutorials, as what I really want to learn is how to dissect a sound/pad/loop and re-build it from scratch with my own creativity. I'm happy to invest in new equipment if that is what is needed, but what should I buy? (At the moment I only have: acoustic instruments, an audio interface, Logic Pro X, Arturia KeyLab 49 with basic plugins, and Splice. So definitely don't have much of a pro set-up...
What you have is all you need. I started the same as you. But I thought buying high-end equipment, getting top of the line plugins and watching a ton of tutorials will make me a better producer....or beat maker at least.
All of that do indeed help, but endless practice and also trial and error is the best teacher regardless of what you use or watch. You're probably just as good or better with your arturia keyboard than I am with my Komplete keyboard and maschine.
This why I either pitch the melody low or high/+tempo I may even sometimes have it in reverse
My understanding is, it is the publishers who are claiming the copyright who are breaking the law, because they are claiming the exclusive rights based off a non exclusive licensing deal.
But that's the point. They are counting on the artist just paying the claim and not actually taking it to trial.
@@lezlethal no doubt, its a shake down !
They come with MIDI. You can then use any audio patch you want. In saying that I still change it up anyways because I want to. Great for sending to a vocoder.
Interesting case
Good info. I’m sorry Mike is going through this. I myself only use drum loops, and even in that case its just to get the sound I’m looking for and I end up chopping it up. I did write one song as an exercise to a simple piano loop and I ended up loving the song but I obviously don’t want to actually use the loop, so now I’m stuck in the throws of trying to rewrite and record my own loop to replace the first one and make it original. 🤦♀️
El'vage Lloyd great idea!
I'm sorry Mike has to endure this headache. I've used melodies and whole tracks from splice and have come up with some banger, awesome tracks, but they're sitting in "My library" for me and my family to enjoy ONLY. It's too fine a line for me, to submit these for placement and risk infringement of any kind. The market has obviously increased exponentially in the amount of producers that are out there creating from existing sounds on sites. It's bound to get messy. That's just too many individuals taking the lazy way out. I run into countless individuals that introduce themselves as producers and have the nerve to use the title of sound engineer when they are spinning 2 existing songs on a phone app like edjing. I find it humorous. Though it's not funny at all. Meanwhile, I'm busting my butt to create original content. It's painstaking, actual creative energy. But it's so worth it in the long run. Using samples is dangerous territory. It's an existing, formerly created sound. Somebody already thought of it. Change the heck out of it if you're gonna use it in ANY way. But I'd say, be a music creator. Not just a music manipulator. Heck! Create the next big genre!
Thank you so much for sharing this with us. It shed light on the unknown gray area for me.
I'm in the legal field and see all too often how people get away with making false claims. It's bound to be open season on content creators.
I've been following Jesse for a few years now because of all the sync people out there he is the one with the highest level of integrity I've come across. And believe me, I've researched lots. I don't want to be successful at this sync thing and lose who I am.
So, Jesse today as I watched this you validated for me that me being diligent even though it's taking a bit longer for my success story is the right decision for me. With your guidance i will arrive at the space in music that I alone will create. Again THANK YOU
I agree that using loops as the main element in your track is lazy but I think you're overthinking it. Using samples is not "dangerous territory" if you read the license and don't do things like resell them in your own sample pack or use the loops in isolation. Production music isn't about changing genres and coming up with music that changes the world. It's about making tracks that editors can put underneath their shows or commercials, nothing more, nothing less. Success in production music/sync is measured by how useful your music is to editors and how much of it gets used.
MF DOOM tho
Thanks for this video and thanks to Mike for sharing his story of how an issue can arise. I hope the case has been resolved for him.
I have never used loops before (when I create beats) but I've just recently bought some Native Instruments Expansion packs and started to think about this type of issue coming up if a lot of people started using the melodies from the construction kits etc. I was curious about this.
I did notice in the Native Instruments Terms of Use that "loops from the packs are royalty-free but should be significantly transformed" which is understandable. I always write my own melodies (with a synth like Massive etc) for my beats so all good there. (except for when I do reproductions/remixes of songs for my own non-commercial fun :) )
Just something I thought I'd share about the legal case in this video if you're interested: I've been studying Copyright Law in the Music Industry (not because I want to be a lawyer but just so I know more about it as a musician) for the last few weeks and this Case sounds to me like something that could fall under what's called "Independent Creation" (in court) which is defined as follows:
"Two separate artists can create songs that sound extremely similar without either artist ever hearing the other's song. Even though both songs are similar, both songs obtain valid copyrights where neither one is infringing on the other."
I'm not saying it's ok that the tracks are almost identical and that the loops were used unaltered, I'm just sharing that info in case it helps Mike with this particular case or with similar cases.
Having said that though, what i've also learnt about Copyright from the course is that for something to be Copyrightable it needs to have originality so maybe that person who filed the cease and desist, maybe their song was never Copyrightable in the first place (since it wasn't their original work i.e the melodies were not original). That could also be an argument maybe (for Mike's side of the case).
I see this video is about 4 years old now. Do you mind me asking has the case been resolved? It's ok if you're not in a position to share that. :)
Thanks for sharing your insights! And yes this case was resolved a few years back, but situations like this have repeatedly popped up in the Sync licensing industry so many Libraries are asking producers to NOT use any more loops from websites like Splice to avoid these legal headaches in the future.
@@SyncMyMusic That's definitely a good idea NOT to use loops. Such a headache to go through all those legal issues and it costs so much money and time. Hopefully producers will learn from this.
This is why I’m currently learning to make my own loops with serum. I try to transform samples as much as I can as a new producer, but getting a copyright from some random song from five years ago is pretty annoying.
Plus making my own melodies is way more satisfying. If I use samples now it’s primarily drum and percussion one shots.
Great video!!
Ohhhh... i get it now... so someone had purchased the pack, used it, released something with it, and now thinks they basically have exclusive rights to the loops... defintely a different spin on things...
Chord progressions are not subject to copyright, only melodies are. If that were the case then there would only ever be one blues song for instance as they are almost all based on the same 12 bar progressions. Same is true of other genres.
Construction kits sounded like a bad idea anyway and this has confirmed it! If you aren't great with coming up with a variety of different chord progressions you can download a midi chord pack from Unison and then create your own sounds in your synth.
just learn how to make music guys its really not hard
Scaler 2 is good too. It's very useful in helping you make your own chord progressions or detecting chords and notes in a loop that you want to recreate.
download the loops / slice them up as you do with samples, pitch shift and put effects on it no one can say anything
I agree!
So here’s the real question - Do content creators allow sound libraries to utilize there sound packs in view of getting a law suite ?
So far 3 of my songs are safe on my other youtube channel. I recently started this new hobby where i would make my own songs but currently using loops as experiment on Magix. I bought most of the loops and most of them are royality free.
The only time i got copyright claimed so far was when I used songmaker Ai and it randomly put loops together and cut things out and put things together out of 4 loops i choose. A part of the song had a identical melody from a existing song. Only the first part and the last part of the song before it loops again were totally something new while the other sounds and music in the sound was identical to a song that already exists. I was impressed and disappointed that Ai songmaker actually can replicate songs.
I don't earn money on youtube and the video with the song wasn't blocked but it was still claimed and i felt so bad about it that i'm not going to use songmaker Ai in magix music maker anymore.
Good info. What a mess.
Can this happen from the stock samples in maschine or mpc
Can the same liability apply to the actual stems ? It's getting to the point where anything you use from the DAW could be deemed unorigial how can we clear a song before we upload it just to make sure there are no issues ? much appreciated.
I suppose the lessons here would be: you cannot claim a copyright violation solely on a chord progression. But could major sync library managers have a mandatory checkbox that says “I acknowledge this is an original composition which does not use existing musical elements including melodic and chord progressions directly from public sample libraries or preset packs” as due diligence and avoid any clearance issues? This happened ten years ago with patent trolls in the software industry (i.e. as a lawsuit-based revenue stream). And finally just write you’re own original music! composition with sampled loops and nothing else isn’t original composition.
i just got a really good idea!
Your legal team should make the actual creators of the royalty free pack aware that another is claiming they own the material and is making legal claims on others....then offer their services to counter sue the person making the claim.
It wasnt exclusively bought.
I heard a Splice sample in a commercial and it wasn’t even altered.
It says right on the Splice website under their Terms of Service you don't own the Copyright.
Exactly. Which is why ima fight the content ID on my newest track.
Whatever bastard company content id’s splice loops will get sued
Had this problem with arcade! I made a beat and put it on Facebook and it got muted so I quit using that after only one week 😂
How did this turn out?
What about drum loops?
The same problems applies for video Game music? I know that there are different rules there. Since if everything is like other música industries could be a problem for each streamer When they showcast games.
Interesting, would this also apply for breakbeat loops and acapellas?
Yes
Does midi apply to this too
This is why I only use kicks and snares if need from splice the best thing about splice is being able to pay for plugins every month
After hearing more . I mean using a loop kit from same folder I’d think you would get busted or at least someone would try
Should have covered making money on live performances with pre-made sources, compared to making money online such as commercial use and UA-cam. Would really like to get insight on this.
The top melody of Justin Bieber's "What Do You Mean" is a loop that was downloaded from Splice. I'm curious if they obtained some exclusive rights to the loop. Or can I use that same loop for my own track?
I can guarantee they sent that track to the Library of Congress and I would NOT use that same loop in your track (Even if you're legally allowed to do so through Splice)
@@SyncMyMusic Thanks for the reply, Jess. I figured so. I feel loops can either be a gift or a curse. On one hand, it can speed up the workflow of your production, on the other hand, it's something that is pre-produced and if resold is accessible to anyone. Which can slightly diminish the originality of your track.
The melody line will not hold as beening copyrighted but everything else around it will. Loops will be treated that same way traditionally samples are. Just because some bozo wants to sue (there is no burden of proof to sue someone, but one to win the suit) doesn't change the business agreement (eula).
What if you dont listen to that Justin Bieber and never heard it before?
Don’t use more than one melodic element per pack. Also chop the loops, pitch them, change the chord progression, use one shots and MIDI. Truly make it yours.
How did this claim eventually turn out?
I'm just getting started in this business. My understanding as of right now, Samples and loops are basically are to be used as track starters only. Once the track comes together, the loops and samples need to be replace, not manipulated. Is this correct?
Darrell Thomas You’ll never go wrong by replacing them. You can manipulate as well, but you have to be really creative in your manipulation to the point where it sounds nothing like the original.
@@ProducerRC Thanks Bra. I may have more questions in the near future. Thanks again,
can't you shazam your track to check if anyone has used it when using a splice sample?
yes I do this all the time good shout
i use loops sample packs etc why sell these royalty free packs if u can’t use it in ur own composition ..so whoever copyrights it first seals it? and who cares if u use a loop lead and make a club banger and get a placement who cares if it was from a sample pack it’s out there for a reason ppl look way too much into this
sup jessie aint seen you in a while breaux hope your good
this is what I hate about samples and sample packs.. a person will say hey you used my song or loop when clearly it wasn't yours to being with.. most ppl really don't know shit about music and can't make their own.. so they rather take the easy route by using loops for everything.. my opinion that's not producing it's programming sounds to fit the likes of the loop
I'm not saying loops are bad and I don't use but I really try to alter the sound of make my own to definitely avoid garbage like this
Spoken to head guy at Apra Music Australia if it's in the Public domain there is no lawsuit he has to prove a receipt of purchase and abide by terms and condition basically it's the people who sell the pack have done something fraudulent. Keep your receipts usually its all in your account what you have purchased.
Smart idea!
What about Braams? Wouldn't those be considered One Shots?
Those are usually safe to use.
Splice has it clear that there licensed loops cannot be copyrighted. For real. Should be thrown out instantly if you can prove that it was licensed and show the disclaimer that their loops cannot be copyrighted.
You're right, but the whole point is that having to prove this kind of stuff takes energy and effort away from your craft of making music.
Why can't the terms and conditions for these organisations like splice just say you can use the loops but you can't copyright them.
They already do. You can claim copyright of your own composition, but not the sample. So if somebody has a subscription on Splice, you can use it however you want and monetize from it, as long as it's for non-exclusive purposes. You could literally go to court on your own without a lawyer and still win the case, because of Splice's Terms and Conditions. Matter fact, Splice could actually sue the sue'er for claiming it's their own original work, when it's from splice, free to use for anyone
I wanna know what the track is.
Yeah, me too!
What about vocals in splice can we use them as is. It's not fare because not alot of us can sing and the singer or vocalist already signed a contract with splice just to be on splice so they are getting money from splice because of the agreement they made to have there vocal in splice everytime someone downloads there vocals they get paid for that . Without music production to thatvocal means the vocal is useless. It then becomes just a vocal
U can't make music with just one single vocal loop and nothing else added
It takes a producer to compose the music. In order to become something. A producer and composer should be respected and protected at all times.
You're bringing up great points, but it's all in the world of "things should be this way" and "fairness". None of that helps us make the right choices for ourselves right now. So personally I'd stay away from using vocal loops in your TV/Film production music for the reasons I explained in this video.
I don't think we should use sampled melodies at all! (it's not even composing)
But I don't think we can copyright a chord sequence. YES re-record it, so that you actually own the master. But there are only so many chord progressions that work!
Naturally even that becomes a grey area, if you only have 1 reference and you use the chords straight out of that. But to say we can't use 1 4 5 4 or something is CRAZY! The exact recording of that, sure - lets never do that!
That's what VSTis and MIDI is for.
Personally I always use 3 references, so that I can't just accidentally emulate 1 reference too closely. I'm going for a vibe across all 3.
NB I am NOT a lawyer!
But while a sample of a chord sequence is a really bad idea, I don't think we can exclude chord sequences - as there are only so many that work.
But using vstis. editing our own presets. Creating our own effects and treatments (and layers). That really is a part of the modern producers job.
Is it not?
Interesting that the artist would want to fess up to using loops. I understand it for library music, but for as mainstream artist... :/
It's possible this artist doesn't even know his legal team is sending these letters out. But yes it would certainly expose them as a sample-grabbing creator.
18:13 umm harmony is not covered by copyright
There are a lot of guys calling themselves producers and are just putting together loops. I won't lie, That how I LEARNED to produce. But the guy that taught me also let met me know that's just the way to learn how to put together a song. Never something to put out to the public. It's very easy to get a DAW, midi keyboard, plug-ins, and create your own loops. But i guess that's why all music sounds the same now.
Yo this is crazy . The library sound company states Free and license free . So if a client is paying they should be refunded
What about vocal loops from EastWest, Apple, etc.? How much manipulation is needed to thwart an infringement?
All easily recognizable loops should be significantly altered to avoid legal hassles IMO.
@@SyncMyMusic Thank you. But, even with the altering, you still have to disclose them as vocal samples to the Music Libraries, and then they may reject the song, anyway?
@@danecolfax2458 No, if the samples are cleared for commercial use you don't need to disclose them any more than you need to let them know what plugins you're using.
@@SyncMyMusic This is where my confusion lies...another successful sync composer says that even if they are royalty-free loops, you have to disclose them as samples and the libraries will probably reject it anyway.
@@danecolfax2458 I've been in this biz 13 years and have never had to disclose my samples. Just giving you my experience.
Was the outcome good for Mike?
I don't think he lost the case but it sure cost him a lot of time and money to deal with the headache.
@@SyncMyMusic absolutely. A really strong lesson and sharing for us all. Thank you both for helping others avoid this too!
Crazy. Sorry to hear about this. But it had always been in the back of my mind.
I was going to let the library I'm submitting to know exactly what I'm using. Most of which is live playing. But I do use EZDrummer's loops. I will let them know that. Just to take out any mystery.
Drum loops don't seem to be the cause of these kinds of legal demands. It's more recognizable melodic loops that are the issue, but yes it's a GREAT IDEA to be 100% transparent with your Library about where you get your loops/samples from.
@@SyncMyMusic Would that be something to put in metadata or just in an email description of an album? Or both? I guess I just answered my own question.
@@JasonArvanites Just email your Library and let them know where you get your samples from - doesn't need to be in the metadata.
@@SyncMyMusic I'm playing back "Blurred Lines" in my head, wondering how much of the "feel infringement" was via the drum loop, because it certainly wasn't the melody in that particular case. 🙉
@@crnkmnky Which raises questions in my mind about reference tracks. If the idea is to sound like the style of a certain song, couldn't that put a producer/library in a similarly vulnerable position?
So you are saying that you can copyright a chord progression, or was the the chord progression used part of the sample pack? I was under the impression that you can't copyright drum beats and chord progressions There are only so many combinations of them both..
No it was the AUDIO file that contained the chord progression which caused the issue. Individual chord progressions cannot be copyrighted.
@@SyncMyMusic Thanks, I had another question, get back with me on that one. Thanks,
@@SyncMyMusic Usually, there are exceptions to chord progressions. Not many, but some.
Not wanting to put up with the BS is not a reason to not do it. Having these issues brought to the courts is the only way to bring attention to the real problem. Which is entitled artist thinking they are original.
I did my first download of Cymatics. It's like browsing through other people's music, useless.
I made a track off of arcade just used a melody and cut it up used all my own beat and vocals put it into Shazam and it brought me to a song on Spotify 😂 freaking strange man. People who are doing this are bully’s and are hoping that the person they are suing doesn’t have the funds to fight it! I hope Mike gave that guy a Reality check because this is complete BS! What was the outcome of this?
Basically, if it sounds unfair, it probably is.
If a company or artist sues, and more likely knows the song was produced with a loop, I would file a counterclaim. FUN FACT: Rihanna's Umbrella main beat is a loop.
You could certainly do that - and it would take up a lot of your time and resources to do so. My entire point here is trying to avoid the entire issue altogether.
The Umbrella loop is a GarageBand drum loop. You can’t copyright drum loops, period. This is why I freely use drum top loops and percussion loops without any worries. Also the loop comes from Apple so I think they’ve worked out all the legal stuff. “Love In This Club” by Usher also came from a GarageBand synth loop and also became a huge hit. You can’t copyright chord progressions either. The only thing you can copyright is the melody and lyrics.
The guys that sued are just basic scumbags and need to be exposed. You can't copywrite anything in the sample pack sold to 1000's of people...
This narrative is very complex . If the content is license free then it should be licensed free. If not then it’s a form of entrapment for intellectual property …
he admitted the melody and drop were the same, just change the arrangements, tune up or down the melody.
Don’t use Splice or MIDI Packs.
Wow!! Good thing musical instruments are still a thing...
It's best to just do your own original work then you own it because you made it.
I think this is way more than using loops, it might just be any kind of music in general, please check out this ted-talk video from two weeks ago talking about copy writing all music to avoid accidental infringement. Its like its getting more difficult regardless of using loops.
ua-cam.com/video/sJtm0MoOgiU/v-deo.html
Loops & construction kits are NOT illegal
I didn't say they were.
Man major ad placements, 10 million spins on youtube, all arists trying to monetize and claim something they didn't even create. A loop pack construction kit demo made by the original producer aka the copyright owner. I know it OH TOO WELL. These young guys trying to start music libraries using loop kits will learn the hard way and these days everyone thinks they're a sync expert but they don't do their homework. Most reputable music libraries (BMI, UPG, KPM, etc) won't even allow royalty free loop usage in their publishing agreement and this is the reason why. Royalty free doesn't mean copyright free. We all still own the copyrights to the loops in our packs and we're selling you a license to use them so by all means use them but chop them up, mangle them, make them your own. This is what we want. Millions of producers may use the same loop. Don't be lazy and try to make a quick buck by slapping a construction kit back together or even worse steal the demo song and try to call it your own (believe me this happens to us a LOT). Right now there's a song in a trailer for a show called Platonic on Apple TV and the song they used was created by one of our Reggaeton loop packs one I recorded and produced myself. The song is called Uh-huh by Tkay Maidza. The entire basis of the song is my construction kit, you can hear all the elements of it clearly BUT they changed the kick drum pattern, added more sounds, thickened it up, really changed it up and made it what it is. Every time I turn the TV on now that trailer for Platonic comes up and I hear my loops. This is how it should be done though. Now I've been making loop packs since 2001 under Peace Love Productions / Dj Puzzle and that particular pack is like 13 years old and now it's being used in a modern day trailer for a brand new show. This goes to show you how long these loops can be around and how often their being used. Now Peace Love Productions is Soundtrack Loops and I don't just produce loop kits I also have a huge music library and a music publishing company with song placements in thousands of shows, films, and video games and you know what? NONE of them are loop kits or packs that I've made available. I keep them separate. I don't use my loop pack songs for sync.
ill stick to no loops :D
Original chord progressions? Lol you have heard of pop and rock music right?
Point taken!
Sounds like edm. But shame on the arist trying to get money from this when they bought the loop and not the original creator smh
Yep it sucks.
Just defend yourself, if you're really paranoid, screen capture your studio sessions.
can you prove your music is original enoough??
It's always a subjective standard.