Hi,

the documentation for 8Dio Adagio Cellos says that the each library is watermarked. I think I saw a discussion about libraries being watermarked, but people suggested it wasn't true. But I dunno if I understand it correctly, would it mean that the sound files are somehow marked so that it would be possible to identify that the used sounds came from a particular library? I can't imagine how they would be able to recognize it in a mix, but what do I know...

Thanks for any feedback!

 

If you are going to use samples in a commercial release, you buy it.
Can't see why you would care otherwise.

 

@Revenant!

If you're working for a production company, they will never take you seriously unless you can provide a valid license for the samples you're using. They'll be the prime target for suing cause they got money! Like Gangamstyle said, if you got a juicy contract, who cares shelling a few hundred dollars for these libraries!

PS: Here is a legal advice from music attorney Rich Stim that is quite informative:

When You Need Permission to Sample Others' Music
Failure to get permission when you sample music could lead to serious consequences.

If you use samples in your commercially released music, you should get legal permission. The process of getting permission from the owners of the sampled music is referred to as "sample clearance." Failure to get the proper permission could lead to serious consequences: lawsuits or the inability to distribute your music to the public.

When Sample Clearance Is Required
In general, sample clearance is required only if you plan to make copies of your music and distribute the copies to the public.

Sample clearance is generally not required if:

•You are just using the sampled music at home.
•You are using the sample in live shows. This is because, usually, you are not making copies and the owner of the venue pays the blanket license fees to performing rights organizations such as Broadcast Music Incorporated (BMI) or American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP).
•You plan to distribute copies to the public but meet one of the following: (1) an average listener would not notice the similarities between your end product and the sample, or (2) your use of the sample falls under the "fair use" doctrine. For more information on these, see "Defending a Lack of Sample Clearance," below.

Operating Without Sample Clearance
Many artists releasing their own recordings can't obtain clearances -- either because they can't get the music publisher to respond to their phone calls or because they can't afford the fees.

What is the risk? Using a sample without clearance is always risky. However, as a practical matter, if you only sell recordings at shows and don't make more than one thousand copies, your risk is reduced. The owner of the source recording will be unlikely to learn of your samples. However, if your recording becomes popular at clubs or on the radio, or if a major label wants to pick it up, you'll have to deal with sample clearance.

Reducing the risks. If you use an uncleared sample, you can lower your risks by:

•making it unrecognizable
•not using the sample as the groove or hook
•burying it in the mix, and
•not using the title of the source music in the title of your song.
Defending a Lack of Sample Clearance
If you decide to use samples without clearance, you might be in the clear in certain situations. Under the copyright law, you don't have to obtain sample clearance if:

Your Sample Use is Not Infringing
If you alter a sample so that an average listener cannot hear any substantial similarities between your work and the sample, there's no violation of the law.

Your Use is a Fair Use
What is fair use? Fair use is the right to copy a portion of a copyrighted work without permission because your use is for a limited purpose, such as for educational use in a classroom or to comment upon, criticize, or parody the work being sampled.

Factors in determining fair use. Generally, when reviewing fair use questions, courts look for three things:

•You did not take a substantial amount of the original work.
•You transformed the material in some way.
•You did not cause significant financial harm to the copyright owner.
Don't believe the widespread myth that "less than two seconds is fair use." It's not true. Also, some courts apply this fair use rule only to the musical composition copyright, not the sound recording copyright. For example, one judge ruled that any musical sampling violated the sound recording copyright.

You can use the above arguments in order to defend yourself against a lawsuit for sampling without permission. The problem: You won't know for sure which way the judge will rule. And, most likely you'll have to hire an attorney to represent you in court

When Possible, Seek Permission
You'll be on safer legal ground if you seek permission, especially if you have a record contract that puts the burden of sample clearance on your shoulders. Such contracts usually contain an indemnity clause -- which means that if you and the record company are sued, you must pay the record company's legal costs. Ouch!

Note that when you sample music from a pop recording, you need two clearances:

•one from the copyright owner of the song, who is usually a music publisher, and
•one from the copyright owner of the master tapes, which is usually a record company.
To learn how to get the proper sample clearance, see How to Obtain Sample Clearance.

Publicity Releases
There's an extra wrinkle if you use a sample for purposes of selling or endorsing a product (for example in a Volkswagen ad), and the sampled artist is identifiable. In cases like this, you also need to get the source artist's consent. That's because the ad creates the impression of an endorsement. Without the consent, the source artist could sue for what is known as the violation of the "right of publicity." (The same would be true if you imitated the source artist's voice without sampling it.) So when you use a sample for an advertising agency or other commercial client, be aware that a third type of clearance or "release" may be necessary.

Roadblocks for Small Labels
Nowadays, there are significant roadblocks for small independent labels who want to acquire sample clearance. For example:

•Some owners of source music won't deal with independent or unsigned artists. "A lot of times if it's self-released, we say come back when you have a deal," says a sampling rep at one major music publisher.
•Often the copyright owners will want to hear a recording that shows how much of the source you intend to use and how you intend to use it. That means you have to do your recording first, without permission. If you then can't get permission, a lot of hard work will have gone to waste.
•Many small labels cannot afford the steep sample clearance rates. While there are no standard fees, the music publisher usually wants:
•an up-front "advance" payment (which could be anywhere between $250 and $5,000), and
•a percentage of the song income (usually between 15% and 50%).
The owner of the master recording will want:

•an up-front payment (usually at least $1,000), and
•a "rollover." A rollover is a payment that's made when a certain number of copies have been sold.
Sometimes, instead of a rollover, the owner of the master will ask for a portion of future record royalties (although sampling consultants advise against this practice).

Pre-Cleared Sample Discs
Sample CDs -- recordings that contain sounds and riffs specifically sold to be used in samplers -- can be a good alternative for small labels. Most sample discs are "pre-cleared," which means that by buying the disc, you're automatically granted permission for music usage without the payment of any further fees.

However, the permitted use of pre-cleared samples may vary from one disc to another. Don't assume you can use the sample in whatever way you like. Review the documentation that comes with the CD for any license information. Most sample disc makers grant the user a "nonexclusive license" to use the samples --which means you, and everyone else, have permission to use the music. However, with a sample CD you don't buy the right to redistribute the samples, only the right to use them in musical works.

If you find that your purchase of the disc doesn't grant the rights you need, contact the soundware manufacturer to see if you're eligible for a refund.

For more information, see Rich Stim's Music Law: How to Run Your Band's Business (Nolo), a comprehensive guide to all the legal issues your band may face.

by: Rich Stim, Attorney
-----------------------

 

@ Revenant,

More than in a 'pure' mix, I guess that this 'Watermark Protection' is more related to the fact to use/grab their samples to make your own commercial Library, and to eventually sell it under another name...

And I'm agree with you that, in some situations, it could be a tedious task to clearly hear some of these samples in a mix, what's more if your project contains several instruments/parts played together (e.g. 2, 3 or more different Libraries used simultaneously for a same song/project).

 

I have been silent for a long time yet I feel I have to speak up.
The watermarking affects only the files within the archives, NOT their waveform. There is NO way they could extract something about the original owner from a mix. Let me say it again, NO acoustic watermarking anywhere. What they call watermark is ID chunk in wave files or added hash in nki files.
It would be, no it IS impossible to extract some information from the sound, like sine tones, simply because 99% libraries use pitch shifting in Kontakt, including Adagio Cellos, e.g. not every note is sampled. What's more, most samples are 44.1kHz, that would leave only 3kHz, between 19-22kHz to store personal data which would still be unreadable once you would apply convolution reverb, use EQ, Reverb, Chorus, Delay, etc. plus pitch shift.

So don't worry, the sound in samples is not altered in any way.
I just couldn't believe how many people are worried and misinformed about this.

 

How do you know this? Do you have anything to prove it?

 

He talks about a Kontakt libray, not a sample pack.


If you are a professional producer, you just buy your stuff and no worries at all.

Let's say I'm just another amateur. I use a stolen Kontakt library, publish some sounds on Soundcloud and there's that mysterious watermarking of my audio material, they hide secret message inside the spektrum which says "You bastard stole our product. We're gonna take you down...".

What could happen? Do you really think that they would sue you?

Here's sth about acoustic watermarking btw:

http://www.musictrace.de/technologies/watermarking.en.htm
http://cifrasoft.com/?page_id=56

I wouldn't call it a myth I guess.

 

Andrew:

Acoustic watermarks are detectable after filters, mixdown and downsampling since it is possible to spread the cypher across the spectrum. I have tested this with a watermarking tool and it was quite impressive. And you won't be able to read the code since it is encrypted with a key so you can't confirm the existence of a watermark. The only thing I could see on a spectrum analyzer was unexplained quiet broadband noise.

I am not saying if Adagio Cellos or any other library is watermarked, I am just saying that the technology exists and I am surprised that is not used more often. Kontakt library developers tend to scare customers by embedding serial data in patches and allusively label it watermarked which is misleading.

 

Kontakt libraries use the "continuata" system to stamp the instrument files (NKI) with buyer info, so each buyer gets personal files. This is done so that in case the library gets shared on the internet, the manufacturer can see who bought the copy that is shared and take the necessary actions. The sample files themselves are the same for everyone.

Often when you buy a library, the samples come on DVD's but you need to download your personal NKI files when you install it.

It has nothing to do with audio watermarks.

 

hey kids just a heads up for you.. the amount of meta data which can be attached to a wave is massive if you don't think it's possible remember this back in the win98 days a .dll surfaced which could make any windows box read any audio cd native.. no big deal huh? Well what you might not remember is you didn't see 8-10 tracks you saw folders for both 16/8 bits mono or stereo
Have a nice day

Ooops forgot to mention certain A/D's stripped that layer

 

Thanks for this quite informative post, light 59 !
The quote above is one of the most important statements for me personally.

I never use samples just how they are. I wouldn't feel myself creatively satisfied, if i would do that.

But....i am primarily an Ambientman, working with textures and shaman drums. Makes some things easier...

 

Thanks for all the replies.

It seems that what is more important in this matter is the legislation of the country you live in; in my country, it is possible for the police to make you give them access to your computer if there is a denunciation /another reason for suspicion that you are using illegal software. However, as far as I know, it does not grant them a search warrant, so I assume (and have been told by others, too) that having one computer with legal SW, notably some cheap DAW and library just so you can show some license, should be enough.

The problem is that from what I have learned from professional composers, composing music is a very competitive business, and even if you're an able musician, it does not mean you will necessarily make a lot of money. As with other occupations, nepotism apparently plays into this quite a lot, but my point is that making enough money to be actually able to obtain legal copies of all the music SW you need to use is not so simple.

Now, if you identify with a non-professional composer, publishing your work on audiojungle and hoping to earn a few bucks seems like the only reasonable beginning.

 

http://watermarking.sit.fraunhofer.de/

This is the only software that has a working and not erasable watermark,
which can be detected on audio and that is embedded into the audio signal
if you have the licensed embed/detect software. (which isn't cheap)

It can't be erased without damaging the signal.
You can also detect the watermark if you record the audio with a mic.

The downside of this software is: It needs a minimum of 10 seconds of audio to embed the signal !
Some companies have bought already a license to use this watermark
and some embed the signal into audio or mp3 since it exist.

You can't embed a signal into short samples less then 10 seconds.
So no really working short sample watermark available today.
Any older watermark can be erased easy...

What I do when I get a sample pack is...!
I delete any mp3 demo inside and all blah, blah and PDF(just to be safe) !

If I would hide a Fraunhofer watermark signal,
then I would hide it inside a innocent looking mp3 demo
with the needed length to hide a signal !


If anything changes, and the Fraunhofer Institute is working on it,
then I'll let you know...!

...so far..., don't worry to much about the usual scary tactics...!

cheers

 

I remember that dll, the content of audio cd that showed was virtual, if you copied any of the 8-bit or mono files, it would decode downsampled audio from the CD, doesn't mean that Audio-CD has both formats physically written on it. Anyway, we are talking about watermarks that survive mixdown, meta-data gets erased once you extract the audio content, ie, render with a DAW.

 

Hmm I can't remember but I'm sure I copied all the files on a winME box.. But regardless if the data wasn't there why was it indexed as if it was?

Also this is from 1999
WATERMARK DATA LENGTH

In the light of the typical data rate one can hope for, it is obviously in the designer's advantage to define the shortest possible Watermark Data that answers his needs. A shorter watermark will be repeated more often within the audio content and it will therefore be available within smaller chunks of the watermarked material. Also, a watermark extractor will have a better chance at recovering a shorter (and more frequently repeated) watermark from heavily contaminated versions of the audio material by exploiting the redundancy of the watermark channel.

Fortunately, most applications do not require large Watermark Data to be embedded within audio. As an illustration, a standard ISRC code, which consists of a country code, an owner code, the year of recording and a serial number, can fit within 60 bits of data and yet identify uniquely each track of all distributed music album. Let's suppose now that one wishes for a watermark that will identify uniquely each transaction of individual songs, then a 100-bit-long watermark could handle over 1 trillion transactions (almost 200 times today's world population). From this figure, there doesn't seem to be any reason for a watermark to exceed 100 bits or so in length.

WATERMARK LAYERS

It is often very desirable for the watermarking technology to allow the same content to carry multiple watermarks simultaneously; each one living on a different Watermark Layer as to ensure they don't interfere. Multiple layers may be chosen to carry the same or totally independent Watermark Data. Such Watermark Layers may also be embedded within the same content at various stages of the distribution process if necessary.

Even within the context of a single watermarking core technology, the properties of the watermark data channel are typically controlled by a large number of configuration parameters. The optimal configuration will be a direct function of the watermarks' purpose and in some case, a combination of configurations, leading to multiple Watermark Layers, are the best way to cover the specific requirements of a given application.

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAYERS

In addition to the nature of the Watermark Data, one can further draw distinctions between various purposes of watermarking any material. One of these distinctions may be whether the watermarking entity wants the content of the watermark to be publicly accessible or not. One concern may be that an undetectable watermark will tend to be less prone to tampering than a publicly readable watermark. On the other hand, if the watermarking entity is the only party that can detect and retrieve its watermark, then it becomes solely responsible for regulating any violation of its propriety.

A Private Watermark Layer requires an appropriate secret key on the decoder side. The idea is not limited to the scrambling the Watermark Data - the presence of the watermark would still be detectable - but rather to hide the Watermark itself within the protected audio material.


So after reading that and knowing how even awt2 can survive D/A>speakers>mic>A/D multiple times ..
Plus AWT2 offers data rate up to 125 bps (i.e. more than 16 bytes in one second of audio); watermark payloads up to 120 bytes long are supported.

Do you Still think companies are not trying to protect even that 10 sec sample?



Edit : doh can't find the page
Edit2 : haha found it http://audiowatermarking.info/customers.php
\

 

Hello everybody,

Let me jump in the discussion with a scenario:

Suppose you record/mix your stuff in a semi-pro (or pro studio, i.e. Abbey Road ) and while tracking you lack some good strings but the studio own a legit copy of Adagio. If they oblige and you accept and add some breathtaking string phrase in your masterpiece using THEIR copy of Adagio and your song hits the roof in the charts, what next?

Do the Adagio Inquisition utilising their mysterious watermark:

a. get you arrested for infringing copyright?
b. have the studio people arrested for letting you use their own LEGIT copy?
c. do both (you and Abbey Road in chains)?
d. nothing happens and you end up in Ibiza with lots of divine blondes munching on the million$ earned and your new found stardom?​

Pray tell *yes*

Oh, btw i found all these articles about audio watermarking (kind of scary): Audio Watermarking, Real Time Watermarking, Watermarking Audio, Audio Watermarking Based on PCM, ACOMMS

And for all the weak at heart in the face of the deadly Audio Watermarks, here's the Litany Against Fear of the reverent Bene Gesserit sisterhood of future space witches!

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing......Only I will remain​

Peace upon you brothers and sisters