How does the licensing work in Take/Figure Sharing?

This forum is for discussing Reason. Questions, answers, ideas, and opinions... all apply.
User avatar
Faastwalker
Posts: 2281
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: NSW, Australia

31 Dec 1969

EnochLight wrote:
Faastwalker wrote:So, by uploading something to Discover in the public domain you waive rights of ownership, according to Propellerhead? Doesn't this fly in the face of basic copyright laws concerning ownership of intellectual property?!


No, you do not waive the right of ownership (please read the EULA part 3.1). Copyright laws vary from region to region.
This;

3.1 You retain all of your ownership rights in the Content that you create or upload to the Sharing Services.

...... but then this;

However, by uploading Content you grant every user and Propellerhead a non-exclusive right to use your music (with the right to sublicense). The license includes a right to copy, reproduce, communicate to the public, distribute, prepare derivative works of, modify and adapt your Content – even for commercial purposes – in any and all media and distribution methods and to the extent permitted by the Terms of Service. The license applies worldwide and is royalty-free and irrevocable.

It's not hard to see why people are confused by all this!! <img src="http://yoursmiles.org/ssmile/action/s0106.gif" class="emoticon bbc_img" title="Help - :help:

User avatar
Upright
Posts: 40
Joined: 20 Jan 2015

27 Jan 2015

When you upload your musical ideas to the sharing service does Propellerhead then own it? What if someone takes a shared idea and it ends up making someone a lot of money...is the creator of the original idea just out of the picture? I'm just curious as it seems like something Props would have addressed but I can't find in info on the discover page.

Thanks  

User avatar
liampatrickingram
Posts: 64
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

27 Jan 2015

this is the big problem that everyone is wondering about....also is it just me or is there practically no content on there?
 

User avatar
Upright
Posts: 40
Joined: 20 Jan 2015

27 Jan 2015

You're right there's not much content there. It definitely needs some work and a clear explanation of rights once files are uploaded.  

User avatar
Gaja
Posts: 1001
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: Germany
Contact:

28 Jan 2015

I interpret it as follows (I'm no lawyer, so what I say might not be entirely accurate)
The user grants anyone using the discover non exclusive publishing rights. That means that each collaboration partner has a right to publish the works (on discover and also other platforms) imcluding the right to make a shitload of money with it. That means if you create a loop and someone downloads it and uses it in a production (because you agreed to grant non exclusive rights), that becomes a massive hit then you as creator of the loop have can't claim ownership. The copyright remains yours, but you've already granted non exclusive rights, so you couldn't sue the dude and would have to put up with having contributed to a massive hit.
You can find the ToS here https://www.propellerheads.se/agreements
Cheers!
Fredhoven

User avatar
Upright
Posts: 40
Joined: 20 Jan 2015

28 Jan 2015

Dang will that just about sums it up. Thanks Gaja. 

User avatar
Gaja
Posts: 1001
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: Germany
Contact:

28 Jan 2015

But I think if you only use drop to prop to collaborate privately (unlisted), only those with an access to the link have these rights.
Cheers!
Fredhoven

User avatar
EnochLight
Moderator
Posts: 8405
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: Imladris

28 Jan 2015

Upright wrote:When you upload your musical ideas to the sharing service does Propellerhead then own it? What if someone takes a shared idea and it ends up making someone a lot of money...is the creator of the original idea just out of the picture? I'm just curious as it seems like something Props would have addressed but I can't find in info on the discover page.

Thanks  
https://www.propellerheads.se/agreements

3.1 You retain all of your ownership rights in the Content that you create or upload to the Sharing Services. However, by uploading Content you grant every user and Propellerhead a non-exclusive right to use your music (with the right to sublicense). The license includes a right to copy, reproduce, communicate to the public, distribute, prepare derivative works of, modify and adapt your Content – even for commercial purposes – in any and all media and distribution methods and to the extent permitted by the Terms of Service. The license applies worldwide and is royalty-free and irrevocable.

...Know that even though you are granting broad rights to all, you always maintain ownership of your stuff.
We don’t intend to sell your content. Other people on the service might end up doing something successful with content they find and even make money from it (and so could you for that matter).
Win 10 | Ableton Live 11 Suite |  Reason 12 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | RME Babyface Pro | Akai MPC Live 2 & Akai Force | Roland System 8, MX1, TB3 | Dreadbox Typhon | Korg Minilogue XD

User avatar
pathammy
Posts: 6
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

28 Jan 2015

liampatrickingram wrote:this is the big problem that everyone is wondering about....also is it just me or is there practically no content on there?
Well, in all fairness, the site is only been around for a month or so, so the lack of content isn't all that shocking.  :)

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

28 Jan 2015

Upright wrote:When you upload your musical ideas to the sharing service does Propellerhead then own it? What if someone takes a shared idea and it ends up making someone a lot of money...is the creator of the original idea just out of the picture? I'm just curious as it seems like something Props would have addressed but I can't find in info on the discover page.

Thanks  
EnochLight wrote:
https://www.propellerheads.se/agreements
EnochLight wrote:
EnochLight wrote:3.1
EnochLight wrote: You retain all of your ownership rights in the Content that you create or upload to the Sharing Services.
EnochLight wrote:
EnochLight wrote:However, by uploading Content you grant every user and Propellerhead a non-exclusive right to use your music (with the right to sublicense). The license includes a right to copy, reproduce, communicate to the public, distribute, prepare derivative works of, modify and adapt your Content – even for commercial purposes – in any and all media and distribution methods and to the extent permitted by the Terms of Service. The license applies worldwide and is royalty-free and irrevocable.
[/color]
EnochLight wrote:
EnochLight wrote:...Know that even though you are granting broad rights to all, you always maintain ownership of your stuff.
EnochLight wrote:
EnochLight wrote:We don’t intend to sell your content. Other people on the service might end up doing something successful with content they find and even make money from it (and so could you for that matter).
EnochLight wrote:
This all sounds about as clear as mud to me. Does this mean others can use your music and even make money and won't have to pay you, but you still "own" your stuff? Not sure what "ownership" really means in this context then if you can no longer control any aspect of your music nor profit from anyone else's use.

Anyone here have a legal background that could explain this to us mere mortals?
:)

Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
Yorick
Posts: 173
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

28 Jan 2015

Upright wrote:When you upload your musical ideas to the sharing service does Propellerhead then own it? What if someone takes a shared idea and it ends up making someone a lot of money...is the creator of the original idea just out of the picture? I'm just curious as it seems like something Props would have addressed but I can't find in info on the discover page.

Thanks  
EnochLight wrote:
https://www.propellerheads.se/agreements
EnochLight wrote:
EnochLight wrote:3.1
EnochLight wrote: You retain all of your ownership rights in the Content that you create or upload to the Sharing Services.
EnochLight wrote:
EnochLight wrote:However, by uploading Content you grant every user and Propellerhead a non-exclusive right to use your music (with the right to sublicense). The license includes a right to copy, reproduce, communicate to the public, distribute, prepare derivative works of, modify and adapt your Content – even for commercial purposes – in any and all media and distribution methods and to the extent permitted by the Terms of Service. The license applies worldwide and is royalty-free and irrevocable.
[/color]
EnochLight wrote:
EnochLight wrote:...Know that even though you are granting broad rights to all, you always maintain ownership of your stuff.
EnochLight wrote:
EnochLight wrote:We don’t intend to sell your content. Other people on the service might end up doing something successful with content they find and even make money from it (and so could you for that matter).
EnochLight wrote:
 Image 

User avatar
Upright
Posts: 40
Joined: 20 Jan 2015

28 Jan 2015

Thanks EnochLight. I couldn't find that info. 

User avatar
Julibee
Posts: 291
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: Southern California
Contact:

28 Jan 2015

Upright wrote:When you upload your musical ideas to the sharing service does Propellerhead then own it? What if someone takes a shared idea and it ends up making someone a lot of money...is the creator of the original idea just out of the picture? I'm just curious as it seems like something Props would have addressed but I can't find in info on the discover page.

Thanks  
EnochLight wrote:
https://www.propellerheads.se/agreements
EnochLight wrote:
EnochLight wrote:3.1
EnochLight wrote: You retain all of your ownership rights in the Content that you create or upload to the Sharing Services.
EnochLight wrote:
EnochLight wrote:However, by uploading Content you grant every user and Propellerhead a non-exclusive right to use your music (with the right to sublicense). The license includes a right to copy, reproduce, communicate to the public, distribute, prepare derivative works of, modify and adapt your Content – even for commercial purposes – in any and all media and distribution methods and to the extent permitted by the Terms of Service. The license applies worldwide and is royalty-free and irrevocable.
[/color]
EnochLight wrote:
EnochLight wrote:...Know that even though you are granting broad rights to all, you always maintain ownership of your stuff.
EnochLight wrote:
EnochLight wrote:We don’t intend to sell your content. Other people on the service might end up doing something successful with content they find and even make money from it (and so could you for that matter).
EnochLight wrote:
selig wrote:
This all sounds about as clear as mud to me. Does this mean others can use your music and even make money and won't have to pay you, but you still "own" your stuff? Not sure what "ownership" really means in this context then if you can no longer control any aspect of your music nor profit from anyone else's use.

Anyone here have a legal background that could explain this to us mere mortals?
:)
I agree... what's to say that your ownership doesn't become someone else's ownership if there's a back and forth like Navi Retlav's "add one note" project? ** So, If I upload a doodle, someone uses it and adds on, uploads that version, etc, etc, ad nauseum.... Have we splintered ownership into a thousand pieces? It seems so... But if someone can take it and distribute it or use it in their own commercial works and make money off of it, what does "ownership" even mean? Music rights is such a convoluted process... This doesn't even come CLOSE to covering it. It would be better if they just said, "you use it, you lose it". At least then we'd know what to expect.

**I'm NOT picking on Navi-- that's a fun little thing and was a good idea! Probably the best use of Discover that I can think of, really... Was just an example that came to mind.
I'm still doing it wrong.
8.1    
Bandcamp | Soundcloud | Twitter | .com

User avatar
EnochLight
Moderator
Posts: 8405
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: Imladris

28 Jan 2015

I think of Discover as a curated, communal, Factory Sound Bank. Nothing more.
Win 10 | Ableton Live 11 Suite |  Reason 12 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | RME Babyface Pro | Akai MPC Live 2 & Akai Force | Roland System 8, MX1, TB3 | Dreadbox Typhon | Korg Minilogue XD

User avatar
Julibee
Posts: 291
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: Southern California
Contact:

29 Jan 2015

EnochLight wrote:I think if Discover as a curated, communal, Factory Sound Bank. Nothing more.
That's probably the right attitude.
I'm still doing it wrong.
8.1    
Bandcamp | Soundcloud | Twitter | .com

User avatar
joeyluck
Moderator
Posts: 11029
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

29 Jan 2015

EnochLight wrote:I think if Discover as a curated, communal, Factory Sound Bank. Nothing more.
That's a great way to look at it :)

User avatar
joeyluck
Moderator
Posts: 11029
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

29 Jan 2015

What I understand is the ownership outlined here says that even if someone makes a commercial hit using the work you uploaded to Discover, there is nothing they can do to prevent you from using your work in any way you see fit; commercially or otherwise (or any derivative of that work for that matter that was uploaded to Discover).  

They could motion to buy the ownership rights from you, but why would they if other people who obtained it from Discover could still use it freely even after they acquire ownership rights?  Thus, putting themselves in your shoes as the owner, which seems to grant them nothing more...  

I suppose that leads to the question of, "What makes my 'ownership' different from the rights granted to anybody who has obtained my work via Discover?" I suppose that's where it becomes blurry...

For now I say the best way to look at it is the way EnochLight describes.

It never crossed my mind that I would ever upload my masterpiece to Discover. I would never upload something in which I am extremely attached. And if there's something I upload that I am not so fond of and someone makes a hit, there's no reason to be bitter.

That being said, I have sent out these questions to all the proper copyright and licensing channels. I will let you know what I hear back! :)

User avatar
Gorilla Texas
Posts: 157
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

29 Jan 2015

joeyluck wrote:What I understand is the ownership outlined here says that even if someone makes a commercial hit using the work you uploaded to Discover, there is nothing they can do to prevent you from using your work in any way you see fit; commercially or otherwise (or any derivative of that work for that matter that was uploaded to Discover).  

They could motion to buy the ownership rights from you, but why would they if other people who obtained it from Discover could still use it freely even after they acquire ownership rights?  Thus, putting themselves in your shoes as the owner, which seems to grant them nothing more...  

I suppose that leads to the question of, "What makes my 'ownership' different from the rights granted to anybody who has obtained my work via Discover?" I suppose that's where it becomes blurry...

For now I say the best way to look at it is the way EnochLight describes.
It never crossed my mind that I would ever upload my masterpiece to Discover. I would never upload something in which I am extremely attached. And if there's something I upload that I am not so fond of and someone makes a hit, there's no reason to be bitter.
joeyluck wrote: That being said, I have sent out these questions to all the proper copyright and licensing channels. I will let you know what I hear back! :)


No serious musicians is gonna load anything worth while to discover period! I'm guessing most people feel the same way you do their music is very personal to them. Discover is nothing more then a poorly thought out marketing gimmick imo.

User avatar
JiggeryPokery
RE Developer
Posts: 1174
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

29 Jan 2015

EnochLight wrote:I think if Discover as a curated, communal, Factory Sound Bank. Nothing more.
No, that's a really bad comparison and you need to stop that way of thinking now, imo.

You've bought Reason, thus paid a license fee (or rather, Props have paid a fee for the loops, eLabs et al, and all the other FSB sound designers, you pay Props) to freely use those paid for samples and patches in your commercial work.

With Discover you can freely use other people's efforts in your commercial work and nothing has been paid to anyone else. Buy you'd be alright, Jack! You get all the royalities!! ;)

Of course, if you're not producing commercial work, i.e., you're a hobbyist, then Discover I imagine works fine. But who is a hobbyist and who is a commercial producer? Already last year we saw a commercial artist caught with his pants down, so to speak, using warezed music software. Let's recap that great excuse: Oh, it was my engineers laptop, no really, it was, it was an emergency and I didn't have my laptop with my own real license!

So commercial producers are happy to use material and software illegally if they can find ways to justify it to themselves. So someone will be more than happy to scour your work on Discover looking for something they can rip off. If Sam Smith found a musical loop of you farting on Discover, he can simply put a beat to it and his fans will buy it on iTunes in their hundreds of thousands and he'll make millions from you farting into your iPhone.

They have that fanbase, the quality of the content itself doesn't matter, cos fans will buy any old shit!

Although frankly, you farting into an iPhone is likely of far higher musical quality than Sam Smith ;)

joeyluck wrote:It never crossed my mind that I would ever upload my masterpiece to Discover. I would never upload something in which I am extremely attached. And if there's something I upload that I am not so fond of and someone makes a hit, there's no reason to be bitter.
The first statement will likely be true of most users, people would keep what they consider their best work to themselves. But then what is one person's rejected material they've uploaded to Discovery can become gold-dust to someone else.

They could still potentially earn a lot of money on something they didn't write, merely arranged, and you still might not be able to do anything "good" (whatever "good" means here) with your original loop.

For example Adam Fielding's now infamous production is not his song. It's clearly written by the person who uploaded the loop. Adam did a typically great job of arranging it. But now Props are using that arrangement to market Discover, and by extension their commercial products, to whit, Take and Figure. So Props sell more Apps; Adam earns nothing for arranging, because he's agreed to do the work free, but does earn a bit of kudos, while the original uploader doesn't even earn that, he's long since forgotten. But let's be clear, that original uploader is the writer of that track. It's arguably no different to The Verve just using a brief Andrew Oldham string loop and writing a whole new song around it - the court ruled it was Oldham's song.

Props "get out of jail free card" is that they hope that people can sort this out between themselves. But in practice a lot of people are selfish and they simply won't bother. And the hobbyist who wrote a tune he didn't like or can't use, that then goes on to become a hit for someone else deserves to be paid. And the irony is that existing commercial producers are far more likely to steal stuff off Discover than hobbyists, because it saves them a ton of money ripping off existing material. The hobbyists likely do share and it will be a lovely, egalitarian commune with flowers and unicorns. Yeah, don't kid yourself!! :D

And let's be frank, the moment someone uploads a Disney loop, or anything else that isn't the creation of the uploader, and someone else unwittingly uses it commercially and someone somewhere notices, and they will, that will be the day PH find themselves up a gum tree without a paddle (apologies for the mixed metaphor), but I don't see that contract will be much of a defense in court.

User avatar
platzangst
Posts: 728
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

29 Jan 2015

Really - it's hard to imagine how this sharing could possibly work if users did not grant these rights to other users. As difficult as it can be to properly authorize samples nowadays, how complex would it be to try and figure out and pay royalties on a song if you happened to blend together 6 or 7 bits (or more)? It's been said that albums like The Beastie Boys' Paul's Boutique and Public Enemy's Fear of a Black Planet would be impossible to make today, that they could only have been made in that era when sampling was new and nobody had quite figured out how to handle the rights involved.

Legally, royalties don't get paid only when the sampling party "makes a lot of money", they are supposed to be paid for each copy that is published (or for each performance), whether or not the song is given out for free or whatever. So a small-time artist without a label's expensive legal department would face some complicated and potentially pricey check-writing if they had to commit to the music industry's standard policies regarding sampling and derivative works.

User avatar
Dabbler
Posts: 464
Joined: 18 Jan 2015
Location: Louisville, KY
Contact:

29 Jan 2015

Here is some interesting reading:

3.5 By uploading Content you further – to the extent permitted by law – waive any moral rights that may be vested in you as creator.

More -> https://www.propellerheads.se/agreements

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3931
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

29 Jan 2015

EnochLight wrote:I think if Discover as a curated, communal, Factory Sound Bank. Nothing more.
That's how I saw it.

User avatar
JiggeryPokery
RE Developer
Posts: 1174
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

29 Jan 2015

Manslick wrote:Here is some interesting reading:

3.5 By uploading Content you further – to the extent permitted by law – waive any moral rights that may be vested in you as creator.

More -> https://www.propellerheads.se/agreements

So?

Courts tear up contracts as being unreasonable, because they are always set up to favour the party who has the control. Lots of people signed PPI contracts... look at how well that turned how for the banks - the courts largely ripped those agreements up.

Discover has been set up so you have no control over the use of your copyright works; your copyright is thus worthless. The point of copyright is so that you maintain ownship and can receive fair recompense. So the contract is contradictory.

I went through that section here http://www.reasontalk.com/post/show_sin ... stcount=27


I'd still love to get a reading of the contract from an actual music lawyer.



User avatar
Djstarski
Posts: 364
Joined: 20 Jan 2015

29 Jan 2015

this is how i see it , someone can take your sample and make a profit and they do not have to pay you a penny . they don`t even have to mention where the original idea came from . props there is something not quite right here . your allowing artists to get used and abused .

please say i have this all wrong Please !!! 

User avatar
joeyluck
Moderator
Posts: 11029
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

29 Jan 2015

joeyluck wrote:It never crossed my mind that I would ever upload my masterpiece to Discover. I would never upload something in which I am extremely attached. And if there's something I upload that I am not so fond of and someone makes a hit, there's no reason to be bitter.
JiggeryPokery wrote:
The first statement will likely be true of most users, people would keep what they consider their best work to themselves. But then what is one person's
JiggeryPokery wrote:rejected
JiggeryPokery wrote: material they've uploaded to Discovery can become gold-dust to someone else.

...But in practice a lot of people are selfish and they simply won't bother. And the hobbyist who wrote a tune he didn't like or can't use, that then goes on to become a hit for someone else deserves to be paid. And the irony is that existing commercial producers are far more likely to steal stuff off Discover than hobbyists, because it saves them a ton of money ripping off existing material. The hobbyists likely do share and it will be a lovely, egalitarian commune with flowers and unicorns. Yeah, don't kid yourself!! :D
See it's this type of thinking that I cannot understand. It's bitter and it's greedy. We know the terms up front. There's no need to think about battling for royalties. It's a sharing service in which you grant other users rights by uploading to it.

And again, if there's something you don't see value in that you upload and someone else makes money from it, you would then become serious about what you wrote? Sounds like the family member that comes along once you become rich and famous; ready to cash in because they are tied to you by blood. 

I like the idea of something where individual uploads can have different rights attached to them (chosen by the uploader). Sort of like freesound.org.  Then these arguments would really have a place. But as it stands now, we understand what we are allowing when we upload.

The suggestion I have sent to Propellerhead is that there at least be creative licenses included. Maybe an all-encompassing one? Something that simply asks in an official way that users who use the music outside of Discover attribute credit. And Propellerhead could still have a clause that says they are not liable if someone uses something without attributing credit. It's just a nice, official way of asking/informing artists of the gesture of attributing credit.

But again, we know that's not in there now.  So why argue about that when the only thing you can do is use it as it is now or use the survey Propellerhead has provided to offer a suggestion?

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Chi-Individual and 16 guests