I'd suggest to discuss the issues, have been touched in this video:

I saw a curious coment there:

"I released a song last year with one free loop from landr samples through oneRPM, and after the initial revision, my track upload was cancelled because another artist had used that same exact loop on a song he released previously, so yes, there's issues like these when using royalty free loops. They either have to be taken out completely (which in this case I did) or modify it altogether to not land a copyright strike"

So, let's share your toughts and experience on that subject

 

there needs to be a way of including a royalty free sample as part of your track's copyright, fingerprinting the sample and then someone can declare they're using it and then everyone wins?
except it takes the fun out of everything, copyright is terrible/wonderful depending on where you sit

 

How to use royalty-free loops in 2023:

• Add loop to track.
• Build track around loop.
  • Replace loop with one shots to taste. You'll probably come up with something somewhat different that sounds unique.
  • OR
  • Make loop unrecognizable by chopping it up, filtering, etc. and add it to a new track.
• Remove original loop completely from track.

 

It's kinda: let's do the good things and don't do the bad ones...
what about they (Cymatics, modern beats, BFA etc) state: " our samples have been used by Chris Brown, Drake, Alicia Keys etc"

How do they even know this if their samples were manipulated/distorted according to your advice?

 

Last edited: Jun 11, 2023

I'm just going to leave that here:

 

When using samples it's best to chop them up to something unrecognisable anyway.. Not because it may or may not land you a strike, but because if it is the same as other people use it's not exactly personalised and it would all sound rather boring!

 

Contradiction is easy to understand :

SELLING loops/kits to push ppl being LAZY and FAST
BUT asking them to LOOSE TIME and WORK HARDER to make those loops unrecognizable



I will only use mashed up breaks AND tweaked synth presets.

What's next ?
Blocking chord progressions ?
https://blog.landr.com/common-chord-progressions/

Or copyrighting the C4 note ?


The real question is :

how IA algos ... are going to screw the market by pushing ppl doing the same thing AND on the other side blocking the SAME PPL because they done the same thing ?

Market is everything ... until we stop feeding it

Market need distinction to survive BUT push indistinction on the other side
That's called Hegelian dialectic

And at the end, NO ONE escape from it ... even market

 

Pardon my ignorance, can midi be copyrighted?

In other words, am I in danger of having a song taken down for using the the exact same Superior Drummer midi pattern and drum library as another person? As far as any automated copyright scan is concerned it would sound like a stolen audio sample used by another artist, right?

 

In your example, no. For drums or percussion, an actual audio recording of a performance is protected. If the pattern, groove, or feel, determines the rest of the song; you can theoretically have a problem. (with Marvin Gaye's estate anyway.). It is like a Chord Progression.

 

Last edited: Jun 11, 2023

About drums, it can't happen as far as i know.
NEVER seen any "drum pattern" case for decades.

Only sampling original after 1977 (US law about recording copyright it seems ...).
Amen Brother is 1969 (now you understand ...)

One can be sued using original percussive SAMPLE for sure.
Not MIDI.

With melodic loops, there is a subtlety : one can be sued for using melody AND sound (direct sampling).
Can i be sued for using a melody only OR sound only ?

Very difficult case ...

For sound only, NEVER seen it. And it is logical : how many ppl used the same DX7 presets on thousand records ?

For melody itself (like MIDI), it is another complex story ...
At the end, most cases are about SAMPLING original.
But not only ...

https://www.openculture.com/2020/03...eyre-now-released-into-the-public-domain.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/27/arts/music/music-copyright-lawsuits-ed-sheeran-blurred-lines.html

 

Last edited: Jun 11, 2023

This is incorrect interpretation. Sampling After 1977 falls within The Act of 1976. Prior to that date, all prior rules apply by being "Grandfathered in" legally. It does not mean you can sample something recorded prior to 1977. This is a big difference. Sampling the Winstons' recordings is not legal. The Amen Break is almost always taken from their recorded audio. Sampling the Think Break from Lynn Collins recordings, not legal. Almost none of the most sampled breakbeat drums are actually legal. This is why every "Sample CD/pack" of all the old breaks gets pulled off vendors' websites.


"How old does a song have to be to sample it?

According to the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended in 1998, works created on or after January 1, 1978 are protected by copyright for 70 years after the creator's death. If you're looking to sample music created by a group, it may be protected for even longer."

 

Last edited: Jun 11, 2023

Wow. Oh man, lucky me for using only pirated stuff. Dodged a bullet there...

 

You can also get away with it by only sampling breakbeats from Declassified Records.

 

[AUTO-CENSORED: Sorry, I'm kinda drunk...ish? ]

 

Last edited: Jun 11, 2023

The real problem is that everything is not only interpreted, but judged by algorithms and not humans. Humans understand the difference between a royalty free loop and a stolen loop, but algorithms do not.

There should be financial penalties for those claiming copyright over things they do not own.

 

So about the content the video, that producer that uploaded the track made using construction kits that the end result sounds almost identical to demo song, is that considered plagiarism by law now or not ? I mean, the copyright algo bot will detect it, but when you fight for it, do you have enough ground to state the truth (used the construction kits) and win ?

 

OK. So there's a literal SHIT-TON of sample/loop/clip cd's/packs released every hour it seems. Every genre every conceivable style every conceivable instrument... Who's buying this shit and what are they doing with it when they get it? Better yet whoever is releasing this crap into the void either has or doesn't have the rights to do so. It's a sight bet the samples these copy houses release are NOT original and were taken from the already published and copyrighted works of others. Why are these idiots allowed to distribute this stuff and make money off of it (they are selling the stuff after all) when a good percentage of the stuff is unusable copyright wise?

 

AI generating loops by billions ... flooding everything ... is the next step

https://soundraw.io/

 

so much for creativity... and who "owns" the "AI" that produces these "loops"? You think these monkeys are not going to want to get paid for "their AI" generating all those loops?

 

I think there were civilizations before us and they collapsed because humanity discovered AI, and they made stupid ass shits like this. Everything started to move backward, slowly undoing centuries of genius discoveries one by one and ultimately resulted the end of them. Our ancestors started back from hunter-gatherers, we learn to build houses, invent the wheel, fight against gender inequality and now here we are using technology to make us move backward once again.