I have noticed some folks make UserTracks using another library such as SampleTank. I would like to try this but I am wondering if there are any legal considerations? Usually, digital libraries specify you are licensed to use them in your works but not to repackage and distribute them. Wouldn't this count as repackaging and distribution?
I wouldn't think so since SampleTank and any other player you might use in this instace is being used as a sound module. I don't see where it would be any different than using sound from any other source.
But I'm not a lawyer and have not read the SampleTank EULA.
I assume PG pays their RealTrack artists for session work and gets either full ownership of what was played or at least unlimited license.
In the case of UserTracks I certainly understand if I want to play and convert that to UserTrack it is no problem.
But what I think might be an issue is taking samples intended for use in songs, repackaging them in a different format (UserTrack) and then redistributing them for others to use in their songs without IK receiving any compensation for that use.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that what you are doing is using the sounds provided by the libraries, but are not distributing the libraries themselves. You are allowed to create music using those sounds and do whatever you want to with them. So you are just distributing audio content that uses those sounds (not much different than if you created a song using those sounds). The only difference is that the audio can be sliced and diced by BIAB/RealBand; however, you are not distributing the sound libraries themselves.
But again, I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV (or even YouTube, for that matter).
John
Laptop-HP Omen I7 Win11Pro 32GB 2x2TB, 1x4TB SSD Desktop-ASUS-I7 Win10Pro 32GB 2x1.5TB, 2x2TB, 1x4TB SATA
I assume PG pays their RealTrack artists for session work and gets either full ownership of what was played or at least unlimited license.
In the case of UserTracks I certainly understand if I want to play and convert that to UserTrack it is no problem.
But what I think might be an issue is taking samples intended for use in songs, repackaging them in a different format (UserTrack) and then redistributing them for others to use in their songs without IK receiving any compensation for that use.
You create a UserTrack using a SampleTank sound over your original midi data and that is your original work the same as a song, a movie track or a symphony. SampleTank, Kontact, and every other library are used in loops and midi files in every thinkable type of composition. My thought is that the library itself is considered proprietary and is not to be repackaged and distributed. In other words, you cannot use SampleTank material to create a JohnJohnJohn- Lite Sample Library and market it as yours. I believe you can write a song, loop, usertrack, movie soundtrack, symphony or any composition using Kontact, SampleTank, Coyote Forte, and Roland Soundcanvas in your production without compensating the Library.
DISCLAIMER: I'm stating my opinion in a forum conversation and it should be construed solely as opinion and not legal advice. I'm neither qualified, certified nor intend to render legal advice. Any use of my thoughts or words are taken at the reader's sole risk and responsibility. This post contents are not legal advice.
Yeah I see no problem at all with creating UserTracks and using them myself on my own songs. I think that is pretty clearly allowed.
What I am talking about is the act of translating the SampleTank sounds from their library to a new format that is compatible with BIAB and then distributing them here or elsewhere for free or for money. Essentially, this is taking a subset of the SampleTank samples and providing them to others for their use in their own songs thus depriving IK of potential income off the samples.
Think of it this way. What if someone figured out how to convert RealTracks (or a subset of RealTracks) so they could be used inside Kontakt and then they distributed those converted RealTracks to Kontakt owners so they could access some of the RealTrack sounds without purchasing BIAB!
Thanks for all of your inputs!! I started this thread by asking the question but after having thought this through I would definitely NOT ever do this except for my own personal use. And I bet PG is at risk for allowing other sample libraries (or portions of those libraries) to be converted and distributed here!
But JohnJohnJohn, when you create a User Track, you are really just creating a song (using a defined chord progression in an SGU file), which results in a rendered WAV file. It's the exact same process you would use to create any other song that might use a sound library, and you then are legally allowed to use IK's sounds in your own songs that you potentially make money from. If you couldn't do it with User Tracks, then I would think you wouldn't be able to use SampleTank to create and sell your own BIAB songs, because they're both the same thing, really.
The only difference is that the User Tracks resultant "song" gets sliced and diced in a different order than you originally created it. But since you released the user track, then you are the one that needs to be okay with that, not IK (since you used the IK sounds for their intended purpose in the first place).
John
Laptop-HP Omen I7 Win11Pro 32GB 2x2TB, 1x4TB SSD Desktop-ASUS-I7 Win10Pro 32GB 2x1.5TB, 2x2TB, 1x4TB SATA
But JohnJohnJohn, when you create a User Track, you are really just creating a song (using a defined chord progression in an SGU file), which results in a rendered WAV file. It's the exact same process you would use to create any other song that might use a sound library, and you then are legally allowed to use IK's sounds in your own songs that you potentially make money from. If you couldn't do it with User Tracks, then I would think you wouldn't be able to use SampleTank to create and sell your own BIAB songs, because they're both the same thing, really.
The only difference is that the User Tracks resultant "song" gets sliced and diced in a different order than you originally created it. But since you released the user track, then you are the one that needs to be okay with that, not IK (since you used the IK sounds for their intended purpose in the first place).
jford,
No, in making a UserTrack you never created a song! Neither in your intent nor your actions (not "you" personally but the universal you!)
Instead, you followed PG's instructions for mechanically/methodically recording a chord sequence for the sole purpose of converting the samples from IK format to UserTrack format so that the instrument samples can then be used by others to create their own songs! HUGE difference from actually writing a song!
And I certainly get that part of the conversion process involves you creating a pattern or strum and that is what gets sliced up but the underlying samples, the sounds themselves, are from another sample library. Your only contribution is the pattern or strum.
If I followed your logic it would be OK for PG (or any one of us) to buy a single copy of SampleTank, convert all of their samples to UserTrack libraries and then sell that as a brand new expansion product for BIAB! Surely you see that IK would not permit that!
I remain convinced that creating a UserTrack from a licensed sample library and then distributing that UserTrack is probably not allowed under current licenses!
If you are using the version that comes with band in a box free in band in a box and user tracks can only be used in band in a box. Can you just make a midi user track that will use the sample tank vsti or any other vsti - that way I the end user owner of band in a box and free ST can use any vsti I like without worrying about these violations and it would be a lot quicker to upload a midi user track ? Can you just contact IK Multimedia ?
If you are using the version that comes with band in a box free in band in a box and user tracks can only be used in band in a box. Can you just make a midi user track that will use the sample tank vsti or any other vsti - that way I the end user owner of band in a box and free ST can use any vsti I like without worrying about these violations and it would be a lot quicker to upload a midi user track ? Can you just contact IK Multimedia ?
Just to clarify, I was NOT talking about the SampleTank version that comes with BIAB. In that case I would think you are simply converting SampleTank samples that other BIAB owners already have so that should be fine.
I was referring to SampleTank 3 (or really any 3rd-party sample library that does NOT come with BIAB). In these cases, by converting their samples to UserTracks and then giving or selling these to BIAB users, you are essentially granting BIAB users access to samples that they own no license to for use in their songs.
Okay in that case just upload the midi file user track and I will use them in any of the vsti's I own - that way I can add key switches anywhere I like to get the sound I like - same with user track drums I can change the kit and re-mix it. So you would only need to save your midi user track to an mgu then I just render your midi file to a wav/wma along with the mgu/sgu in the user track folder.
We're going to have to agree to disagree here, JohnJohnJohn.
To create a UserTrack, I first start by entering a chord progression in to the BIAB grid (or loading one that was already created), and then hit play to generate the backing track (PGMusic's license allows me to do this). That's how you create any song with BIAB. I then record some sort of melody to that chord progression (chord progressions can't be copyrighted), which will ultimately become my User Track, but first...
If I use MIDI to record that melody (perhaps from my keyboard), I need to use a MIDI sound library to be able to even hear what I recorded, be it the Microsoft WAVTable or an IK Sampletank library or whatever. Sound Library manufacturers sell you their products to allow you to do just that. I then convert my song to an audio (WAV) file for the melody/arrangement I created that went along with the chord progression. It's my song.
So, please explain how that is not my song?
And I don't have to pay ID royalties to play my song just because I used a sound library as my sound source (because the license permits you to create and sell/give away a song using their sound libraries). At this point, I can do anything I want to with my song, to include releasing it as a User Track and allowing other users to slice and dice that melody for their own songs. If I want to distribute my song in one or two bar phrases (as would happen using the User Track engine), it's still my song. I created it. I only used SampleTank to allow it to be heard.
When I distribute it, I'm not distributing the Sampletank Library, I'm distributing my song that used the SampleTank Library to create the song in the first place. And if I turn it into a User Track, I'm not reselling SampleTank, I'm just reselling (or giving away) snippets of MY song and allow other users to do what User Tracks do.
Now, if I used the User Track to create a known riff or a known (meaning copyrighted) melody, then that's a problem. But my issue won't be with IK, it will be with the copyright holder.
If I have to pay IK for using their libraries as a sound source, then everyone would have to pay IK for every song they created using SampleTank libraries.
So, on this, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
John
Laptop-HP Omen I7 Win11Pro 32GB 2x2TB, 1x4TB SSD Desktop-ASUS-I7 Win10Pro 32GB 2x1.5TB, 2x2TB, 1x4TB SATA
The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is claiming you are creating a song when in fact you are not! Instead you are using a process of entering common chords so you can convert that to a file that others can use to create songs.
And I certainly get that you have a part in the resultant UserTrack. You may have created a pattern or strum and that is something you created.
Where I believe the problem comes in is when you distribute something for others to use that contains a significant amount of a licensed sample library.
When it comes to use of licensed IP, further distribution in any form is almost always forbidden.
I'd be willing to bet if you ask IK they would tell you this is a violation of their license!
When it comes to use of licensed IP, further distribution in any form is almost always forbidden.
Are you implying that the resulting sounds created by BIAB are prohibited from further distribution? The audio CD I created where I used a flute sound from an IK-Multimedia library - is that forbidden? Do I have to stop giving my CDs away? If not, then where's the line where it is forbidden.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but we're just not on the same sheet of music here.
John
Laptop-HP Omen I7 Win11Pro 32GB 2x2TB, 1x4TB SSD Desktop-ASUS-I7 Win10Pro 32GB 2x1.5TB, 2x2TB, 1x4TB SATA
Nope. Not saying that at all! Maybe I am not being clear. I fully understand that I can distribute any song I create with BIAB or with IK samples. And most libraries are like that.
What I am talking about is the re-distribution of your creation (which contains both your patterns/strums AND digitized instrument samples) for the purpose of facilitating others to use it!
No one is going to slice up your song and reuse it. And if they did you would obviously have a copyright claim. BUT, when you create a UserTrack using samples from a licensed library and then distribute that to others so they can use it to create songs that is where you have crossed the line in my opinion!
Let's take a simple example. NI comes out with some brand new, never before digitized rare Mayan flute samples in a Kontakt addon. They are sold as a library to allow you to add Mayan flute to your songs. You can create songs all day long and sell them or give them away and never have to pay NI another dime!
But then your friends over at the BIAB forums say "Hey, I want Mayan flute in my songs too but I do not wanna buy Kontakt!" So you say "No problem. I'll just convert them to UserTracks and give them to you!"
Another very common example in the design world...if I buy a set of graphic icons and images I have a license that allows me to use those pieces in any end deliverable I want such as a logo or a flyer. But I am expressly prohibited from distributing any or all of the items as a collection because now I am competing with their product by supplying it in a way users can use to create their own logos, flyers, etc.
If that's true, John, then effectively you are saying that the only legal User Tracks (that could be shared with others) would only be recordings of acoustic instruments, but nothing at all from from the digital realm, because you would be using sounds created by someone else. That would mean, for example, that I could record myself playing on an acoustic piano and capture it for a User Track, but not on my Kurzweil Digital Piano, and then especially not from my Casio keyboard controller using a softsynth, even though what I am playing is all mine (and would be the same thing on all three scenarios, with variations in the resulting sound). I could then not share my creation with others to be able to create music "in the style of me" (not that anyone would really ever want to do that).
Last edited by jford; 04/21/1609:31 AM.
John
Laptop-HP Omen I7 Win11Pro 32GB 2x2TB, 1x4TB SSD Desktop-ASUS-I7 Win10Pro 32GB 2x1.5TB, 2x2TB, 1x4TB SATA
I certainly see your point and, of course, this is only my opinion! I know nothing official about any of this! If I was PG though I'd wanna confirm whether this is an issue or not before I openly allowed UserTracks to be published that were created straight from a 3rd-party sample library.
Some companies are more strict than others when it comes to how you can use the licensed products. For example, Big Fish Audio are very strict requiring you to get special permission even for creating a song that will be sold in a library! They almost certainly would not allow their samples to be used to create UserTracks! Here is what they say,
"This license expressly forbids resale, rental, loan, gift or transfer of these samples in any format or via any medium, except as part of a derivative musical work. This license does not allow you to include the samples, whether unmodified or as part of a derivative work, in any music library or sample library product."
I touched on this but not the legal side in a post some weeks ago and that point was RT/RD's are REAL MOT MIDI. That's the beauty of the concept, taking world class players and putting them in the studio with real instruments. Not playing midi controllers and sample libraries. How many times have we all talked about that in the many threads about separating the Real Drum recordings into separate parts of the drum kit? With a real studio recording of an acoustic drum kit that's pretty much impossible to do but that ability already exists using midi but that's not what the RD's are all about. They're real not midi.
The recent exception is the new synth RT's. I certainly don't know for sure but I suspect that PG either owns the synths themselves or legally paid for their use. Now that I see what I just wrote I strongly suspect that since PGM is a well known commercial music company they must have paid someone for the use of those synth sounds. I kind of doubt that simply owning a Moog or Prophet for example means PGM can use it for these commercial RT's without paying. I think Dave Smith would get a cut if it's one of his Prophets.
A few years back someone requested some jazz scat RT's and other vocal type background things. I have a Kurzweil PC3 that has their Take 6 samples in it and at first I thought hey, I can create a vocal user track and help this person out. But then I thought the exact same thing. Take 6 vocals have been a Kurzweil exclusive soundset for years and maybe I shouldn't be doing that with their samples.
Since I'm not an attorney either I would like for Peter to chime in about this. If it is OK then I will do some background vocal RT's using my Kurzweil. You guys would love those.
I touched on this but not the legal side in a post some weeks ago and that point was RT/RD's are REAL MOT MIDI. That's the beauty of the concept, taking world class players and putting them in the studio with real instruments. Not playing midi controllers and sample libraries. How many times have we all talked about that in the many threads about separating the Real Drum recordings into separate parts of the drum kit? With a real studio recording of an acoustic drum kit that's pretty much impossible to do but that ability already exists using midi but that's not what the RD's are all about. They're real not midi.
The recent exception is the new synth RT's. I certainly don't know for sure but I suspect that PG either owns the synths themselves or legally paid for their use. Now that I see what I just wrote I strongly suspect that since PGM is a well known commercial music company they must have paid someone for the use of those synth sounds. I kind of doubt that simply owning a Moog or Prophet for example means PGM can use it for these commercial RT's without paying. I think Dave Smith would get a cut if it's one of his Prophets.
A few years back someone requested some jazz scat RT's and other vocal type background things. I have a Kurzweil PC3 that has their Take 6 samples in it and at first I thought hey, I can create a vocal user track and help this person out. But then I thought the exact same thing. Take 6 vocals have been a Kurzweil exclusive soundset for years and maybe I shouldn't be doing that with their samples.
Since I'm not an attorney either I would like for Peter to chime in about this. If it is OK then I will do some background vocal RT's using my Kurzweil. You guys would love those.
Bob
Thanks for sharing your perspective Bob! I feel bad for upsetting Frank but I honestly believe we need clarification on the legalities of this! Maybe jford is correct and this is far enough "downstream" from the original samples that it is not an issue. And even if it is an issue, almost certainly, our sharing of UserTracks here is unlikely to draw the attention of folks like IK and NI. But I would really love to get PG's opinion on this. If it is OK I would also like to create a few UserTracks from the samples I have collected over the years!
I think it might be useful at this stage to remember exactly what is a realtrack, and consequently a user-track.
If you navigate to your realtracks folder on your hard drive, open the folder and then open the sub-folder for a synth instrument, you'll see a number of audio files. These will likely be windows media, or wav if your lucky enough to be using the audiophile version. Double click on any of the audio files and it will play music for a few minutes. That is a realtrack - a piece of music. It is NOT a sample. It is no different to any piece of music performed on a sample player and as such it is legitimately the property of the performer. In this case the session musician has assigned copyright to PGM, who has become the legal owner of the music.
I believe that there is no way back from this. Neither the manufacturer of the sample player, nor the sample library can have any claim on this music, in exactly the same way as with any song. This is evidenced and can be observed by common practice and indeed, the whole music industry would cease to function if this were not the case. Every high earning performer would be swamped with actions from equipment suppliers and the lawyers would become even richer.
Now, if PGM as the legal owner, give me permission to take this piece of music, slow it down, pitch-shift the key and then copy and paste the chords in a different order, do I have to pay cash to the sample library? I think not. If I use a software program such as Realband to automate this procedure the principle remains.
At the end of the day, a sample is a sample, but a piece of music is something different and each are governed by separate rules.
(The usual legal disclaimers apply - this is only the opinion of the author.)
Right, and I can see that Rog. You're saying an RT is a piece of music assigned by the owner to PGM who then has the right to allow it's customers to use it in any way they like. Ok, interesting point.
This gets into the weeds of what is a copywritable piece of music. The RT's are simply chord patterns and you can't copyright chords alone so then an RT is really nothing but another song construction tool using exclusive samples belonging to someone else. An RT not a real piece of music, it's sole purpose is to allow people to construct what could be a real copywritable piece of music.
This could boil down to intent. What's the intent of the creator of an RT? The intent is not to create a real piece of music themselves, the intent is to give it away. Therefore, what are they giving away? Why, certain sounds belonging to someone else.
I think what you mean is that you can't copyright a chord chart, which is correct. However, once you play an instrument over the chords it becomes a piece of music which you can copyright. If you were right, then every piece of music based on a 12 bar blues would be in the public domain. Obviously this isn't the case. Once you play over the chords you introduce phrasing and timing which identifies it as original. If your phrasing and timing copies exactly that of an existing piece, then you're in trouble. See what I mean?
If you get into defining what is and what isn't a piece of music you've got real problems. Think about John Cage. Not that will make your head hurt!
A UserTrack is a PG invention for sharing instrument sounds for the sole purpose of allowing an end user of PG products to create their own songs using the instrument sounds contained inside the UserTrack. It would be quite a stretch to claim a UserTrack is a song. Maybe there is a claim to be made about the patterns being played but as Bob said the intent was not to create a song, rather, it was to share the instrument sounds and played patterns.
A UserTrack is a PG invention for sharing instrument sounds for the sole purpose of allowing an end user of PG products to create their own songs using the instrument sounds contained inside the UserTrack.
I don't believe this is correct. User Tracks are not designed to allow you to use the instrument sounds in other songs, but to allow you to use the phrases, riffs, and chord-specific melodic material to create new songs. As with RealTracks, they allow you to use the phrases created in the audio file you created, which can give other songs the "same feel as " or "in the style of" whatever you recorded.
The only reason you need the SGU file for the chord progression is not to create sound from a particular chord progression, but is so that BIAB/RealBand can choose a phrase you recorded which is closest to the chord in your own song, to avoid stretching the pitch too much. It's really a matter of transposition and choosing phrases that most closely match a particular chord to create new songs. But it isn't about the underlying sound; it's about the phrases I recorded, much like phrases I create when writing a song.
And of course, once I record the phrase, whether with a real instrument or digitally from a keyboard using some particular sound source, I would then apply some reverb, some equalization, maybe some distortion, maybe some de-tuning, maybe some echo, and any number of other effects. Sure the underlying sound may have been based on the sound library I used, but good luck trying to find that resulting sound in the original library. How is that re-distributing the sound maker's note specific samples? What I end up with is uniquely my creation, and again, if I can't use those sound sources to do this, then technically, I can't use them for anything.
Truly, intellectually I see both viewpoints here, but I unfortunately (or fortunately, as the case may be) in reading the EULA, I don't find the text to support not using a sound vendors sound library to make my own unique creations. If I'm not allowed to do it, then the EULA should say so, and that's why you accept the license agreement to use the product. I doubt they would come after you for using it creatively in a manner not prohibited by either the letter of or intent of the user agreement. Most of the EULA's I've seen talk about sharing the software and the specific library files themselves; they don't even talk about the music you create from the use of the product.
John
Laptop-HP Omen I7 Win11Pro 32GB 2x2TB, 1x4TB SSD Desktop-ASUS-I7 Win10Pro 32GB 2x1.5TB, 2x2TB, 1x4TB SATA
A UserTrack is a PG invention for sharing instrument sounds for the sole purpose of allowing an end user of PG products to create their own songs using the instrument sounds contained inside the UserTrack.
I don't believe this is correct. User Tracks are not designed to allow you to use the instrument sounds in other songs, but to allow you to use the phrases, riffs, and chord-specific melodic material to create new songs. As with RealTracks, they allow you to use the phrases created in the audio file you created, which can give other songs the "same feel as " or "in the style of" whatever you recorded.
The only reason you need the SGU file for the chord progression is not to create sound from a particular chord progression, but is so that BIAB/RealBand can choose a phrase you recorded which is closest to the chord in your own song, to avoid stretching the pitch too much. It's really a matter of transposition and choosing phrases that most closely match a particular chord to create new songs. But it isn't about the underlying sound; it's about the phrases I recorded, much like phrases I create when writing a song.
And of course, once I record the phrase, whether with a real instrument or digitally from a keyboard using some particular sound source, I would then apply some reverb, some equalization, maybe some distortion, maybe some de-tuning, maybe some echo, and any number of other effects. Sure the underlying sound may have been based on the sound library I used, but good luck trying to find that resulting sound in the original library. How is that re-distributing the sound maker's note specific samples? What I end up with is uniquely my creation, and again, if I can't use those sound sources to do this, then technically, I can't use them for anything.
Truly, intellectually I see both viewpoints here, but I unfortunately (or fortunately, as the case may be) in reading the EULA, I don't find the text to support not using a sound vendors sound library to make my own unique creations. If I'm not allowed to do it, then the EULA should say so, and that's why you accept the license agreement to use the product. I doubt they would come after you for using it creatively in a manner not prohibited by either the letter of or intent of the user agreement. Most of the EULA's I've seen talk about sharing the software and the specific library files themselves; they don't even talk about the music you create from the use of the product.
Really great points John. I too see both sides of this. But is there a line?
1) I use a sample library but play some cool riffs of my own devising and turn that into a UserTrack to distribute
2) I use a sample library that includes strums on a guitar and I just use those directly in my UserTrack to distribute
3) I use a sample library that includes specific patterns (as ST3 does) and everything I use in my UserTrack is ST3 samples using ST3 patterns
I can see your point for #1 but when you get to #3 am I not simply and cleverly figuring out a way to redistribute some of the ST3 IP without paying for that?
A user track is quite simply a piece of music. The PG "invention" is the software which slices and dices the music, though even part of this is licensed from Zplane. The two are completely separate and should not be confused. The software could just as easily slice and dice a Rachmaninoff piano concerto.
You can play back a realtrack in media player, because it's just music and as music it's within the sample users permitted use. Intent never comes into it.
A user track is quite simply a piece of music. The PG "invention" is the software which slices and dices the music, though even part of this is licensed from Zplane. The two are completely separate and should not be confused. The software could just as easily slice and dice a Rachmaninoff piano concerto.
You can play back a realtrack in media player, because it's just music and as music it's within the sample users permitted use. Intent never comes into it.
ROG.
A UserTrack is no more a piece of music than a single ST3 sample is a piece of music. Neither was intended to be played and listened to. Both were intended to be used as digital instruments in a new song.
So, based on the reasoning I am hearing here, it would be OK for PG to simply buy one license of SampleTank 3 and have their programmers spend the next few months converting all of the samples into UserTrack/RealTrack format. Since ST3 also has patterns they would not even need to do any playing! And then they would have a new product to sell? And IK would not object?
Or, let me make this even simpler. Based on what you are saying I could simply string together every sample in the ST3 library and call it a "music" file! Then I would be free to redistribute it as long as I also have my own software that can slice and dice it before serving it up to my customers to use in their songs.
As I have said a half mile back on this other page If anyone is worried: "Okay in that case just upload the midi file user track and I will use them in any of the vsti's I own - that way I can add key switches anywhere I like to get the sound I like - same with user track drums I can change the kit and re-mix it. So you would only need to save your midi user track to an mgu then I just render your midi file to a wav/wma along with the mgu/sgu in the user track folder."
This way you can also transpose the midi first to what you want then use it on any vsti you like as there are so many free ones. How long would it take to upload a super midi user track to share ?
I don't think it's going to be a good idea to get into a theoretical discussion about what constitutes a piece of music. I think this is where I leave it.
Rog, your point above about the 12 bar blues is incorrect. The only thing copywritable about a standard 12 bar blues are the words, melody and song title and maybe not even the melody because so many basic blues melody's are virtually identical. The basic blues FORM is in the public domain. That I do know for a fact, it's been to court.
Chords alone, public domain. You write an identifiable song specific lick as part of the 12 bar blues, ok it's yours. My favorite example of a lick like that is Satisfaction. In that context a user track is not a piece of music. The creator has to put some kind of original element in it besides just chords and rhythm.
JFord so you think I'm ok to create some vocal tracks using my Kurzweil Take 6 samples? All they would be are jazzy oohs and aahs over some chords and I might be able to create a scat solo too.
This whole discussion is basically theoretical to me. Absent any direction from PG, I'm fine with these user tracks and Frank keep on posting them brother until you hear otherwise.
Bob, in my mind, the answer to your question should be whether you can use those oohs and aahs in any song you produce? What if you had an a capella section with just those oohs and aahs. And if you released that song for others to use, could I extract that part with the oohs and aahs, transpose it, and use it in my song? To me the answer is yes, and that's just a variation on user tracks and should be legal.
I do agree with JohnJohnJohn here, though, is it would be best if PG Music weighed in on this, since I'm sure they consulted with their lawyers before releasing User Track capability in the first place.
But still in my mind, companies have given me the right to use their sounds. I can't find anything to the contrary in the EULAs I've read.
John
Laptop-HP Omen I7 Win11Pro 32GB 2x2TB, 1x4TB SSD Desktop-ASUS-I7 Win10Pro 32GB 2x1.5TB, 2x2TB, 1x4TB SATA
The best way is contact the specific manufacture of the specific sample library you want to use, directly. I don't think PG can solve this issue for you as user track were designed for the user to record them selves playing an instrument.
The best way is contact the specific manufacture of the specific sample library you want to use, directly. I don't think PG can solve this issue for you as user track were designed for the user to record them selves playing an instrument.
I agree with you and in an online chat PG told me "UserTracks are intended to be audio recordings of a musician with their instrument" but the person I spoke to also did not think there is a problem using sample libraries; she said she would have a moderator comment on the thread when they get time.
I guess I'd choose not to ask the library owner directly for fear they would will automatically say "No!" Maybe it is best just to let this go and not ask anyone!!!
As a musician who has been sampled, although it was decades ago, I can say that I signed a standard release. I suspect this is the case now. But the owner of the samples library, that's quite another matter. I have no idea what rights they may insist upon, and it wouldn't surprise me to discover different standards for different libraries. Tread carefully here.
BIAB 2025 Win Audiophile. Software: Studio One 7 Pro, Swam horns, Acoustica-7, Notion 6; Win 11 Home. Hardware: Intel i9, 32 Gb; Roland Integra-7, Presonus Studio 192, Presonus Faderport 8, Royer 121, Adam Sub8 & Neumann 120 monitors
Who needs to tread carefully? What we're talking about here is posting user tracks on this website using sample libraries not posting them on your own website for others to use.
That's why I said if PGM is cool with it then what's it matter to us? In spite of the other comment above, people have been posting user tracks here for some time now so I think it's safe to say PGM is ok with it and if there's a problem they'll let us know. No need to assume the opposite.
As I said, this is an interesting theoretical discussion but unless we hear something new from PG...?
Wow! This is an interesting thread! My short version take on it is PGmusic is ok with it. They nuked the joke thread, and I would think if there was worry, this would have been addressed!
Great points made, and JJJ thanks for bring up the discussion!
Chad (Hope that makes it easier)
TEMPO TANTRUM: What a lead singer has when they can't stay in time.
Ok is the issue we are all discussing sample clearance? Or copyright violation. Two distinctly different issues.
Here is an article on Sample clearance. How much exposure is your use of the sample getting? When are you at risk. When performing samples at a club "a live situation" the Owner of the club is at risk not the performer. But, I think we all already knew that.
On the topic of copyright infringement I don't think 12 bar blues are exempt from protection. Even though they have the same chord pattern, slip in a solo, melody, or hook, noticeably similar to "Said Artist" and "Said Artist" has a right to claim you have stolen his musical property.
Last edited by dga; 05/12/1602:57 PM.
"When you help somebody else you are really helping yourself"
Ok is the issue we are all discussing sample clearance? Or copyright violation.
My question has always been very narrow. My question is NOT "can I use samples in my songs?"! Of course I can. My question is NOT "can I distribute/sell my songs containing samples?" Again, of course I can! And I am fairly certain I can convert my licensed sample libraries to UserTracks for my own use inside BIAB.
My question is "can I use the technology of UserTracks to redistribute samples I have licensed?"
UserTrack technology enables me to take a sample library and effectively convert it to a new format (UserTrack) and then redistribute it so others who do not purchase those samples can now create songs using them!
And yes, I understand that in order to create the UserTrack I am combining both the samples and a pattern I play. So I guess the case could be made that I have altered the samples I am delivering by converting them into strings of WAV files.
But I could see how someone selling a sample library might have an issue with me using their library to create a new library for distribution.
Ok is the issue we are all discussing sample clearance? Or copyright violation.
My question has always been very narrow. My question is NOT "can I use samples in my songs?"! Of course I can.
You cannot unscrupulously use a recognizable musical sample in your songs. Example James Brown's voice. The intro to the theme song of a popular TV or Movie. Plain and simple if you use something that is recognizable from another artist or publisher they have the right to compensation if you start making money off the property.
"When you help somebody else you are really helping yourself"
Ok is the issue we are all discussing sample clearance? Or copyright violation.
My question has always been very narrow. My question is NOT "can I use samples in my songs?"! Of course I can.
You cannot unscrupulously use a recognizable musical sample in your songs. Example James Brown's voice. The intro to the theme song of a popular TV or Movie. Plain and simple if you use something that is recognizable from another artist or publisher they have the right to compensation if you start making money off the property.
I agree! But we are not talking about sampling other music, rather, about purchasing a sample library and then creating UserTracks based on it. There seems to be an opinion here that as long as you are playing the pattern you can use the samples to make the pattern into audio and then distribute that new UserTrack.
I have tried to boil this down to something simple for myself. Let's say a simple new library of rare Mayan flute sounds is created by NI. There is nothing in the library but a series of notes. I then use that library to play one note per bar in my UserTrack. Now I give away the UserTrack and someone else can use it to play one note per bar in their BIAB song and it should sound exactly like the original sample library. So the end-user of my UserTrack can now add rare Mayan flute to their songs without ever purchasing the sample library. Because I am enabling others to use the sounds from the library, even in a modified form, it seems to me that would be a problem for the library owner.
There is nothing in their library but a bunch of their samples, copyrighted.
You want to allow BIAB users to access Native Instruments samples through the use of your user tracks. I don't think you would get into any trouble converting a few, or even a dozen. But, I would not convert an entire library without contacting NI. You may even contact them and see if they are interested in your skills. You seem to be way ahead of the curve here, both understanding the use of NI libraries, and how to convert them into UserTracks for use in BIAB. The only downside you have in contacting NI is if they tell you do not do that. Then you have your answer. You need to ask the question to NI the source of your sounds.
Last edited by dga; 05/13/1602:44 AM.
"When you help somebody else you are really helping yourself"
JohnJohnJohn, I do see where you are coming from. A short example. If I purchase "The Best Percussion Samples EVER" library (I just made it up) and use a tambourine sample that only plays on beat 2...all fine.
If I make a user track of a tambourine that only plays on beat 2 and give it to others to use in their songs...fine? Perhaps a different kind of fine$?
My take on it is, they aren't making a big deal out of it, so I'm not going to. I totally see your point though.
I can see where the is a difference with using samples from a library in your own song, and using those same samples to construct something for others to use in their songs.
However, if they own that same library, is then ok again? lol I'm guessing so. Just having fun with this one. Not meaning to really start replies to it.
Chad (Hope that makes it easier)
TEMPO TANTRUM: What a lead singer has when they can't stay in time.
If you make the user track up without saying "oh this is from xxx sample library" it might save a lot of problems - other than that as said before just upload it as a midi user track - otherwise this thread will go on forever and ever and get nowhere.
Uploading it as a MIDI user track defeats the whole purpose of using a sample library to create a great sounding UserTrack. Users will have the pattern only, no sound associated with the pattern. They will have to select one of their own sounds.
"When you help somebody else you are really helping yourself"
If I purchase "The Best Percussion Samples EVER" library (I just made it up)and use a tambourine sample that only plays on beat 2...all fine.
If I make a user track of a tambourine that only plays on beat 2 and give it to others to use in their songs...fine? Perhaps a different kind of fine$?
I don't think playing on beat 2 fits the definition of a sample .. or a library
Most licenses concern the sound set libraries themselves. These are compiled, defined collections (often dll files).
Once you trigger a 'chunk' of this dll sound set and capture it as audio, that's where I think the line is drawn. I may have used X synth but I told it how/when to play the sound. This is normally what the license is for. A Performance .. timing, velocity, audio capture, etc .. of said sound. Otherwise why would anybody agree to the license?
If someone posted a User Track of a single sample from a given synth/library (ie the crash cymbal from drum kit X of the above mentioned 'The Best Percussion Samples EVER' library), I may reconsider the intent, as that could be considered a Sample, not a User Track. I suppose someone could start sharing actual 'samples' under the guise of UT's, but that is surely not the intent nor the use as far as I have seen.
Edit: It appears I replied to the wrong poster .. quote was from HearToLearn .. sorry
Last edited by rharv; 05/14/1607:40 AM.
I do not work here, but the benefits are still awesome Make your sound your own!
rharv, thanks for your insights. Let me throw one more thing into the mix and see how this goes!
I recently purchased Sample Tank 3. It has many amazing samples. It also has patterns I can apply to those samples so I do not even need to play on my MIDI controller. So imagine the following scenario,
1) I open up Sample Tank 3 and choose an instrument that is quite unique (maybe a Zu Zitter Carzay or a Slu Slumker!) 2) I grab the PG UserTrack template to be sure I cover every chord/key 3) I start recording and I trigger an ST3 pattern each time I hit a new bar 4) I keep doing this until I have a ton of "riffs"/patterns recorded as WAV for my UserTrack 5) I now distribute (maybe even sell) my UserTrack as the JohnJohnJohn Zu Zitter Carzay
My contribution in this scenario is essentially to convert the ST3 instrument to a new (albeit more limited) format. When I start distributing it have I not breached my license agreement with IK?
@dga "Uploading it as a MIDI user track defeats the whole purpose of using a sample library to create a great sounding UserTrack."
Can I use MIDI SuperTracks or MIDI Drums on my own sample library to get the sound I need or the correct drum level and sound I need ?
I would upload any sample it would not worry me but some are worried so the midi is a better option for them.
It is at a stalemate still so the options are: 1. Contact the sample company and get permission. 2. Use sample companies that give 100% usage for any purpose. 3. Just upload it without out any company names. 4. Upload the midi only. 5. Based on some amount of turmoil, Stop Making UserTracks.
Once you trigger a 'chunk' of this dll sound set and capture it as audio, that's where I think the line is drawn. I may have used X synth but I told it how/when to play the sound. This is normally what the license is for. A Performance .. timing, velocity, audio capture, etc .. of said sound.
Yes, you did make a performance. No issue there. BUT then if you make it available for other people to use in THEIR performances, is that ok?
I'm not implying it's not, I'm asking.
Honestly, I don't really care. I just saw JohnJohnJohn's point.
Chad (Hope that makes it easier)
TEMPO TANTRUM: What a lead singer has when they can't stay in time.
JJJ, In your example you are taking a pattern (performance) IK made, so I have no idea what their rules are for use.
The User Track creator is the one taking the leap of saying "You all can use my performance" when he uploads it. If you are comfortable doing that with your example go ahead; I would not feel good about it myself. That would not meet the intent of a performance.
Yes it is possible to do, but morally off base in my mind. The intent in your example is to give away something someone else created. You are no longer an artist using a tool to create something at that point; more like an artist making copies of an existing tool.
I do not work here, but the benefits are still awesome Make your sound your own!
JJJ, In your example you are taking a pattern (performance) IK made, so I have no idea what their rules are for use.
The User Track creator is the one taking the leap of saying "You all can use my performance" when he uploads it. If you are comfortable doing that with your example go ahead; I would not feel good about it myself. That would not meet the intent of a performance.
Yes it is possible to do, but morally off base in my mind. The intent in your example is to give away something someone else created. You are no longer an artist using a tool to create something at that point; more like an artist making copies of an existing tool.
I agree with you 100%! In that example I would be using IK samples AND IK performance to create a new product for distribution. I think that is both legally and morally wrong.
But I feel using their samples and my performance to create a new product for distribution may also be legally and morally wrong.
Clearly I am allowed to use their samples and my performance in my own songs. But if I distribute the results so others can make songs that is where I think a line has been crossed.
The recipient of the UserTrack gets two valuable things...my performance and IK sounds without ever purchasing an IK license.I cannot imagine my license with IK allows me to redistribute their sounds!
As I have said before my interest is in understanding our rights and not in discouraging anyone from doing this. It would be great to hear from PG as to whether they fully investigated this and concluded we have the right to distribute UserTracks that contain 3rd party licensed samples.
"I trigger an ST3 pattern each time I hit a new bar" with the IK "Patterns" how does it play them over the chord track ? does it fit them to the chord/scale notes ?
"I trigger an ST3 pattern each time I hit a new bar" with the IK "Patterns" how does it play them over the chord track ? does it fit them to the chord/scale notes ?
Just been watching the videos but can't see how it works, does it follow a midi chord input track ?
I have not had time to really dive in and figure it out; I even bought the Groove 3 ST3 tutorial and watched it and I'm still a little puzzled. What I did find is I can select an instrument, select a pattern, change its key and then drag it into my DAW where I can edit it further if needed.
@pipeline yes "Uploading it as a MIDI user track defeats the whole purpose of using a sample library to create a great sounding UserTrack." the sample would not be there.
If the Super Track is MIDI data only I thought there would be no sampled sound from a library what jjj seems to be so concerned about. It seems like PG music has split hairs in this regard, making Demo Songs which are quite close to melodies we all recognize. But, they may have permission. I don't know. I still think jjj needs to just contact the owner of the library and ask them for permission. Or for a job.
"When you help somebody else you are really helping yourself"
@jjj I think it just does the key, you can always drag the patterns or any midi straight into your RapidComposer and then "Convert to Relative Form" to fit automatically to your chords/scale, just import the BB Chord Output midi to give you the chord track for any midi to follow, and load ST3 in. The version 3 RapidComposer has just been released so you might get a free upgrade.
@jjj I think it just does the key, you can always drag the patterns or any midi straight into your RapidComposer and then "Convert to Relative Form" to fit automatically to your chords/scale, just import the BB Chord Output midi to give you the chord track for any midi to follow, and load ST3 in. The version 3 RapidComposer has just been released so you might get a free upgrade.
Thanks Pipeline! I was dragging into my DAW (Reaper) but I guess dragging into Rapid Composer works as well. Yes, I already downloaded the v3.0 upgrade.
I tried what you suggested...drag a pattern to RC and then set it to "Convert to Relative Form" but that did not seem to do anything. I seem to have four bars of the same pattern playing identically even though the RC bars have different chords assigned.
So you have your chords in the Master Track. Drag the midi into a new track, while it still in absolute form move it from left to right across the chord changes you will see the notes stay in the same position - now convert to relative and move left to right and you will see the notes adjust to fit chord/scale notes. If you double click it will open up in the editor - in the View Option check color note by chord/scale/out-of-scale - this will give green chord note - blue scale note - red out.
You can use absolute midi to put under the existing midi pattern for keyswitch articulations in Kontakt - so you can have an associated keyswitch midi for a pattern so no matter where you have it in the chord track it will do the same keyswitches.
This was asked to IK: I would like to use SampleTank to save my midi files to wav loops that others can use.
"If you are using the loops for performance or creation of songs, that is certainly ok... If you are not looking to sell or create them as a library to eventually sell, you are ok to use the loops for music making."
This was asked to IK: I would like to use SampleTank to save my midi files to wav loops that others can use.
"If you are using the loops for performance or creation of songs, that is certainly ok... If you are not looking to sell or create them as a library to eventually sell, you are ok to use the loops for music making."
If you are unsure please contact IK yourself.
So,
1) they confirmed that we can use their samples in our own performances and songs 2) they strongly implied selling or planning to sell would be a problem 3) they kinda dodged your direct question about whether you can distribute for use by others if no sales take place (or maybe you could conclude that because they did not strictly prohibit it it is allowed?)
Thanks for that graphic! I am still not really understanding though. When I drag a pattern from ST3 into RC and then Convert to Relative Form I am not hearing much change. Is this supposed to convert the pattern to match the chords set on the tracks?
Once you have your chords in the master track and the scale chosen it will adjust the Relative midi notes to fit to the chord notes and scale notes of that bar/s.
Update your Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows® Today!
If you’ve already purchased Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows®, great news—a new update is now available! This update introduces a handy new feature: a vertical cursor in the Tracks window that shows the current location across all tracks, and more.
Video: Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows®: Boot Camp: The AI Lyrics Generator
With Band-in-a-Box 2025® for Windows®, we've introduced an exciting new feature: the AI Lyrics Generator! In this video, Tobin guides you step-by-step on how to make the most of this new tool.
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows®: Boot Camp: The AI Lyrics Generator video.
Video: Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows®: Using VST3 Plugins
Band-in-a-Box 2025® for Windows® now includes support for VST3 plugins, bringing even more creative possibilities to your music production. Join Simon as he guides you through the process in this easy-to-follow demonstration!
Video: Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows®: Using VST3 Plugins
Video: Band-in-a-Box 2025 for Windows: Using The BB Stem Splitter!
In this video, Tobin provides a crash course on using the new BB Stem Splitter feature included in Band-in-a-Box 2025® for Windows®. During this process he also uses the Audio Chord Wizard (ACW) and the new Equalize Tempo feature.
Video: Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows®: Using the BB Stem Splitter
Check out the forum post for some optional Tips & Tricks!
Congrats to Misha (Rustyspoon)…downloaded/installed a full Audiophile 2025!
Breaking News!
We’re thrilled to announce that Rustyspoon has made PG history as the very first person to successfully complete the download and install of the full Band-in-a-Box 2025 Windows Audiophile Edition (with FLAC files)—a whopping 610GB of data!
A big shoutout to Rustyspoon for stepping up to be our test "elf!"
With the launch of Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows, we're adding new videos to our YouTube channel. We'll also share them here once they are published so you can easily find all the Band-in-a-Box® 2025 and new Add-on videos in one place!
Whether it's a summary of the new features, demonstrations of the 202 new RealTracks, new XPro Styles PAK 8, or Xtra Styles PAKs 18, information on the 2025 49-PAK, or detailed tutorials for other Band-in-a-Box® 2025 features, we have you covered!
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Windows is here, packed with major new features and an incredible collection of available new content! This includes 202 RealTracks (in Sets 449-467), plus 20 bonus Unreleased RealTracks in the 2025 49-PAK. There are new RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, “Songs with Vocals” Artist Performance Sets, Playable RealTracks Set 4, two new sets of “RealDrums Stems,” XPro Styles PAK 8, Xtra Styles PAK 19, and more!
Special Offers
Upgrade to Band-in-a-Box® 2025 with savings of up to 50% on most upgrade packages during our special—available until December 31, 2024! Visit our Band-in-a-Box® packages page for all the purchase options available.
2025 Free Bonus PAK & 49-PAK Add-ons
We've packed our Free Bonus PAK & 49-PAK with some incredible Add-ons! The Free Bonus PAK is automatically included with most Band-in-a-Box® for Windows 2025 packages, but for even more Add-ons (including 20 Unreleased RealTracks!) upgrade to the 2025 49-PAK for only $49. You can see the full lists of items in each package, and listen to demos here.
If you have any questions, feel free to connect with us directly—we’re here to help!
One of our representatives will be happy to help you over the phone. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday, and 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST Saturday. We are closed Sunday. You can also send us your questions via email.
One of our representatives will be happy to help you on our Live Chat or by email. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST (GMT -8) Saturday; Closed Sunday.
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean