Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

You're not allowed to use Content ID if you've used sample libraries in your track, or are you?

robgb said:
I'm sorry, but could this system actually identify a sample library patch?
Click to expand...
No. Content ID is not designed to identify the specific timbre of recorded instruments, but rather elements of recorded musical works, such as melody, rhythm, bass line, chord progression, etc. because its purpose is to determine the possibility that one person might be infringing on the song copyright of someone else.
 
Polkasound said:
The wording "non-exclusive" is being used in a very broad way to quickly cover every possible scenario that could trip content ID: audio clips, beats, loops, rhythms, construction kits, MIDI packs, etc. Virtual instrument sample libraries are also non-exclusive, but they are not going to trip Content ID any more than real instruments. If you create a song from scratch using virtual instruments and the digital distributor asks if your song uses samples, select "no".
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what makes it so confusing. It's all so vaguely written and open to interpretation...
As much as I'd like it to be like you described, I'm not fully convinced yet...

@fudge is not the only one who didn't get his music approved due to the use of sample libraries. I've seen a few others who had this same problem...

Here's an example I've found on reddit:
I always get rejected by Content ID even on tracks where I only use orchestral VSTs (not loops, just instruments like LASS or EWQL orchestra). Thankfully I don't need it or care about it but I've always wondered why I get "doesn't qualify for Content ID" every time.
Click to expand...
In the same thread someone posted this:
The content ID algorithm looks for every song which sounds similar to yours, and attempts to monetize them. If you use a sample, you'll end up attempting to monetize the work of every other person who uses that sample. I ran into that problem almost daily when I had acapellas up on Looperman. Constantly got hit with copyright strikes on my original versions of the songs from people who'd registered their remixes with Content ID. The worst thing would be the barrage of messages I'd get from other people who'd used the acapellas. One person registering a loop/sample in their song with Content ID can screw over dozens of people.
Click to expand...
And that brings me to the question:

What exactly is the difference between a drum loop I've downloaded from Splice and a Timpani roll in a sample library? Both are pre-recorded and I don't have the exclusive rights for either of them. In both cases everyone can obtain and commercially use them. Both can be heavily altered and processed, yet one is obviously prohibited (phrases/loops) and the other isn't even directly mentioned (sample libraries).
Where to draw the line here? Can someone explain the difference between loop/sample packs and sounds from sample libraries?

It's this vague wording that's confusing me so much...

TuneCore:
You can submit specific tracks to YouTube Content ID for revenue collection that:

Use only your own material for which you have exclusive rights.
Use third-party material for which you have exclusive rights.
Click to expand...
"Own material" as in original composition or as in recorded/sampled everything myself?

DistroKid:
All of the following must be true for a release to be eligible:

You created all of the sounds
Click to expand...
Same question here. "Created" as in being original, altered and processed the sounds or as in actually recorded/sampled the sounds myself?

CD Baby:
What is eligible?

Your content must be original. If you have used ANY content you did not create yourself, please review below to see if your content is eligible.
Click to expand...
What is not eligible?

Any content that is not exclusive to you
Click to expand...
Again pretty vague...

Another guy from the reddit post concluded this:
TL;DR if you want to enter your music into the content ID system, you can only use sounds that only you and no-one else have ever or will ever use, or you may end up being "that guy" who inadvertently DMCAs a bunch of other people's music.

It doesn't mean you can't monetise, just can't use content ID to try and monetise other people's videos. Of course you still run the risk of getting content matched yourself by some other numpty who didn't read the rules properly.
Click to expand...
which is how I understand it now too. It's definitely legal to use loops/phrases/samples or sample libraries for commercial use. You can distribute to YT without any problems, but you can't use the Content ID system because of it thinking you're the exclusive owner of all the sounds in your track.

Any thoughts about that?
 
For example DistroKid speaks explicitly of sample libraries here:
Your release does NOT contain beats, loops, sound effects, or other audio downloaded from sample libraries or other public sources. This includes sounds that are available for free from GarageBand, Ableton, Logic, Fruity Loops, etc.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Umbrella by Rihanna is part of Content ID as the producers used an Apple drum loop for that song
 
You shouldnt be concerned with false claims, that’s YouTubes problem. You should be concerned about real claims.

You own your recording, and whatever sounds you chose to include in it (including sounds from sample libraries), no problem.

But if you release your recording, and you included a segment where you took sounds from another recording, and didn’t get a license nor permission (like if you recorded and used 10sec from a Zimmer soundtrack). That’s a problem.

Any recording is using samples, you are in fact recording samples when you record an acoustic guitar or any other instrument as well. That isn’t much different from recording sounds made from Omnisphere or a Spitfire library. That is just samples made from a sound generator, analog instrument or virtual instrument. Thats samples in a technical sense.

Samples in the legal sense is about taking sounds from other recordings, and using that as a sound source in your own recording. That requires permission, because those recordings are copyrighted as published.
 
It’s about salience that the algorithm picks up on. The only reason sample libraries don’t generally trigger content ID is that they are being used in a way that the algorithm is not seizing on them as marks of identity. But the more granular the system gets the more it will find these things so long as finding these things improves the ability of the algorithm to find infringing uses. If the cost of increasing the sensitivity of detection is more false positives, Google’s current attitude toward false positives suggests they won’t care until the practice starts to affect the big music and media companies in a real way that can’t be handled in an ad hoc manner. In any case, there are all sorts of things the algorithm used to not catch that it catches today. And I wouldn’t put a lot of stock in what you think the system should do compared to what it does. Folks had faith in beats, loops, and sample packs once upon a time; and content ID has now made using any of them very problematic for commercial use, and not because the legal status has changed at all. You have a legal right to use them of course but those legal rights become irrelevant once you hit any ecosystem guarded by content ID (and similar technologies).
 
jbuhler said:
If the cost of increasing the sensitivity of detection is more false positives, Google’s current attitude toward false positives suggests they won’t care until the practice starts to affect the big music and media companies in a real way that can’t be handled in an ad hoc manner.
Click to expand...


The old axiom: "Better to let 100 guilty men go free than to imprison 1 innocent man" has jumped the shark
 
YaniDee said:
So, all these companies selling endless amounts of samples, and basically you can only use them for your own amusement...
Click to expand...
It’s not there yet, and the reach of content ID is obviously not yet to the point that it has put loops, beats, and sample packs out of business. But it’s affecting that part of the business and I expect its reach to continue to grow.
 
I still don't get the difference between embedding a sample in your piece vs pressing a key in Kontakt and getting a pre-recorded phrase (sample) a-la Sonokinetik, and countless other phrase libraries..
 
YaniDee said:
I still don't get the difference between embedding a sample in your piece vs pressing a key in Kontakt and getting a pre-recorded phrase (sample) a-la Sonokinetik, and countless other phrase libraries..
Click to expand...
I don’t think there is a difference. The more salient the sample or phrase the more likely it will be picked up by content ID. I’m sure the content ID rules are meant to include sample libraries because one of the things it looks for are distinct bits of audio; it’s just that the algorithm doesn’t yet generally pick up on the kinds of things sample libraries do. So right now using sample libraries get through, and it’s a good thing because it will be even more of a mess as the sensitivity of content ID improves.
 
YaniDee said:
I still don't get the difference between embedding a sample in your piece vs pressing a key in Kontakt and getting a pre-recorded phrase (sample) a-la Sonokinetik, and countless other phrase libraries..
Click to expand...
A note is not able to generate a copyright, although the recording may do so. Therefore ID cannot make a distinction that your note is unique.

Really, this is all theoretical. If you don't use loops/phrases that you didn't write, you are unlikely to run into any sort of issues.
 
Daryl said:
Really, this is all theoretical. If you don't use loops/phrases that you didn't write, you are unlikely to run into any sort of issues.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of people here own one or several phrase libraries. Look at the discussions taking place for Sonokinetik sales. Or NI Komplete 14U..it comes with 65 expansions , which is mainly sample packs, and their World Series, Action Strings, Strikes, etc are largely phrases..maybe the countless companies selling all this stuff should put a check-box before you can buy stating "there's a good chance you won't be able to use these sounds commercially"..
 
Last edited:
Chris S said:
@fudge is not the only one who didn't get his music approved due to the use of sample libraries. I've seen a few others who had this same problem...
Click to expand...
We need more information from Fudge. Without that information, don't assume Routenote was saying "We detected you used Spitfire Studio Strings Pro in your original composition" because that's not how Content ID works. Assume Routenote was saying they detected a loop/pattern that sounds too close to one that someone else used in a composition. In Fudge's case, it could have easily been a false trip anyway; Content ID thought it was hearing the same song, but human analysis would know better.

Symphonichrome said:
For example DistroKid speaks explicitly of sample libraries here
Click to expand...
Distributors don't use the term "sample libraries" the same way VI composers do. We use "sample library" to define virtual instruments created from sampled notes. Distributors use that term to define sampled loops/beats/audio clips, which are also commonly purchased as "libraries."

VI-Control is a unique place, because it is comprised of hundreds composers and songwriters who use virtual instruments (whether they be sampled, synthesized, or modeled) to create music from scratch. We refer to virtual instrument libraries created from sampled notes as "sample libraries". But once you leave VI-Control, the rest of the world is comprised of tens of thousands of bedroom producers using prerecorded beats/loops to create songs. They buy their beats/loops from libraries as well. The term "sample" simply carried over from the days of using audio clips of other bands' recordings.

Distributors could add a clause specifically allowing sample libraries as we VI composers know them, but they don't because it would open up a can of worms as many virtual instruments contain ostinato patterns, grooves, runs, etc. which could potentially trip Content ID. So they blanket everything with the term "sample library".

jbuhler said:
I don’t think there is a difference.
Click to expand...
Technically this is correct. The samples we trigger in virtual instrument libraries are intellectual property we don't own, which is no different than the audio we listen to when we buy our favorite band's albums. The main difference is that when we buy a sampled virtual instrument, we are automatically granted a license to use that audio to create and release new music.

But I don't want to see VI composers scared of uploading their original music because they used sampled virtual instruments. Even though Content ID rules don't specify an exception for sampled virtual instruments, it's my honest opinion that those rules, in all practicality, are not meant to apply to them.

--

TL;DR: If you created an original song from scratch using virtual instrument sample libraries, don't let Content ID terminology scare you into not distributing it. Handle your song no differently than if it were produced in a recording studio with session musicians playing real instruments. Content ID does not care if the violin on your track is Joshua Bell Violin or Joshua Bell himself, because its sole purpose is to prevent copyright violations.
 
GtrString said:
You own your recording, and whatever sounds you chose to include in it (including sounds from sample libraries), no problem.
Click to expand...
But is it my recording though? What's the definition here? It is required that I only use sounds I have exclusive rights for. Now, I have these for my track as a whole, but not for all the particular sounds I've used, or am I wrong?
I didn't record myself playing an actual violin and then making a sample out of it. That would give me exclusive rights as I understand it, because it would be unique and I'd be the only one using it.
Instead I'm using someone else's recording of a violin which everybody has access to (Spitfire, CSS etc.). I'm not talking about a sample or a recording that's been taken from an already existing song here.

All sample library content (Spitfire, CSS etc.) is stuff that has been recorded by someone else. I'm allowed to use it, even commercially but I don't have exclusive rights for it. I've simply bought a licence which allows me to use it. Does this make it my own?
Again, I own my track as a whole, yes, but do I also own all the different sounds I've used? (Just talking about Content ID here, because legally the answer would be yes as I understand it).

Sample library content like violin legato patches, timpani hits, sustained choir vowels etc. are all audio recordings after all and neither did I create them nor do I have exclusive rights for them, just like with loops or phrases. Sure, I can use them in whatever manner I like, but so can I with loops and phrases and yet those are prohibited but sample libraries aren't? That's what I don't understand...

By the way, I feel like this is a topic where it's too easy to misunderstand each other concerning these terms like samples, sample libraries, audio libraries, phrases, loops etc.

I just want to make music dammit! :emoji_grin:
 
This can be taken to a ridiculous level..how about wavetable synths and "romplers"..those use pre-recorded sounds that some one else recorded..Yes, you manipulate them , but the same can be done with samples..
 
Polkasound said:
The main difference is that when we buy a sampled virtual instrument, we are automatically granted a license to use that audio to create and release new music.
Click to expand...
This is true of sample packs, loops, and so forth too: when you buy them you are granted a license to use them. Whether you trigger them from a sampler or drop wavs into your DAW session is immaterial. A percussion loop embedded in Kontakt is materially no different from that percussion loop as a wav file in the DAW. A drum kick triggered by Kontakt is no different from the drum kick as a wav file, a vocal phrase in a Kontakt library is no different from that phrase as a wav, a violin note triggered by Kontakt is no different from that note as a wav. Etc.

The only difference among these examples is how salient they might be in a musical context and so the likelihood Content ID will decide they are a good marker of the audio’s identity. If you are certifying that your audio is sample free and you are using commercial sample libraries you are likely violating the terms and conditions of Content ID. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it, but you are at the mercy of Content ID if you do.

Of course the system is ridiculous, unfair, and likely unworkable. I also don’t know what measures Google takes when someone is found to submit to Content ID with samples when they are not detected on initial submission, so maybe the risks are very low. (I’ve mostly read what happens when someone uses the same commercial samples that had already been used and uploaded to Content ID by someone previously.)
 
Polkasound said:
We need more information from Fudge. Without that information, don't assume Routenote was saying "We detected you used Spitfire Studio Strings Pro in your original composition" because that's not how Content ID works. Assume Routenote was saying they detected a loop/pattern that sounds too close to one that someone else used in a composition. In Fudge's case, it could have easily been a false trip anyway; Content ID thought it was hearing the same song, but human analysis would know better.


Distributors don't use the term "sample libraries" the same way VI composers do. We use "sample library" to define virtual instruments created from sampled notes. Distributors use that term to define sampled loops/beats/audio clips, which are also commonly purchased as "libraries."

VI-Control is a unique place, because it is comprised of hundreds composers and songwriters who use virtual instruments (whether they be sampled, synthesized, or modeled) to create music from scratch. We refer to virtual instrument libraries created from sampled notes as "sample libraries". But once you leave VI-Control, the rest of the world is comprised of tens of thousands of bedroom producers using prerecorded beats/loops to create songs. They buy their beats/loops from libraries as well. The term "sample" simply carried over from the days of using audio clips of other bands' recordings.

Distributors could add a clause specifically allowing sample libraries as we VI composers know them, but they don't because it would open up a can of worms as many virtual instruments contain ostinato patterns, grooves, runs, etc. which could potentially trip Content ID. So they blanket everything with the term "sample library".


Technically this is correct. The samples we trigger in virtual instrument libraries are intellectual property we don't own, which is no different than the audio we listen to when we buy our favorite band's albums. The main difference is that when we buy a sampled virtual instrument, we are automatically granted a license to use that audio to create and release new music.

But I don't want to see VI composers scared of uploading their original music because they used sampled virtual instruments. Even though Content ID rules don't specify an exception for sampled virtual instruments, it's my honest opinion that those rules, in all practicality, are not meant to apply to them.

--

TL;DR: If you created an original song from scratch using virtual instrument sample libraries, don't let Content ID terminology scare you into not distributing it. Handle your song no differently than if it were produced in a recording studio with session musicians playing real instruments. Content ID does not care if the violin on your track is Joshua Bell Violin or Joshua Bell himself, because its sole purpose is to prevent copyright violations.
Click to expand...
That's a great reply and definitely made some things clearer, thanks for that!

Polkasound said:
The main difference is that when we buy a sampled virtual instrument, we are automatically granted a license to use that audio to create and release new music.
Click to expand...
Except that it's not an exclusive license, which would be required...

Polkasound said:
But I don't want to see VI composers scared of uploading their original music because they used sampled virtual instruments. Even though Content ID rules don't specify an exception for sampled virtual instruments, it's my honest opinion that those rules, in all practicality, are not meant to apply to them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking too. So basically, according to the distributors' and Content ID's terms, it's probably prohibited, but it's also not really, because like someone mentioned earlier there would be almost no music to distribute anymore hence it's not directly being addressed to avoid these problems in the first place.

Polkasound said:
Distributors could add a clause specifically allowing sample libraries as we VI composers know them, but they don't because it would open up a can of worms as many virtual instruments contain ostinato patterns, grooves, runs, etc. which could potentially trip Content ID. So they blanket everything with the term "sample library".
Click to expand...
Which would explain their vague wording.

YaniDee said:
This can be taken to a ridiculous level..how about wavetable synths and "romplers"..those use pre-recorded sounds that some one else recorded..Yes, you manipulate them , but the same can be done with samples..
Click to expand...
Oh man.. I hope I didn't open some sort of Pandora's box...
 
Chris S said:
All sample library content (Spitfire, CSS etc.) is stuff that has been recorded by someone else. I'm allowed to use it, even commercially but I don't have exclusive rights for it. I've simply bought a licence which allows me to use it. Does this make it my own?
Click to expand...
The recording of your song is 100% your own.

Chris S said:
Again, I own my track as a whole, yes, but do I also own all the different sounds I've used?
Click to expand...
You don't own the samples themselves which remain contained in the library. But you are the master copyright holder of the recording on which you used the library.

Chris S said:
Sure, I can use them in whatever manner I like, but so can I with loops and phrases and yet those are prohibited but sample libraries aren't? That's what I don't understand...
Click to expand...
Again, the terms "samples" and "sample library" are defined differently in different aspects of the music industry. I have been commercially releasing original music online for years, and every one of my songs uses virtual instrument sample libraries. I do this under the understanding that virtual instrument sample libraries are not what the digital distribution arm of the music industry refers to as "samples" or "sample libraries".

It's possible I could be wrong, and that to the letter of the law, "sample libraries" DOES include virtual instruments sample libraries. But I'm 100% confident that the spirit of Content ID rules fully allow for, and warrant, the use of virtual instrument sample libraries... just like everyone is expected (and even unofficially encouraged) to drive a few MPH over the posted limit.

If you get flagged by Content ID, it's not going to be because you used JB Violin instead of hiring Joshua Bell. It's going to be because an algorithm deemed elements (melody, rhythm, groove, pattern, etc.) of your song to be too close to someone else's song, or it detected a sound clip that was used in someone else's song which may require licensing. This is why pre-recorded song elements (loops, beats, patterns, etc.) run a much higher risk of tripping Content ID. If you're not using prerecorded loops/beats, you have nothing to worry about. Relax and release your music to the world. :)

Chris S said:
Oh man.. I hope I didn't open some sort of Pandora's box...
Click to expand...
Don't worry. In this forum especially, there is a lot of respect for musicians like you who cross their Ts and dot their Is because they don't want to do anything wrong. But one thing you'll learn is that most rules in this industry are not designed to prevent people from traveling 56MPH in a 55MPH zone. They're designed to prevent reckless driving. It's pretty apparent you're a safe driver. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom