hello all, first post here (claps claps welcome)
I am not a professional musician/producer/etc

so -this question goes like this:
if you made a track using a cracked samples/cracked plugins and you record the whole thing with some free or legal recording software - does the track considered legal or not?

I know it is problematic, but can it really be?

thanks for the help and the fullfillments of my boredoom during Covid19 isolation

 

The greyest area of them all. There are samples on older commercial sample-cd's you can't use today, even if you own the disc and have a reciept.
I wouldn't care about clearing synth or generic sampler patches, and who knows or cares where you recorded them - but samples of other music/movie/game/broadcasts you have to clear with the copyright holder in writing, no matter where they come from. The horror if you have a hit on your hands, and a sample from the wrong artist generates lawyer documents...

 

Great question...asked many times on this site...but lets ignore looking for answers already there
There is NO such thing as a"cracked Sample"....if You didnt record it in the first place it is in fact "Stolen"
(But but but but) No buts... just the fact. So if U chose to use it...permission is required or load the bullet in the chamber
and hope it doesnt fire when The Lawyers pull the trigger. Plugins are another story ..hit n miss

 

Put it simple, if you have the permission to use it (sample from whatever source, plugin) it's legal.
If you don't have the permission, it's not. No matter if you also used legally aquired stuff.

 

Area51, it doesn't matter whether your DAW is legally purchased or not, it's the alleged illegal material that is the hot potato. Using copyrighted material is a huge area of discussion. YouTube have an algorithm searching for copyrighted material used in videos, and if it finds the license attribution not to its liking your video is removed and you get a first strike, at three your account is removed. To cut a very long story short, you have several options when it comes to using samples and even video and photos. The prevailing (legal) wisdom is that if you alter the original sample/photo you might get away with it. I know, I know, changing it with fx probably defeats the object of using it in the first place. If you want to show every listener of your work someone else's work in it, it would weaken you as an artist with original and creative ideas in my opinion anyway. Yes you could be honouring the other artist, and I'm not decided what I think about that. Your second option is to use material that is already cleared for free use commercially. One form of this is materials with CC Creative Commons licence attributions. Swim carefully, there are hungry sharks in the copyright ocean!

 

thank u all for your replies, but can a "legal" recordings software [[in case of recording the track without exporting it from a DAW]] can make a track legal?

 

It's all about the licensing.
If you buy Samples there is an Eula or something
Without this it's totally illegal in any way (because you use them outside the license agreement)

For Example (EULA blackoctopus-sound ) :
Thank you for purchasing this product!

If you have any troubles please contact [email protected]

License agreement

Licensing Agreement: IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ BEFORE USING. The contents of this download are licensed, not sold to you by Black Octopus Sound. Ownership remains with Black Octopus Sound. Copying, duplication, lending or re-selling of this product or its contents in whole or part are strictly prohibited. This non-exclusive license is granted for a single-user only on a global basis for the full copyright protection period. The license is non-transferable. You cannot electronically transfer the sound samples or place them in a time-sharing or service bureau operation or a computer/sampler network. Neither the producer, nor Black Octopus Sound can be held responsible for any direct or indirect consequential loss arising from the use of this product in whatever form. All rights of the producer and the owner of the work are reserved. Unauthorized duplication of this download is a violation of applicable laws.

You may use these sounds in your own musical productions royalty free. You many not use these sounds in the creation of other sample packs or loop libraries.

Please visit www.blackoctopus-sound.com for more quality samples.

If you record your own Samples you own them without any limitations. (except if you take it from copywrited material )

Just because you rerecorded your "illegal" stuff with legal Software doesn't make it legal

 

Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2020

NO. Moreover. even if you buy a tape recorder or a digital recorder and don't even use a DAW , you need to have a license to any sample or vst used in the track. With that said, there are some exceptions when it comes to the use of samples without a license. On the other hand, there is none when it comes to the use of illegal software.

 

I dont know how its possible to actually investigate and prove that you used this particular sample from this particular pack If you are creative with your use of the samples and apply reasonable processing

 

A track is not "illegal" for the artist failing to purchase license to the use of samples. One can build and legally own a house made from stolen bricks just as one can legally win the Tour de France on a stolen bike. In the case of a music track moreover the First Amendment applies anyway. So go ahead and cut that tune. Things start to stand differently when the track consists of a sample or samples in its/their original form and is published. In that case the First Amendment still holds and copyright to the composition applies but that doesn't preclude against infringement of third party rights, e.g. those of the author of sampleas. A developer/author/owner of a sample can make their case for unauthorized use by the artist and damages can be sought by owner of the rights. In bad cases the artist can lose his royalties to him and in very bad cases, such as where the recording is considered a reproduction of someone else's material in (practically) unaltered form, yes, the infringement must be deemed complete and clear and the copyright claim can amount to takedown. Huge penalties may be incurred as well.

[Edited - for legal reasons]

 

Last edited: May 4, 2020

I live by one simple rule, nothing I put on my production computer is illegally obtained. Everything has a paper trail. I don't need that BS in my life. There's so many free / cheap options for most things that this doesn't need to happen.

Use cracked plugins / pirated samples for testing. NEVER for money. It's hard when you see x number of people use x plugin and it's available on the x site, but don't. Honestly there are so many freebies you could easily start without paying a cent.

Tools help an artist, there isn't a single tool that made an artist.

 

@Aileron how can you say that all of the above is wrong. Everyone has been on point.What you are claiming is incorrect. Let me explain.
For example, you stated that " once a track is cut and published it has entered public domain (regardless of whether people pay to play it) and that's that. This is totally wrong. Once a track has been cut and published it enjoys copyright protection. In the USA it will l generally lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. In some cases 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation . Therefore, it is not in the public domain. To be clear, you or whoever created it, is the owner of the work regardless of whether or not you have acquired a license to use the samples or pay for the software used to create it. Indeed, you don't even need to register it with the Copyright Office. Whether you can benefit from it 100% is a totally different issue. And that is what the OP is asking.

 

Last edited: May 3, 2020

This is the smartest thing you have said since you joined this forum back in 2016. a lot of wisdom in those words.

 

A Lawyer Breaks Down The Music Copyright Issues in Carnage’s Cracked Software Beef
Lennar Digital called out the Guatemalan producer on Twitter.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...ight-issues-in-carnages-cracked-software-beef

 

[Pulled]

( @The Pirate , you corrected me correctly )

 

Last edited: May 4, 2020

@Aileron At least, in the United States a song is in the public domain if it was published in 1924 or earlier. Other exceptions apply as shown in the table to which I link below. Copyright has nothing to do with whether it was published or not. Copyright is not dependent on publishing. It depends on creation in a tangible form.

https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain

Edit: Here is the definition of public domain according by the US Copyright Office

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq-definitions.html

 

Last edited: May 4, 2020

@The Pirate , you were right. Release of a song makes it "public", NOT of "public domain".

I was ronk. I'll own that.

 

Last edited: May 4, 2020

Now, send me one of those vintage mics you have stashed in your place, and we are even.

 

wait...so technically, if some artist records Donald Trump's speech or maybe some of MLK's speeches, then that artist is in risk of getting sued as well?

 

No, a public speech of a politician belongs to the public domain and is not copyright protected.
But since I don't know the law of every single state, there could be exceptions to this exception.