The argument is two-sided because one is influence the other is either direct copying or plagiarism, two different things. Say for example, a person listens to only three artists for ten years, one hard rock, the other classical the other jazz and the music they wrote ended up being jazz-rock-classical. If they copied or sampled any of it, then they aren't influenced, they are copying or the other side of that, stealing. Influence and copying aren't the same thing, huge difference.

Copyright which hasn't changed, is in place the moment something is written, not just when published or logged with ASCAP etc etc.. Then again, if marked royalty free then it means anyone can use it and reuse it ad nauseum.

Yes it's a flip side which has been used to exploit musicians for two decades now and why Spotify and others came into existence. The door got opened and they opened it as wide as they could.

 

It means "no extra cost" but only after you pay for them. It also does not mean, "use without paying until you decide to pay for them".

Most of the "royalty free" portions of the EULA are not applicable retroactively. This means you cannot use whatever you want in a track today, get "caught" by the sample being detected tomorrow, and then go pay for the pack the day after that. This is the best reason to replace every single sample in a track that you can, before ever posting it anywhere you might possibly monetize it.

The biggest irony about the entire thing, is that those who would claim copyrights on a track in a sample-reliant genre, probably made the samples using some warez in the first place.

 

What a shit show. It's a big Russian roulette is all...

 

yup. At least now we have some good polyphonic Audio to Midi utilities like Melodyne and others. We have "demixing" methods like RX, stem separation making extracting midi data easier and more accurate, spectral editing and cleanup. Almost nothing is completely irreplaceable, and if it is you should have known better than trying to get away with using it. Now we even have plugins like Visco and Synplant 2 which can rather easily re-synthesize anything you throw at them.

Even though you occasionally see some track unexpectedly blow up, go viral, whatever; most producers can get a very good feel for what might actually be a commercially successful track. Even if that just means popular on Spotify and Youtube to them. And we also know when a track is "just another trap beat" or whatnot. If you really need to keep an uncleared sample in your track, the probability is high the track sucks anyway.

 

Someone needs to learn how to spell... Maybe rudimentary spelling should be the first class taught at backseat lawyer school. Ya think?

 

Use suno, udio, riffusion to take the "royalty free" sample and have it performed in a new way. It will variate the sample enough to be unique.

 

I got thought in Music college to worry about that after it happens, it's like a good problem. Yeah it might stifle your hit and momentum but even more people will hear about it and it'll get extra attention, a sort of 'there's no such thing as bad press' mentality. And also if it happens obviously you've had a hit and your original idea worked well, so there's tons of encouragement to be had from that and other potential clients will have took notice. Sample away worry free!

 

With a good sound design effort a sample can be less obvious and harder to flag than some synth presets.

 

This has been my thinking so far. It's a good problem to have. If you keep the multi-track stems of your release in good order, you re-release with a fix, and spin it as a positive; there's so many ways to do so. I get the feeling most producers take this approach, and they don't care too much, hence not many of them responding in this thread. Those who DO care live in fear or hate for using samples, and they're most of the loud ones here.

But there have been some good points brought up ... I appreciate it, guys.

In my use-cases, it's like a top percussion loop, with a special time-feel, thrown in to add some spice, in a dense mix or something. Or a one-shot kick that came with XO maybe, and it just sounds perfect for the track. That kind of thing. We all know there's something special in "the perfect take" that can never be replicated exactly, and that's the magic of samples.

I guess it's case by case, and common sense, but with the recognition tech evolving faster than the slow-ass law, it's hard to gauge what's "common sense" practice anymore. Or it's just me loosing it... lol

 

I'd never mind using drum samples as long as they were not taken from a actual song. I mean, how many hit songs were made from the same shitty 808 snare? It would be a mess

 

Hey man, I appreciate your good intentions, and trust me, I too wish this dreamland you've copy pasted from bogus (or ai generated) web sites would be/come reality.

1. That's just not the case - nor the law - in these United States of the Gulf of America.
   
   
2. But I'm with you that it should be - and if you would kindly send me those forms, I'll make sure to forward them to my attorney.
   
   
3. Thanks very much again for your illuminating post and God bless you.

 

Sure, I just need a treated room, a drum kit, an electric guitar, a microphone, an audio interface, a saxophone and an electric bass. Oh, and put an electric keyboard on the tab as well.

Jokes aside, I have a friend who makes all his samples (on the PC), can't say I don't admire him for that. But I also have to say that no one is going to rightfully take yall music down if you're actually doing transformative work with the samples you're using.

 

I was reading the original post to mean lifting samples from songs and that sort of thing, not using sampled instruments. That's the context I meant that answer in and even there it's not like I have any kind of problem with people lifting samples from songs but it can really land you in hot water if you don't have the ability to do the clearances. That's why my response was basically well, why not just not do that; make your own sounds, etc.
If I missed the point it certainly wouldn't be the first time.

 

Maybe my fault for not being clear enough. I tried to shotgun the subject, but it's really case by case, I'm realizing.

 

Mate, I actually clicked on the highlighted digits of your "post above" and guess where those (live) links take me? Australia, dude. Australia.

Different sets of laws in the United States of the Gulf of America - very different.

For instance, 32 years later I still get checks sent to my first wife's address from recording sessions I played on (as a keyboardist) at EMI France.
Number of checks I get from recording sessions I played on in the United States: zero.
Number of checks I have to sign to musicians I hired for the records or film score sessions that I produced in the United States: zero.

You have a nice day now.

 

Never, EVER, do this. I know dudes that were banging a hit track with a sample from a Weeknd song. The song went viral, took DMCA shut down and we never knew about those dudes again.

But i'm yet to know someone that did a proper work on a royalty free sample and still got problems. As @clone said, the only people that i knew that used royalty free loops the way it is, without changing a thing, were just shitty ass trap beats. And those songs never really get an audience. For drums one shots i can assure you it's almost 100% safe. For loops, a proper work may put you on a safe lane as well.

Quick tip: always when you're working with melodic loops, when you finish, put the result on Shazam or Google. If they cannot find something similar to compare (they will always show you the average of similarity on the results), you will not get automatic shuts and very probably a claim will need a lawsuit to take your song down. But if there's 10% of similarity with another song i'd suggest not using at all, even if it's not a sample.

 

Hey, I didn't invent it...just copypasted the form from Joel's letter 15y ago and saved it on disc as is