Hi,
Are demo songs from keyboards / synthesisers actually protected by copyright ?
For example the demo song from the yamaha PSS-480.

Thanks

Theo

 

everything is by default so the answer is yes
will it ever be enforced? probably not

 

Basically, anything that involves a certain amount of "effort" is protected. In German, this is called "Schöpfungshöhe". (Threshold of originality.) The details depend on the country or jurisdiction in which you live.
In the case of a demo song, I would assume that the (stored) recording itself is protected, but not the composition. (You could therefore play the melody with your own instruments.)

Have you checked the documentation that came with your keyboard to see if there are any references to copyright or licence terms?

 

I recall that song in the early '80s by Trio, Da Da Da... I asked ChatGPT.

'Trio used the preset sound from the Casio VL-Tone 1 keyboard for their hit song "Da Da Da." Since they used a preset sound from a commercially available keyboard, they likely did not have to pay Yamaha for its use. Preset sounds on keyboards are generally intended for public use, and musicians can use them in their compositions without needing to pay additional licensing fees.'

Leonard Cohen also used a preset drums and rhythm for one of his songs over which he played the lead synth line and sang.

'Leonard Cohen's "Tower of Song" from the album I'm Your Man uses a preset drum and synth sound from the Technics SX-K350 keyboard'

 

Last edited: Jan 26, 2025 at 9:29 AM

In the case of the Yamaha PSS-480, the manufacturer, Yamaha, would be the copyright holder of the demo songs.
If you want to use these songs, it is important to respect the license terms that come with the device or software.

To be sure, send a request to Yamaha.

Yamaha EZ 250i (copyright DEMO songs) part 1 / 3

 

Last edited: Jan 26, 2025 at 12:22 PM

My examples don't answer your question, you really need to look at the current terms and conditions from each manufacturer.

 

They basically used from the VL1 a preset sound and a preset rhythm that gave the song its signature.

Same was for Gorillaz - Clint Eastwood, using a preset riff from another (toy) keyboard - Suzuki Omnichord(?).

 

Yeah, I had one around 1980, it was actually my first keyboard/synth. Pretty sure there's a VST emulation of it.

 

Discover 10 of the most famous copyright cases in pop culture history
It's said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. While being inspired by someone else's work may be free expression, copying it too closely is not. These famous copyright cases show this balance in action.

Queen and David Bowie v. Vanilla Ice
Music and copyright go together like Sonny and Cher. At the top of most famous copyright cases lists is that of rock legends David Bowie and Queen against rapper Vanilla Ice. If you've ever heard the opening seconds of Ice's 1990 hit "Ice Ice Baby" and thought it could be Queen and Bowie's "Under Pressure," you wouldn't be alone. Queen and Bowie sued for copyright infringement. Ice didn't hide the fact that his song sampled "Under Pressure," but he said the bass line made it different. The sides settled out of court. Ice gave Bowie and Queen a songwriting credit.

Napster v. … basically the entire music industry
Before Spotify, Pandora, Tidal, Apple Music or any other streaming service, there was Napster. What started in 1999 as a computer enthusiast's way of sharing digital music files online became a threat to the music industry's business model. The heavy metal band Metallica sued Napster and its founder Shawn Fanning for violating copyright laws and racketeering in allowing users to share music files with each other. Major record companies followed with their own suits. Napster was found guilty, paying more than $25 million in damages.

Marvin Gaye estate v. Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams
Soul singer Marvin Gaye died in 1984, but his family and estate have spent years protecting his music. A lawsuit claimed the 2013 hit song "Blurred Lines" from Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams ripped off Gaye's 1977 song "Got to Give It Up." Gaye's estate won, eventually being awarded $5 million. On the other hand, British singer-songwriter Ed Sheeran won a similar lawsuit that claimed he had stolen elements of Gaye and co-writer Ed Townsend's "Let's Get It On" for his song "Thinking Out Loud."

John Fogerty v. … himself?
Creedence Clearwater Revival was one of the biggest bands of the late 1960s and 1970s. Frontman John Fogerty's distinctive voice led a generation of anti-war anthems. When he left the band for a solo career, his voice and songwriting went with him, but not the rights to CCR songs. Fantasy Records owned them and sued Fogerty over his solo song "The Old Man Down the Road" for sounding too much like the CCR song "Run Through the Jungle," which Fogerty wrote. Fogerty won the copyright claim at trial, where he sang and played guitar on the stand. Though he won the lawsuit, he spent more than $1 million in legal fees to get there. So, he sued Fantasy Records to force them to pay those legal fees. That prompted an appeal to the Supreme Court, which ruled in Fogerty's favor.

"Playas Gon' Play" writers want Taylor Swift to knock it off
Taylor Swift's "Shake It Off" is a reminder of what to do in the face of criticism. But what about a copyright lawsuit? Songwriters Sean Hall and Nathan Butler sued Swift in 2017, alleging the song and its lines about "players gonna play" and "haters gonna hate" stole lyrics from their 2001 song "Playas Gon' Play," written for the R&B group 3LW. Swift said the lyrics in her song were common sayings and that she was unfamiliar with the 3LW song. Outside of the lyrical snippet, there was no musical similarity between the two songs. The case was dismissed in 2022 one month before trial.

Star Wars strikes Battlestar Galactica
"Star Wars" may have been set in "a galaxy far, far away," but the lawyers at movie studio 20th Century Fox follow U.S. law. After the success of "Star Wars" in 1977, rival Universal Studios released the TV show "Battlestar Galactica," which caught the attention of (and awakened The Force inside) Fox. Battlestar was too similar in theme, Fox claimed. A prominent visual effects artist who worked on "Star Wars" was fired by George Lucas and went to work on the sci-fi show. Universal countersued, saying Fox had taken ideas from previous space-themed science fiction. The case was set for trial in 1983, but both sides settled out of court.

Apple v. Microsoft
Before they were mainstays of everyday life, Apple and Microsoft were young companies trying to make their mark on the early personal computer market. In 1988 Apple sued Microsoft, saying the Bill Gates-led company stole Apple's graphical design for Windows 2.0. It was eventually explained as a misunderstanding. Microsoft technically had permission from Apple, and a court ruled in favor of Microsoft. Apple tried unsuccessfully to appeal several times. Much of the early-1980s drama between the two companies, and their famous founders, is explored in the 1999 movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley."

Viacom v. YouTube
In 2007, less than a year after Google bought YouTube, the companies were hit with a $1 billion copyright suit. Viacom, which owns MTV, CBS, and Comedy Central, said YouTube was wrongly taking clips from shows it owned and making money off them, accusing it of "massive intentional copyright infringement." YouTube said that as a platform, it was not responsible for what people posted, and the legal responsibility fell on users. The case tested the limits of the 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which aimed to protect internet platforms from liability for what users posted. A series of decisions and appeals favored YouTube and Google. The companies finally settled out of court in 2014.

Associated Press v. Shepard Fairey and the Obama "HOPE" poster
Anyone who followed the 2008 presidential campaign encountered a red, white and blue rendering of candidate and eventual President Barack Obama with the word HOPE at the bottom. It was everywhere. The Associated Press took exception, claiming artist Shepard Fairey used one of their photographer's photos and improperly used it to make money for himself, without compensating the AP. Fairey sued the AP, saying he was engaged in a "fair use," a legal defense to a copyright infringement lawsuit. They settled and agreed to share the rights. In a twist, Fairey later admitted to destroying evidence and to creating other fake evidence. He received two years' probation and 300 hours of community service.

Naruto and PETA v. Slater (aka "the monkey selfie")
Can a photographer violate copyright law with pictures from their own camera? Do animals have rights of ownership? Those questions followed the unique case of wildlife photographer David Slater. While taking pictures in an Indonesian wildlife reserve, he set down the camera long enough for a macaque monkey named Naruto to grab the camera and take a selfie. Slater published the photos, which spread widely. Animal-rights group PETA sued Slater, saying he had violated the monkey's copyright ownership; after all, whoever takes the photo immediately owns the copyright – and Naruto took the picture. (Slater argued that he really "took" the photo by setting the camera up to the point where anyone – or any animal – could simply press a button, a basic and automatic action.) A judge dismissed the case, saying Naruto wasn't covered by U.S. copyright law because the copyright is owned by the person who takes the picture – and Naruto wasn't a person. PETA appealed and both sides settled. Slater agreed to give 25% of earnings from the photos to groups protecting macaques in Indonesia.

Famous copyright cases and the First Amendment
The First Amendment broadly protects speech and many forms of artistic expression. Copyright laws prevent taking someone else's work and presenting it as your own – also known as plagiarism. A Freedom Forum guide on speech that is and is not protected by the First Amendment explains copyright and plagiarism this way:

"If you copy someone else's writing, speech, art, music or choreography without permission, that person can sue you for 'trespassing' on their property. The court can order you to stop your copyright infringement and fine you. Copyright law protects property rights for creators to give people an incentive to create more expressions."

That limit on free speech is at the center of the famous copyright cases highlighted above – and in all cases.

With artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT, DALL-E and others quickly changing how creative work is made and shared, a new era of copyright law and cases is coming. The question isn't if AI will affect music, art, writing, film, news, software and all creative expressions, but to what extent laws need to change as the next generation of copyright cases unfolds.

Scott A. Leadingham is a Freedom Forum staff writer.

 

As I understand it, under American law copyright exists at the moment of creation of any intellectual property. The problem comes when you try to prove that in court at some point- that's why it's good to have forms and official things filled out. Then comes the process of arguing well, how much does A actually sound like B, and the judge flips a coin, determines who's actually richer and more famous and decides.

 

I remember Yamaha using „Last Christmas“ and „My Heart Will Go On“ as demo songs:

Probably not copyrighted

 

The Opening of Michael Jackson’s “Beat It” is an Exact Replay of a Synth Demo Record
the full story: https://medium.com/micro-chop/the-o...e-sounds-of-synclavier-ii-record-659061d90b37

 

There is a video from IG (i can't find right now) of someone showing that Swiss Beats used a somg demo from a synthesizer as a full beat. I know the song melody, but can't remember the title. There was a dominant horn patch and the song was a hit. Swiss even commented to confirm it.

 

When the rights to the Beatles songs belonged to Michael Jackson

At the beginning of their friendship, Paul McCartney advised the young Michael Jackson to secure the rights to other people's songs. That was the real gold. How the King of Pop ended up buying the Beatles' catalog is a curious story.

It begins with McCartney and John Lennon founding Northern Songs, the Beatles' music publishing company, with their manager Brian Epstein and music publisher Dick James in 1963. The publishing company managed 251 McCartney/Lennon compositions. After Epstein's death in 1967, the shares changed and Northern Songs became the property of a company called ATV. McCartney and Lennon (or his heirs) continued to receive their share as composers, but had no say or right to share in licensing agreements, for example.

When the King of Pop died, his heirs sold the rights for $750 million. After Paul McCartney sued the buyer, both parties came to an agreement in 2017. Paul McCartney was probably not primarily interested in the money. The singer-songwriter is considered the richest musician in the world. His desire to get the rights to the Beatles' hits back probably has other reasons. Obtaining the rights closes a circle for him. He has everything in his own hands again and can pass on his legacy to posterity.

www.gema.de/de/w/urheberrecht-beatles-michael-jackson