Are Sound Packs Royalty Free?

[Billy+]

So when you buy patches/presets for vst's or samples etc the packs explicitly state the included content is royalty free for the samples and the patches but I can't find any such declaration for sound packs or the included content (patches samples demos)

does anyone know what the status is as well as the declaration?

[mcatalao]

They are royalty free in the context of creating music and songs and derivative work. However you can't use them in the context of sample products and patches for other purposes. And even that is a grey area because there was this boast of the possibility of customizing the Patches. I'd check the Reason+ contract/EULA fineprints...

[mcatalao]

Here:

https://www.reasonstudios.com/agreements#terms-of-use

I'm not a lawyer but from what i can understand the parts that talk about content apply despite you have a subscription or if you own a reason license. From a quick read, you can use the contents linked to the software for music production royalty free (even commercial music), but you can't use them to create other products or services.

[Billy+]

So selling splits of drums or non layered instruments isn't acceptable for sound packs?

Is that the same for FSB derivative audio as well?

[gbuck]

On a different note I guess the sound packs are free for R+ subscribers, but can RS11 owners buy the sound packs? And if not, why? There are a few I would purchase if not too pricey.

[challism]

On a different note I guess the sound packs are free for R+ subscribers, but can RS11 owners buy the sound packs? And if not, why? There are a few I would purchase if not too pricey.

Yes, you can buy them for the small cost of becoming an R+ subscriber for one month. You could do it for free, if you haven't already used your free month trial. Subscribe to R+, download all the packs you want, then cancel the subscription and keep the packs forever. RS have stated that they have no problem with people doing this.

[gbuck]

Thanks but I already did the sub and have lots of packs. I was referring to the newer releases.

[chimp_spanner]

So selling splits of drums or non layered instruments isn't acceptable for sound packs?

Is that the same for FSB derivative audio as well?

This is correct, at least with every soundbank/library I've ever used. You would have to get express written permission to do so. I actually SOMEHOW got this from Steinberg once upon a time. I told them I was making construction kits/loop sets and wanted to use some of the included content. I also got permission from Roland to use sounds from my old SC-880 Pro lol This was a very long time ago though. Now, they would probably say no on the grounds that they could charge someone for the Roland Cloud to get their hands on decades old sounds. Pff.

[Billy+]

So selling splits of drums or non layered instruments isn't acceptable for sound packs?

Is that the same for FSB derivative audio as well?

This is correct, at least with every soundbank/library I've ever used. You would have to get express written permission to do so. I actually SOMEHOW got this from Steinberg once upon a time. I told them I was making construction kits/loop sets and wanted to use some of the included content. I also got permission from Roland to use sounds from my old SC-880 Pro lol This was a very long time ago though. Now, they would probably say no on the grounds that they could charge someone for the Roland Cloud to get their hands on decades old sounds. Pff.

So if I've sent a demo project to a commercial entity and they wanted to buy my top line I would have to get permission from RS if it used a preset?

[nickb523]

As far a music making goes you can do anything you want with sound pack content even including using the demos (or bits of them) in your own productions. All of that is fair game.

What you cannot do is repackage the content as your own soundware product. So using pack content to create your own ReFills, sample packs, RE's or VSTs without the permission of RS would be a big no.

[Billy+]

As far a music making goes you can do anything you want with sound pack content even including using the demos (or bits of them) in your own productions. All of that is fair use.

What you cannot do is repackage the content as your own soundware product. So using pack content to create your own ReFills, sample packs, RE's or VSTs without the permission of RS would be a big no.

Yeah I would assume that sentiment as a given,
compiling one shots or bounced audio of synths as note collections for samples etc would be a no go or at least require permission.

Creating a bass line or arpeggio or something musical or making a beat (kick snare hats claps couple of others perc) 4 8 16 bars and making a bundle of splits would seem fair usage?

Would that be correct and not need permission?

[nickb523]

Creating a bass line or arpeggio or something musical or making a beat (kick snare hats claps couple of others perc) 4 8 16 bars and making a bundle of splits would seem fair usage?

Would that be correct and not need permission?

Can you define a "bundle of splits"? What would that contain exactly?

Do you mean just like making and selling a beat with it's component parts supplied? If so I would consider that perfectly fine.

[Billy+]

Creating a bass line or arpeggio or something musical or making a beat (kick snare hats claps couple of others perc) 4 8 16 bars and making a bundle of splits would seem fair usage?

Would that be correct and not need permission?

Can you define a "bundle of splits"? What would that contain exactly?

Do you mean just like making and selling a beat with it's component parts supplied? If so I would consider that perfectly fine.

Yeah that's exactly what I mean, each part of the whole, not the one shots or mixed but a loop of each individual part.

[nickb523]

Yeah that's exactly what I mean, each part of the whole, not the one shots or mixed but a loop of each individual part.

Yeah there would be nothing wrong with that.

The only time it becomes an issue is when someone is deliberately repackaging material. Like say, you took all the Sean Murray drum packs and then made a big ReFill out of them - That is wrong and would be considered a bootleg product.

Working as a producer for a rapper or something like that and supplying stem audio that happens to be derived from R+ material isn't an issue at all.

[Billy+]

Yeah there would be nothing wrong with that.

The only time it becomes an issue is when someone is deliberately repackaging material. Like say, you took all the Sean Murray drum packs and then made a big ReFill out of them - That is wrong and would be considered a bootleg product.

Working as a producer for a rapper or something like that and supplying stem audio that happens to be derived from R+ material isn't an issue at all.

Thanks Nick I appreciate your responses

So making packs of loops would be fine and selling would be acceptable requiring no permission so long as the loops are my own incarnations even if I'm using preset based sounds all be it with extra processing.

Bouncing Sean's demos definitely isn't. (Obviously)

[nickb523]

So making packs of loops would be fine and selling would be acceptable requiring no permission so long as the loops are my own incarnations even if I'm using preset based sounds all be if with extra processing.

Yes. That would be considered transformative content and would fall under fair use. Many of the available sound packs on R+ are derived from the original factory content in the exact same way.

[mcatalao]

So selling splits of drums or non layered instruments isn't acceptable for sound packs?

Is that the same for FSB derivative audio as well?

Pretty much yes.

[Billy+]

So making packs of loops would be fine and selling would be acceptable requiring no permission so long as the loops are my own incarnations even if I'm using preset based sounds all be if with extra processing.

Yes. That would be considered transformative content and would fall under fair use. Many of the available sound packs on R+ are derived from the original factory content in the exact same way.

Yeah I see that the fsb / stock patches / samples and sample based devices are in use but I would assume you "content creators" are working under licence for the copyright holder so are fully covered

Where as I would be selling as someone who isn't covered by any licensing other than the initial license gained via software purchase which doesn't seem to give any implied permission for commercial usage!

But I'm no lawyer and sometimes us mortals have a very different view of fair usage.

[nickb523]

Yeah I see that the fsb / stock patches / samples and sample based devices are in use but I would assume you "content creators" are working under licence for the copyright holder so are fully covered

Where as I would be selling as someone who isn't covered by any licensing other than the initial license gained via software purchase which doesn't seem to give any implied permission for commercial usage!

But I'm no lawyer and sometimes us mortals have a very different view of fair usage.

I feel you are overthinking it really. It's a deep rabbit hole which really all boils down to common sense and intent.

The factory material like R+ packs are royalty free content for the purpose of making music (tools basically). It's not like a bunch of packs are based on samples taken from classic songs or something like that which would be wrong, and even if transformative very difficult to argue.

[nickb523]

Where as I would be selling as someone who isn't covered by any licensing other than the initial license gained via software purchase which doesn't seem to give any implied permission for commercial usage!

In the way you are describing these loop packs they are essentially a collection micro compositions, not straight repackaging. If someone took you to court over it I think they would have a hard time differentiating between these 'loops' and an original song. Repackaging content is a different thing altogether (basically bootlegging/piracy).

[Billy+]

Yeah probably but it's not something I've really considered before so was after advice but you have basically said exactly what I was thinking/assuming until I tried to understand the terms provided above.

But I got it, and thanks again

Micro Compositions (good term)