Re: [Swami-devel] Re: [fluid-dev] Copyright Issues was: Re: [ANN] Beta test of the Resonance Instrument Database

[Ebrahim Mayat]

On Aug 31, 2005, at 7:57 PM, Pieter Penninckx wrote:
> > Now, if I were to create my own patch (as opposed to using a  
> > factory  patch) on any recent synth (a Nord Lead or Korg OASYS,  
> > say)  then
> > sample and package that using SWAMI, would that be legal to  
> > distribute?
>
> No.
>
>
> > I agree that this is a grey area.
>
> It is notreally: you may not distribute samples from synthesizers
> (sorry).

Sorry, not entirely true. There are many samplers (both hardware and  
software) on the market presently that contain samples from other  
synths and keyboards in general (Hammond Organ, Fender Rhodes,  
Wurlitzer, ARP, Oberheim, Moog…just to name a few)

> I think that depends on how much of the patch is contains artwork  
> by the manufacturer. If enough is user created (for instance, when you
> recorded it yourself with a microphone into your synth), I think  
> you can distribute a recording of your hardware synth playing what you
> created (although it's rediculous of course).

No, you can initialize a synth and create a patch of your own from  
scratch. I am talking soundware programming as opposed to sample and  
synthesis.

> There was a synth in which you could draw sounds with a light pen,  
> that is allready less user-created stuff. When you only change the  
> attack and delay,
> there's manufacturar created stuff on which you infrige copyright.  
> Don't ask me where exactely a judge would draw the line, but only  
> changing attack and delay etc. is not enough.

Obviously.

> Microsoft's eula gives you the right to distribute documents that  
> include photographs, clip art, ... see
> <http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/tou.aspx> article 1.2. If that  
> article wouldn't be there, Microsoft could sue you if you distribute
> a book that contained some clipart from word. But please read the  
> first point of article 1.2: you may not distribute the clips photo's
> etc. as such or in a collection.

That is totally NOT what I am talking about. Ask JK Rowling.

> Also Adobe Photoshop's license <http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ 
> pdfs/cs_combined.pdf> has
> an article about "Stock Files" (images, photographs, ... artistic  
> works): you may display, modify, ... them (if you have a licence,
> of course), but you may not distribute them in a product of which  
> they form the primary value.

See above.

> The same is true for synthesizers: you may distribute music made  
> with it, but not the samples as such or in a collection.

Sure. Agreed.

> The problem arises with tools that have an artistic creation in  
> them. For instance, imagine a stamp that is being sold, that's a  
> tool, but
> it also contains an artistic work.

Nit-picking. I do not see the analogy here. Is the stamp a tool for  
creating an artistic work? Again, I am NOT talking about samples here.

Hope this clears things up.

Ebrahim