EXS 24 Logic Sampler Users Group

> Royalties are too difficult for a sample library manufacturer to deal
> with in regards to collecting (I think).
Yep. Unless some body like the PRS was formed where studios have to log what
was used and from where and then do the royalty collection/distribution from
a licence paid by the studio (who would have to be registered to use the
library), it would be unfeasible.

> The easy way to determine legal use is to not lend out the
> library and own a valid licensed copy of it yourself.  Pretty much any
> music you create with it, is legal.  If you own a sample library and
> your brother does not but your brother wants to use it on his CD, that
> is not legal use because he does not own the library.  In that case, he
> should buy his own copy.
Agreed... whether it's your brother, your next-door neighbour, your writing
partner... whoever, they should each buy and own their own copy - legally,
it is clear and there is no violation and it is only fair to the library
developer.

> Same with a studio.  In regards to legality,
> the studio should not be providing the use of the sample library to its
> customers who do not own the library.
Hmmmm... technically that might be the case but I have to be honest and say
that *I* personally would not be too bothered with that.

I see the library that the studio has bought as their asset that they can
use as part of their service (much like they have a copy of Logic or
ProTools or CuBase and use that to record the band) - I would not
realistically expect each band that used a noise or two of mine from the
studio's CD(s) to buy their own copy and I'd turn a blind eye to that (if,
indeed, I even found out about it). I suppose in this particular case (which
is a very grey area in terms of enforcement), much like an album credits who
played bass, whatever, perhaps the *decent* thing is to credit the library
provider - that way, at least the provider gets some free publicity.

> It becomes a little bit more difficult to understand when you own a
> library and work on some music along with someone.  For example, I
> worked on a track for a solo artist last year.  I arranged the entire
> track (just one song) and used some samples on it.  These are samples
> that I own a license for.  I checked first with the manufacturer to be
> sure but was told that if I am creating the music, then it is perfectly
> legal.  It would not have been (legal) if I simply let that artist use
> my sampler that has the samples loaded on its hard drive.  Hope that I
> didn't make it more confusing now.
Well... I see that as much the same thing. You have that library as your
asset - it could be argued that it might have been the deciding factor that
got you the gig - and whilst your client is at *your* place using *your*
facilities, that's acceptable (in my eyes anyway from a practical level).

The situation would be different if your client *took away* the sequence
files and the samples used in the project - *that* would be blatant
violation in my eyes. But hey - some guy books you and you use some noises
from one of my (forthcoming) CDs and your client walks away with a mastered
CD - for *me* (and I can't speak for other providers), I'd be cool with
that. I mean... I look at it this way.....

You have a Yamaha Motif... you get a client in and you use some sounds from
that in your client's project in *your* studio. They're not *your* sounds as
such - you didn't create them. Is your client expected to buy a Motif to use
those sounds on his project? I don't think so. However....

If your client expects to take away the sequence files and re-create them at
his own place, then I think it is only reasonable that he should buy a Motif
to reproduce the same thing in his own environment. And so it is with sample
library except....

The client might think (innocently and with no malice or thought of the
repercussions on the sample library developer) that it's kind of ok and
'acceptable' for you to just run off a quick copy of the samples used in the
project for use at the client's studio.

No! That's a copyright violation!

> I think that the sad thing is that many people don't see the point and
> feel a sense of entitlement to some of these things, scoffing at the
> prices.  Many people forget that lots of hard work went into creating
> these libraries and, in many cases, so did a lot of money.  So many
> people look at just the cost of burning a CD and forget that the
> recording, hiring of talent, studio time, editing, etc. will cost a lot
> of money.
Yep..... I think that sums up the whole situation from the library
providers' side of the fence 100% perfectly - couldn't have said it better
or more succinctly myself!


Best regards,


Steve
http://www.hollowsun.com