Just wondering how my fellow music artists are using their sample libraries nowadays. It seems even using a legit licensed loop risks a takedown now. YouTube can flag something for using a Splice loop if another famous song used it 1st...

I'm asking in the context of popular music; if you're expecting 100k listeners or more, for example. I guess if you're using samples to make more "underground music", the takedown might be less of a big deal, but if you release a "hit" that propels your career, and it gets taken down for "illegal" sample use, that'd be a killer.

I know there are other posts and lots of talk about this out there, but this is evolving so fast with AI detection bots, I think we all need to think about where it's headed. For all we know, in the near future, a storm of random takedowns could hit the whole industry...

So what do you do? Just cross fingers and hope your career doesn't get crushed by this? Avoid samples altogether? Or something in between?

Here's a convo I had with GPT on the subject, where we basically concluded I should stop making music altogether lol:

https://chatgpt.com/share/68143caa-30cc-8005-bf6b-638586e2b848

 

What about making music that doesn't rely on samples?

 

None of the music I make "relies" on samples. but it's an important ingredient. I don't own a sitar that I can make harmonic noises with, don't own a grand piano I can knock on, don't have a darbuka made of ancient clay... But adding a bit of special spice like that, can make all the difference. It would kill me to lose all that.

 

it's telling you the methods of manipulating samples with the highest chance of being undetected.

Most of the methods it gives the highest Effectiveness ratings in the text, are pretty much all the things most producers do with every sample anyway. And that is just to hide royalty-free samples, never mind outright sampling of someone else's released music.

 

Take downs happen all the time. And all the time the listings are reposted. Anyone can claim anything. Doesn't matter if its a human or algo. There are now laws and they are quite specific on the timeline and escalation of events. Very short summation - the party claiming the rights (necessarily the take down initiator in this context) has 30 days to provide proof of ownership to the platform. If they do that, you have 30 days to respond. If no determination can be made there are a couple things that can happen next, but I'm foggy on the specifics. The laws are online, you can read them if you wanna know.

Many of these are resolved in days. By law, if the process drags, it has to be settled in...90? days I think (settled as in the platform following the structure of the laws go to determine who has monetary rights to said track on that specific platform). The platform can in no way make any legal determination of rights. Only acknowledge whichever holder provided the proof.

Its an annoyance and a hassle, but it's not a complicated process to show your ownership.

 

Samples usually give you a piece of license that says what you can do and what you can't do with it. If it's within your rights to use the samples and the other party doesn't concede on releasing the claim, you can just sue and win pretty easily, with all your attorney expenses paid. You can even take Kanye West to the judge, nothing they can argue since there's a paper trail that clears you.

Either way, copyright law is broken, and the music industry is especially above the law at all times. We need new fair use laws that WORK, because right now you're only awarded your rights if you sue, and they very well know most people won't think it's worth the hassle.

Edit: typo

 

Last edited: May 2, 2025 at 2:42 PM

The moment anyone uses a piece of music that someone else created they really are not creating it themselves. They are reimagining, reusing or reinventing something another person created. Whether it is rehashed, beat restructured or whatever, they idea was not originally theirs, only the reimagined end.

The moment the term fair usage was allowed it opened a door to sampling other people's music that will probably never be closed. As for anything legal, the only thing that seems to ignore the fact it was never theirs to start with is a license. That's the short of it.

 

Royalty free means just that, no extra cost.

However, latest trend with ADSR, CYMATICS others etc is they claim 'Royalty Free' but in the small print want 50% if it gets 100,000 streams or more, very sneaky, avoid like the plague.

I get all my vox from sample packs, via excellent trusted suppliers I've had a couple of tracks pulled on soundcloud cos of vocals but sent them to site for proof of royalty free vendor and they were reinstated.

One simple rule, if you can't find the term royalty free, don't use it and if it says royalty free, check there are no pre conditions.

I have two royalty free 12 year old free packs on my site, Arp and Basses, one is posted over there too, I've used them on a couple of recent tracks that were very well recieved on the dancefloor, one was 'Dirty Bassline' I know this cos i get a lot of feedback from the DJ's that support me in the form of comment sheets etc.

 

I was going to answer in earnest, at length and in detail about using samples, clearing samples, and even getting away with using uncleared samples, until I saw this about you having "a convo with GPT on the subject."

"Having a convo" with any ai is being the monkey training the monkey to train other monkeys. Every "convo" with an ai is free training time given to whoever, or rather whatever owns that ai (hint: not a mom and pop store). Why would you give away your time for free?

This is nevertheless a legitimate question. I'll be brief, for once:

• All copyright laws (in the US at least) were written for "not a mom and pop stores" (i.e., corporations)
• Learn how to play an instrument (or other instruments) well, or hire musicians who can (play well)

That's it. Problem solved. No GPT monkey trained or involved.

 

Thanks for the replies. So what I'm picking up is: "Make sure you have a legit license for all samples you use".

But then what do people expect to get out of the sister site? I mean surely many released music with those ("non legit") samples, and did NOT get in trouble for it. But I think it just hasn't happened YET. Agree? With AI bots upgrading fast, isn't it all just a matter of time?

As for the argument of "re-using something already created isn't your own creation", I disagree. The moment it's re-imagined as something else, it's a creative act. And this is not really the subject of the thread here; I'm assuming (some) people are going to keep using samples. FWIW, I'm a pro Jazz musician, multi-instrumentalist; I don't use samples to replace real performance.

 

Last edited: May 2, 2025 at 7:27 AM

Are sample packs really royalty free?
Even though they are labeled "royalty free", most of them are not.

Can I use sample packs for commercial productions?
Nobody is stopping you, but remember that if your work starts generating significant revenue, you will then have to deal with lawyers who will demand a slice of the cake

Can I sample a previously released track?
Of course you can, just remember to submit your work to the clearance process with the label it belongs before releasing it. From there on, the negotiation will begin

Can I sample a track from 1910?
Copyright has an expiration date, but take into consideration that it is not the same for all countries in the world, also if the composition is let's say 100 years old (so probabily in the public domain) but you sampled a performance of it recorded 10 years ago by a modern orchestra, then you will have to deal with the owner of the recording

I'm sure I'm using public domain samples in my track: will I have problems?
You won't have any legal problems, just keep in mind that in case your track become a hit, it will be replicated by everyone, precisely because those samples are in the public domain, canceling your earnings

In short: if you are not looking for headaches, the easiest way to deal with samples is to not use them at all

 

Last edited: May 2, 2025 at 8:24 AM

there are AI music bots who are now making music based off others peoples music, and then claiming take-downs on the songs they trained on. I would say we are definitely in for a shit show in the coming years.

 

Fair use doesn't apply to sampling. I can't even think of circumstance you could legitimately make the argument for. Sampling without rights-holder permission in the US is always breaking copyright law...and most nations enforce it too through reciprocal treaties.

It's a bit funny too talking about 'samples nowadays'. The "Great Sample War" already happened 30 years ago. A take down is nothing. These guys were getting hit with multimillion dollar damages... in 90's dollars. Granted, it still happens today but this is by no means anything new. I can think of instances too were the artist seeks permission but is denied, like Skinny Puppy used some Timothy Leary quotes in a track and sent it to him ahead of release for permission. Leary granted it. Leary did not, however, actually own the mechanical rights on the audio Puppy sampled and the owner denied them. So track got left off the album (The Process). Clearing samples has also been a thing for well over 30 years.

That lil nas x song with billy cyrus that was... fuck-ing---everwhere... sound familiar? The main bit is from Nine Inch Nails. Reznor (and the rest of the writers) also freely gave permission granted on that whole instrumental series that anyone could sample it, printed right on the album iirc. So lil nas x didn't have to pay what would otherwise have ended up being at least somewhere in the 6 figures for year one and a pretty penny every year on for at least a couple decades I'd imagine.

There is a difference between Royalty Free and Royalty Based. All of the modern day platforms charging you a monthly subscription are royalty free. Your payment to them is the legal acceptance of their offer that they are the owner of all content sold and grant you a perpetual license on sale. Splice, Sample Magic, LANDR, Loopcloud etc. You can write a number 1 song with those samples and you will not owe a penny. So many nonsense stories about people being sued to oblivion for using a Splice sample or something. Now if *Splice* failed to clear a sample that you use to write a number 1 hit and the rights owner sees dollar signs... yes, you will be named in the lawsuit... but no, you will be out nothing. Splice would ultimately financially be on the hook, not you. This has not happened either.

If you wanna sample Marvin Gaye... that's gonna be Royalty based and you work it out directly with the rights holder or representation.

The thing that does happen sometimes and that people are conflating with lawsuits, are copyright strikes. Copyright is a different beast and.. well.. I don't feel like typing 20 paragraphs about it... gist is, you own the copyright to your novel work... you don't own the copyright to the sample. The problem arises with another person uses the same sample in a novel work. Even though you wrote a hick-hop-slapper and they wrote a blackend tribute to our lord and master, the basis for the claim is because that sample exists in the novel work. Ultimately, this too can be resolved. It'll just take a couple weeks. But these arent monetary claims. These are just DCMAs. k done rambling.

 

1.Hm, I don't think Chopin played more than 1 instrument (piano) or Paganini played more than 2 instruments (violin, guitar), but that was enough to get over others.
2. Are you shure to hire a whole jazz band or symphony orchestra is a good idea? Even big Hollywood film studios use samples for their soundtracks (and that's the reason, why Native Instruments with their Kontakt flourish.)
3. Ok, you can hire demo studio musicians (there are tons of those studios in Nashville, for example),
but if you do so, don't forget to sign a RELEASE FORM with every musician/singer you hire,
because (and the close history confirms) there could law suites appear later...

 

• Going from a question about samples to Chopin is remarkably creative. Were it that you could apply that to music.
  This is what I said: "Learn how to play an instrument (or other instruments) well, or hire musicians who can (play well)."
  

• If you can't hire the musicians, use samples. If you can't clear or pay for the samples, hire musicians. It's not brain surgery.

• I'm afraid you're confusing models and actresses with musicians. Photogs need release forms from models. Musicians as per Title 17 of the US Copyright Act perform a "work for hire." Think of a baguette: you buy it from your bakery, you pay your money, you own it. You don't need a release form from the baker allowing you to eat the baguette - that's what the money is for.
• The AFM has Report Forms (mostly B4 and B5 for our topic here), but those are for SSN and pension.

NAME OF ARTIST / GROUP:
One Artist or Group per Contract
NAME OF SESSION PRODUCER: INDUSTRY PROJECT NO.:
ORIGINAL SESSION
RECORDING DATE: RECORDING STUDIO:
CITY: STATE:
HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT: MUSIC PROD. CO. NAME:
DUBBING, NEW USE, LIMITED PRESSING UPGRADE OR OTHER
ORIGINAL REPORT FORM NO: ORIGINAL RECORDING DATE:
Check 1 and only 1 from each of these categories:
Production Type
Original Session
Location Recording Sound Sample
Limited Pressing Upgrade Demo Record Conversion Video Promo
New Use:
M.P. Soundtrack Sampling
Other
NO. of MINUTES A.
B. C. D. E.
SIGNATORY OF RECORD:
TITLE of TUNES/PIECES
Payment Type
Non-Symphonic (regular) Non-Symphonic (special) Symphonic (3 hrs.) Symphonic (4 hrs.) Opera
Ballet
Chamber (Chamber sessions must be approved by AFM 4 weeks prior to session.)
Low Budget Recording (AFM must

• Bottom line: no need to dig up Chopin from his grave in Paris. Hire the damn musicians or clear the samples. It's simple. If you can't afford either, there's tons of excellent free samples included with Logic (plus great ai drummers). No release form needed.

 

I always found this a strange technical angle to present from a creative/musicians standpoint.
While it's obviously accurate in its technical correct-itude ("accurate" in the sense that "anarchy" is "chaos," and "nationalism" is merely loyalty to the ideology and advancement of a nation,) it walks around the parallel, and more vast argument that nothing anyone creates is original and is all a derivative of something they've heard before—which is plagiarism—making the inevitable result of any creation of music ultimately a "reimagining, reusing or reinventing something another person created."
In listening to music you're inadvertently analyzing it, even if it's not to the degree that you do once you acquire the curse of the hyper-sensitive "producer" or mix/mastering engineer, and that analysis is then applied to any music-making endeavors from there on out. Most people's first learned pieces are just that, pieces created by others which furthers their mimicry; and on mimicry, gawd-knows how many Classical pieces for violin, or cello, or lute or entrail-strung hollow hunk of wood were actually just kyped from nearby birds. It's gonna be a dark day when every species comes at us for harvesting their tunes and melodies... but then, they never copyrighted any of it, so that's on them.
#royaltiesareforthebirds

 

Recontextualizing ideas so that they are sufficiently derivative isn't plagiarism, though. Being inspired by a particular author to use the word "patina" isn't wholly original (as you wouldn't have otherwise done it), but it's not plagiarism.

And you're forgetting there's a difference between ideas and mechanical works. Sampling a G-minor chord played by the Beatles isn't the same as recording your friend playing a G-minor. The idea behind the chord is the same, but the mechanical aspect isn't.

In other words, the criteria is: Be creative enough that you avoid plagarism in the domain of ideas and also create and use your own mechanical works, if you are not willing to license from people that own mechanical works.

 

Last edited: May 2, 2025 at 2:10 PM

I only use the one shot drums from sample packs, more or less everything else is scrapped. I wouldn't dream of using a bass/melody loop just because it seems like quite a lot of borrowing, a one shot drum is essentially just a transient and noone probably will recognise it anyway.

But yeah I think it's a good thing, rearranging loops from commercially available sample packs that someone else has made (and mastered for you) isn't really original producing, it's a rather fancy jigsaw that's probably not much of a challenge. I don't necessarily think Splice and Loopcloud are good inventions either

(With this said I have used one or two sung vocals from sample packs, but I always felt a bit guilty about it and I can't really claim it's my original track if I've pilfered not only the vocal but also the chord progression...)

 

Last edited: May 2, 2025 at 3:18 PM