Nils, the author of programs like Patroneo and Agordejo has created a list of "worry-free" FOSS sampled instruments. The idea is to list resources granting maximum artist freedom and being 100% free from any possible legal trouble.

@unfa using a commercial nonfloss sample library was always royalty-free. i have not seen a case where you could get in legal trouble by using ANY sample library. this "worry - free" applies only to redistribution. i find it kinda FUD-ish with vague warnings. do you know any sample library where you have to get permission for recording with it or need to provide attribution?

@luka @unfa as i understand it, if a sample library is licensed under CC-BY-SA without a specific exception for transformative derivative works, then any resulting music made with it must also be CC-BY-SA.

@jaxter184 @luka @unfa Yeah, I think it's good to have cc0 samples in any case; for instance, many sounds on use cc by/by-nc license - and that makes it impractical or impossible (due to -nc) to use them in some projects.

Also, if I used non-libre samples and would like to release the resulting work as CC BY or BY-SA, I would suspect there might be issues with license compatibility (as these licenses allow reuse of the work that contains the samples). But I might be over cautious.

@jaxter184 @luka @unfa Another question is the type of samples and use; if they are part of an instrument, perhaps they are somewhat similar to fonts - the license of the font doesn't (usually) affect the license or copyright of the resulting work. (This is how I would intuitively treat such samples).

But if the font was to be used as something more prominent / key (like part of a logo), it may become an issue.

But fonts usually have font-specific licenses that make these things explicit.

@jaxter184 @luka @unfa Here the issue seems to be that some libre samples use licenses that are not specific to sampling and thus may "backfire" licensing-wise on the derivative work by being copyleft or requiring attribution.

@setthemfree @luka @unfa i think its tough because there are some cases where a sample creator might not want an attribution-free license, for example long-form vocal recordings, where the vocalist is usually credited.
it also points to a potential deficiency in the copyright system that a heavily processed percussion one-shot buried in context technically has the exact same level of copyright protection as copy/pasting a loop into the break of a song

@setthemfree @luka @unfa but yeah, it certainly seems true that CC in its raw form is not meant to be used for samples

@unfa @setthemfree @luka imo, CC-0 only covers a pretty small subset of music resource classifications, i.e. minimally unique drum samples to be collected en mass and perused with arrow keys. For basically any other type of resource, I think its better for the original resource creator, the listener, and the musician to be able to trace the origin of a given sample/multisample/sample pack.

@unfa @setthemfree @luka the thought that im trying to form is that unmodified CC licenses as a collective can't cover many of the common use cases for free culture sample distribution, but there certainly are some CC licenses (like CC-0 and CC-BY) that can be used in some of the cases.

@luka of course if you purchase a royalty free sample you can use it without worry. But there's a lot of "free" resources out there that have been sourced from unknown places, have unclear licensing and dubious authorship. In practice probably no one would ever get sued over any of that, but as an artist I would like to respect the rights of others, even if it will not harm me personally if I don't.
Commercial libraries are free of such issues, because there's a clear license.

Yes imho, unlicensed samples are the biggest worry.

What if I find a nice sounding library, use it and later find out it's a pirated copy of some commercial library.


Sign in to participate in the conversation

The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit