Hey guys - with all these libraries... how much can we get away with using these uploaded libraries, without running the risk of copyright stuff.

The cost of some of these libraries are super expensive. Are people using them without concern?

Do we have a compiled list of which companies are REALLY cracking down watermark checking?

Thought to ask here - also find out how many composers here are using these downloaded libraries in commercial use without issues.

 

Last edited: Apr 2, 2025 at 8:37 PM

List???

 

I used some libraries and cracked plugins in the past on various video games. It was too hard for me to buy all the stuff that I needed. Never had any problem. I am still missing some, but I bought most of the stuff I used.

 

Watermark verification: Large companies like YouTube and Vimeo use automated systems to detect and block copyrighted content.

Composers and other creatives should ensure they either use licensed content or familiarize themselves with the terms of Creative Commons licenses. A list of companies that perform watermark checks isn't publicly available, but platforms like YouTube are known for such measures.

 

1. The WM developer (one of them):
https://audiowatermarking.info/
2. The question to Perplexity.ai:

The program that edits invisible and inaudible metadata (watermarks)

the answers are multiple, some are crappy(Adobe Audition etc), but some are to the point:
some Hex-editors can do it. That's it

 

YouTube "listens" to music and simply identifies it (roughly speaking, it's Shazam on maximum settings), and most of it is determined at the stage of content preparation by the author using the platform's tools. This is precisely why YouTube makes mistakes and takes a piece of music for something else.

Creative Commons? Hmm... there's a different idea there from the start. If when using a piece of music (including for commercial purposes) it's enough for me to indicate the author, then why should I put it at risk and hide the fact that I'm using someone else's work?
Creative Commons openly informs that they use metadata and content analysis methods (the same Shazam Max, yeah) and that's quite enough.
In general, they have rules about prohibiting the use of certain content protection methods, here's a simple explanation of this:
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#ca...such-as-drm-when-i-share-cc-licensed-material

Over the many years of discussing this topic online, I have yet to see a single example that proves that these technologies are used everywhere and en masse. An ill-conceived theory of a global secret conspiracy, while no one can say anything clear and plausible about the meaning of such a conspiracy.

 

this thing is needed for monitoring of a completely different level. this is clearly not about modest musicians using shared libraries for kontakt =)))

 

Read the paragraph 2 in my post, there is a hint...

 

I have read and heard many times about using such methods. moreover, I worked in a TV and radio broadcasting holding and we used these watermarks. but first of all - for coordination / synchronization / automation of work processes. yes, maybe i just have not seen a single case when these methods helped to prevent or track illegal use of content... but! does anyone know and can give a link to an example that is related to musicians and software / instrument library developers?

 

How Content ID works
Some copyright owners use Content ID, YouTube's automated content identification system, to easily identify and manage their copyright-protected content on YouTube.


What does Content ID do?
Using a database of audio and visual files submitted by copyright owners, Content ID identifies matches of copyright-protected content. When a video is uploaded to YouTube, it's automatically scanned by Content ID.

If Content ID finds a match, the matching video will get a Content ID claim. Depending on the copyright owner's Content ID settings, a Content ID claim results in one of the following actions:

• Blocks a video from being viewed
• Monetizes the video by running ads against it and sometimes sharing revenue with the uploader
• Tracks the video’s viewership statistics

Keep in mind that any of these actions can be geography-specific. For example, a video can be monetized in one country/region and blocked or tracked in a different country/region.

Who uses Content ID?
Content ID is available to copyright owners who meet specific criteria. To be approved, they must own exclusive rights to a substantial body of original material that is frequently uploaded to YouTube.

YouTube also sets explicit guidelines on how Content ID can be used. Content ID use and disputes are monitored on an ongoing basis to make sure these guidelines are followed.

Copyright owners who repeatedly make erroneous Content ID claims can have their Content ID access disabled and their partnership with YouTube terminated.
If you're a copyright owner and believe your content meets the criteria for Content ID, you can fill out this form to let us know more about your copyright management needs.

Source: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en

 

yes, as I said:

this system simply searches for a part of a FINISHED MUSICAL WORK by checking the database.
and these parts are NOT watermarks.

 

I can't provide any evidence here as to whether or where watermarks are used; each user is responsible for their own actions.
Since we're not operating in a legal vacuum here, I recommend purchasing your software, samples, etc., from legal sources.

1. Invisible Watermarks
Invisible watermarks are imperceptible to the human eye and are embedded in digital content using steganographic techniques. They are resistant to compression, cropping, and other tampering. This technology makes it possible to identify leaks, monitor online usage, and verify the authenticity of images.

2. Forensic Watermarks
Forensic watermarks are specifically designed for videos and invisibly embed a unique ID into each asset. This ID can be used to trace the source of a leak, including information such as the user's location and IP address.

3. Dynamic Watermarks
Dynamic watermarks provide real-time protection by embedding personal identification information such as a name, email address, or IP address into each frame of a video. This method is often used when playing videos via shared links.

 

You can also add watermarks to your music yourself, here is just one example.

Spoiler: AG Watermark Generator Compatibility: Price: $39.9

AG Watermark Generator Compatibility: Price: $39.9

The AG Watermark Generator is ideal if you want to quickly watermark multiple tracks and upload them to SoundCloud as a preview. For musicians and singers, among others, AG Watermark Generator is a professional and user-friendly audio watermark generator. It is possible to apply an audio watermark to multiple songs at the same time and easily select the duration and repetition interval of the watermark. The audio watermark can be a maximum of 4 seconds long. The song can be exported in MP3, WMA or AIFF format with audio watermark.

Spoiler: Audio watermarking

Audio watermarking

Our audio watermarking solution is a robust technique based on the Fourier transform. The watermark is inaudible and withstands mp3 encoding, time stretching & pitch shifting, changing the sound volume, dynamics compression, trimming and DA/AD conversion including microphone recording.

Features
The SITMark Audio software provides a command-line interface, a graphical user interface and a VST interface. The core algorithm is also available as a software library for C/C++ and Java which allows easy integration in other application software. Here, the processing speed is approximately 4x times faster than real-time playback speed (at 44.1 kHz, stereo).

For mp3 and WAVE files and AC3 sound tracks, an ultra-high-speed Container version of our software is available. Here, audio files can be watermarked many hundred times faster than real-time playback speed.

In our SITMark Audio Burntools, the watermarking is integrated in CD/DVD duplication systems. Here, the watermarking enables publishing devices by Rimage Inc. for creating individually watermarked Audio CDs.

Licensing
Our watermarking technology is available with various interfaces and for various platforms. Please get into contact with us when you are interested in licensing or evaluating our audio watermarking technology.

Source: www.sit.fraunhofer.de/en/offers/projekte/digital-watermarking/audio-watermarking/

 

I have doubts if you'll find the answer...why? The music industry goalkeepers (those, who accept/don't accept the music you submitted to them)... they have those applications to determine if the submitted stuff has WM. The WM should have your real name/license № of samples.
If there is no match, then they just decline your submission, because it "doesn't meet their quality standards" or something like that. The end of story.

 

What is watermarked song? --> www.musictechlab.io/blog/what-is-watermarked-song

TrustedAudio is evolving! --> https://www.trustedaudio.com

Share, deliver, and distribute music and audio files securely by means of watermarking and digital signing
Send your audio files securely. Fight piracy, backtrace the leak easily. Publicly claim your authorship.

Audio Watermarking Explained: Waste Of Time Or Important For Artists? --> www.omarimc.com/audio-watermarking/

 

Wow - this thread went down a rabbit hole and got so much deeper than I intended. lol. I'm all here for healthy discussions so please keep going! I guess I was trying to get an idea of how safe it would be to use these Kontakt libraries in commercial projects and gauge the risks. I asked about a list because I thought we collectively may have had a confirmation on which Libraries / Companies perform these checks, to know which ones to stay away from when doing commercial work. I'd imagine, that if for example, they have the same access to this site as we do, and a watermark is contained in that library, then they can confirm that it is a pirated library, and where the source came from. I doubt that YouTube or Spotify would be scanning for Kontakt libraries, but please correct me if I'm mistaken? I honestly thought it would have been a much simpler answer hahah. But this is also good information for all of us. I'm still a little unclear on what the answer is to my question though.

 

If you're a business making big $$$ then you can afford to be paying the costs for legit licensed stuff. Otherwise, blah...

These are all fashioned for digital visual materials (i.e. photographs/video/typefaces...etc). none of those really applies to audio.

 

Last edited: Apr 4, 2025 at 1:32 AM

Your concerns have been discussed here before and reached similar impasses with references straying from audio and the "water marking" thereof... even with visual materials "water marks" can be defeated by removing metadata and/or the visual marks themselves with photo and video editors and plugins.

Continue reading under the caveat that you're not a big business making big $$$;
As long as all the metadata has been removed from any "commercial" audio sample material I dont see a problem using it anywhere. Most of the "billions" of so called audio sample packs being schlepped every day are already supposedly cleared for re-use. Who's to say where/how you obtained the stuff other than you yourself? As for kontakt lib's, if they are cracked and making sounds, who's gonna tell if it's coming from a legit or "cracked" source? The sounds from these libraries (cracked or "legit") are not copyrightable since they have been created as a sound source to begin with. The sounds of which to be used in other composited works. Here again, who is going to know, other than yourself, how you obtained the lib(s)? Even if someone or something was able to discern that some sounds came from certain libraries there's no definitive way anyone can say for certain that it's "legit" or not. When submitting stuff to commercial platforms a further step to ensure anonymity is to remove all metadata attached to your files. Or if your produced composited content must contain metadata, for whatever reason, just insert some bogus values and call it a day.

 

Last edited: Apr 4, 2025 at 1:48 AM

It is a simpler answer. Youtube can de-monetize you or your uploaded content. Someone can manually notice you have infringed upon their copyright, and they can try to prove it. Maybe if you are Dua Lipa or Pharell Williams, they will. " I'd know that strings patch anywhere" isn't going to cut it. Look at some of the makers of Kontakt libraries who swore up and down they had "sophisticated watermark technology", who turned around and started making their own plugin versions of their content. It should be common sense to not use anything you think remains recognizable.

 

Many sound and music producers use watermarks to protect their content and prevent copyright infringement.

1. Stock Audio Platforms:
Websites like AudioJungle, Pond5, and Epidemic Sound often add watermarks to their audio content to ensure the music isn't used without a license.

2. Music Producers:
Some independent music producers and composers use watermarks in their demos to protect their work before it is released or sold.

3. Sound Effects Providers:
Sound effects providers, such as Soundsnap or Freesound, may also use watermarks to protect their content.

4. Universal Music Group (UMG):
UMG uses audio watermarks in digitally distributed tracks to enable copyright tracking and marketing data. These watermarks can cause audible artifacts and are embedded in frequency ranges from 1 kHz to 3.6 kHz.

5. Liquid Audio:
This company has received a patent for an efficient method for marking music files and is one of the pioneers in the field of audio watermarking.

6. Fraunhofer Institute:
The "Merit" research group develops digital watermarks for audio files to protect copyrights and track illegal copies.

7. Bertelsmann Music Group:
The company's US subsidiary has developed a specially adapted method for digital watermarking in audio documents.

8. Sony Music and Warner Music use similar technologies for copyright protection and data tracking.

9. Spotify, iTunes, Tidal, and Qobuz have also been linked to marked materials.

Source: AI

 

Last edited: Apr 4, 2025 at 8:03 AM