Commercial Use vs. Library Music???

[djdeweese]

Hey Gang, I was just reading a review in Recording magazine (vol. 21, no. 11) of an inexpensive collection of loops. License restrictions for the loops state "royalty-free commercial use if modified. Not for use in library music."Isn't producing music for a library a commercial use? If a user mixes a bass loop into an electronica track with original elements to create content for a library to sell it sure seems commercial. What do you think the restriction means? (I've emailed the magazine with no response yet.)Thanks for any legal eagles out there who can clarify this one ----

[davewalton]

Aug 5, 2008, 9:42am, djdeweese wrote:Hey Gang, I was just reading a review in Recording magazine (vol. 21, no. 11) of an inexpensive collection of loops. License restrictions for the loops state "royalty-free commercial use if modified. Not for use in library music."Isn't producing music for a library a commercial use? If a user mixes a bass loop into an electronica track with original elements to create content for a library to sell it sure seems commercial. What do you think the restriction means? (I've emailed the magazine with no response yet.)Thanks for any legal eagles out there who can clarify this one ----Not a legal eagle but it means you can't use a music library to market the track if it uses those loops. Big Fish Audio has that restriction in all of their loop packages that has the phrase "Contains construction kits" or something similar. That's pretty much all of their loop packages. I think it's a bone-headed restriction. How many people make a living by marketing directly to all the television shows on the planet? It's a safe bet that the majority of placements are made through music libraries. So they lose LOTS of money in sales (for those of us that pay attention their licensing agreement). I talked to a guy a Big Fish Audio and he kind of agreed that they were throwing the baby out with the bathwater and said that they were considering modifying their policy. That was a year ago at least and it's still there (the policy).

[mazz]

I just ordered but haven't yet received EVOLVE from Heavyocity. Their license mirrors that of East West which is that for library usage you can't have any point where the loop is exposed and must have at least 2 other elements mixed in.This makes sense to me and would be the way I would use it anyway.These policies came about probably because lazy composers were putting loop construction kits together and selling them as their own pieces of music to libraries and making the royalties off of them.Since my music is oriented towards libraries, I don't buy Big Fish or any other construction kits or loop libraries that have this limitation in their license. In fact, I wanted to buy a nice library from a very small (one guy) company and I e-mailed him and got him to change his policy to the one stated above. This has been kicked around a fair amount here so there's plenty of info in other threads on this as well.Buyer beware. If you can't access their policy on line before you buy, try to contact them or just walk away. Act as if you're going to be successful and keep your nose clean legally as you go and when you finally hit it big, you won't need an attorney very much.Cheers!!Mazz

[stevebarden]

Aug 5, 2008, 9:42am, djdeweese wrote:"royalty-free commercial use if modified. Not for use in library music."Maybe it's just worded oddly, but usually it just means you cannot use it to create your own competing library of loops and/or samples.I don't think it means you can't use it in your musical compositions that may be used in film, TV, etc., even if it gets there via a music production library.Steve

[stevebarden]

Aug 5, 2008, 10:38am, mazz wrote:...you can't have any point where the loop is exposed and must have at least 2 other elements mixed in.Aha! Yes, that makes sense. And you're right, a lot of lazy composers out there just slapping various loops together and calling it a composition.Steve

[djdeweese]

Hey Guys,Thanks for the replies Dave, Mazz and Steve. I've read some of the other threads here on the subject, and the only loops I've ever used as part of complete compositions have always stated very clearly that they could be re-sold as part of a complete work, but never as just a loop. So I've always felt on the right side of the issue, but the wording in the Recording review threw meRecording magazine DID get back to me just this afternoon, and their reply is as follows:"Usually when "library use" is restricted, the licensor means one of two things: either using the loop on its own as part of a commercial MUSIC library, or putting the loop into your own LOOP library and reselling it (or giving it away free) as your content. The idea is that you're not legally allowed to expose the naked loop you've purchased in a place where it can be purchased or given away to others, or to claim that you composed or created it.In the case you're mentioning, mixing a loop into a fully realized track for a library constitutes "use if modified" because the loop is not there exposed on its own.It's confusing because the word "library" here can have two meanings that are both relevant and may or may not be slightly different in legal application, which is why we usually recommend that users contact makers with specific questions. Most of them, especially the small loop houses eager for new customers and good word of mouth, are more than happy to dash off an email and let you know if your particular case is legal or not.Thanks for reading.mike"Very nice of them to get back to me. And it sounds like the kind of restriction Mazz mentions above. Thanks again for your input on this one.

[mazz]

There are companies that make loop libraries out there that specifically call out production music libraries when stating the restrictions. They don't explicitly say that it's OK if it's "mixed in a composition with other stuff it's OK" so I don't assume that it's implicit and I don't buy those loop libraries.Most licensing statements I've read make a fairly clear distinction between production music libraries and actual loop/sample libraries and what you can and can't do. I've never seen one that allows you to use it to create your own loop/sample libraries. After that, it's all over the map as far as other uses go. But when in doubt, contact the company directly. Recording magazine is right in general but I wouldn't take that as applying to all libraries. Take it on a case by case basis.Mazz

[davewalton]

Aug 5, 2008, 1:19pm, mazz wrote:But when in doubt, contact the company directly. Recording magazine is right in general but I wouldn't take that as applying to all libraries. Take it on a case by case basis.Yeah, my thing about Big Fish Audio... that's a "no music libraries period" kind of deal. Actually I called them because it sounded so stupid that I didn't believe it was true.

[daniel481]

Dave, so when you called them they said that they definitely mean commercial "music libraries" that market music to TV/Film, not royalty-free "music libraries" like the Big Fish products themselves?It always seemed to me that maybe it was just worded oddly, too. As someone who has produced "libraries" for these companies, I think the whole thing is stupid. As long as they're modified, you should be able to use them anywhere.Dan

[davewalton]

Aug 5, 2008, 2:54pm, daniel481 wrote:Dave, so when you called them they said that they definitely mean commercial "music libraries" that market music to TV/Film, not royalty-free "music libraries" like the Big Fish products themselves?Yes, but only for products that are marked "Contains Construction Kits". Probably 90% of their products have that designation, making them unusable for songs that might find their way via a music library. Other loop packages that do not contain construction kits, they don't have that restriction from Big Fish. The guy did caution me to make sure to read the licensing agreement from the original creator, if it came from underneath someone else's roof other than Big Fish.