I’m wondering if anyone has ever run into the issue of getting a copyright strike on YouTube after using some of Steinberg’s samples, especially if they are unedited?
I have heard about cases where someone registers a music track to be copyrighted, and as a result everyone who uses a sample that is used in that track can risk getting a copyright strike on YouTube. Meaning, that royalty free samples, for instance, are suddenly not “royalty free” anymore.
There is also the case of “copyright trolls”, where someone will try and profit from the works of others and it can get them into trouble, even if they made a piece of music themselves, but I digress.
I remember where someone gave the general advice of staying away from unedited samples of premade chord progressions, vocals or anything that is prominent and thar could potentially be registered by the YouTube bots.
And obviously, he also suggested to edit as much of the sample as possible to make it “your own”.
There are a lot of cool stock samples in Cubase (especially if you have huge libraries like Absolute 6) that are too tempting to use out of the box, just as they are. But that makes me wonder about the risks.
I use Tunecore for distribution, and before the final stage of submitting a track nowadays there is an additional box that needs to be ticked about YouTube Content ID. It seems to mainly be associated with spoken word and non-musical uploads. This is the Tunecore article about it:
I have roughly 30 tracks available on streaming platforms (including YouTube) through Tunecore, and every single one of those includes samples derived from various purchased sample packs and sample based instruments. I’ve never been flagged by YouTube or any streaming services about any of the tracks
I think this YouTube Content ID thing is because some people are simply putting 30+ seconds of crap out there (pink noise, spoken word gobbledegook etc) then using automated bots to stream these ‘tracks’ and make money.
So long as you are producing genuine and original music then you can have no fears about using samples.
I can only share an experience I had once. I was doing a series of demonstration videos and decided to make one of Groove Agent Sounds, I cant remember now which specifically it was, but I was just playing the premade patterns and as I did I also mentioned what the preset was. I immediately got a copyright strike on that video, and the strike was issued by the creator of the original preset. On the other hand, using preset sounds in original compositions has never produced any issue, so needless to say I never play something as it comes out of the box anymore, for me its just not worth it.
I had the notion that every instrument, sample or loop that we buy with Cubase was free to use commercially, but I may be wrong.
Does anybody know if there is any legal documentation by Steinberg or the sample creators about this question?
The issue is that there are a lot of producers creating stock music with royalty free content specifically to leech off of other people’s monetized content that uses it. It’s something that has been done since this all became a thing.
If someone is creating content for Steinberg and flagging videos using those Loops/Presets, then - AFTER contacting them, to rule out any mistakes - they really should be reported to Steinberg or named publicly so that companies (and other potential customers of theirs) know what they are walking into when working with that person or buying their content.
This is like using an Apple Loop from the GarageBand Content and having your song DMCA’d. It should not be happening.
OK, then it should be clearly advertised that the content included in Cubase, which you have paid, may not be free to use whithout previous permission.
This is something I have not seen advertised anywhere. Not that I have looked for it, anyway.
I think you are conflating two very different issues. The sample libraries you buy from Cubase are indeed free to use commercially (with restrictions such as “you can’t use them to make your own sample libraries” of course). You can use a loop in a song and copyright that song. As such, no, Steinberg doesn’t need to “clearly advertise” anything of the sort.
Your issue is with YouTube. It is YouTube that has decided on a process where THEY allow copyright claims against content ,and where THEY give content creators strikes against their accounts, and where THEY make up their own rules about how, when, and why to enforce whatever rules they want to.
If you use one of those loops in a song and copyright it, you own the rights to that song, though the use of the loop is “non-exclusive.” You can stream it on any number of services, have it distributed on CDs in Walmart, or have it played on the radio as long as there was some “original” usage. Someone else could use the same loop in their own song written a year later and STILL try to file a claim against you on the YouTube platform. And they may even get it. This has nothing to do with copyright law; it has to do what YouTube has chosen to do and how they require both claims and responses to be handled.
There is a LOT more to be said on this topic, but none of it has anything to do with SB or their content licensing.
OK,
I have done a quick search in the Steinberg documentation and I found in their web the relevant text regarding my question, which I copy here for the benefit of the lazy ones (such as myself): ## The samples of so-called Loops remain the property of the respective rights holder and are licensed by Steinberg to you only for use in the creation of a live or recorded performance that includes the licensed samples as part of a derivative musical work created by the licensed end user. This license includes the use of the samples, the modification of the samples and the marketing of the derivative musical work without infringing any rights of copyright collecting societies and/or the owners of copyrights in any samples. The samples may not be included, whether unmodified or as part of a derivative work, in any sample library product.
I’m guessing there’s some complicated algorithm that tries to figure out if two tracks are similar enough to warrant a content id match or not. No one can tell when the line is going to be crossed, unfortunately, and the algorithm probably gets updated all the time.
I’m guessing vocals are the riskiest and will get flagged, even if the rest of the track is different. Chord loops should be safer, as long as some other stuff plays at the same time. Drum loops are probably the safest, but that’s all conjecture.
So while you’re legally allowed to use the samples and shouldn’t have any issues on other streaming services, it might be risky to upload your track to YouTube if it prominently features samples that have been used before (or in the future, if you don’t register the content id first).
Yeah , it’s tricky. I once used a loop from Damage (NI) as an experiment and Tunecore detected that there was copyrighted material and wanted me to acknowledge that I had the licence to use said sound.
It’s a bit of a minefield. Although nobody in their right mind will sue anyone for using what is in essence a pre-recorded material, composed and produced by another musician, used under licence, but claiming it on YouTube is lame.
I never had this happening to me, had anyone had the experience and appealed??
It’s a rabbit hole. It goes as far as to the point that even hardware synths get you to only buy the hardware. The sounds are not owned by the buyer, they are still property of the production company…
Personally, I stay away from anything pre-played, unless there is a buried loop, or a single straight note that I can manipulate and use it as part of my compositions. Yikes…
If you give away ownership, they become effectively public domain and anyone can simply repackage and redistribute. Retaining ownership with exceptions for derivative works and full compositions is the easy way to close that loophole.
Otherwise, you end up with someone auto sampling your patches and selling them as a new MPC Expansion.
I once had the YouTube copyright algorithm flag one of my ambient tracks as a Top 10 hit by someone like Beyoncé (don’t remember the exact artist, I am blissfully ignorant of Top 40 music).
I disputed that using their dispute system, and the problem went away, because that ambient track had absolutely nothing in common with the alleged copyright violation. As a matter of fact, you couldn’t write something more dissimilar even if you tried
The point is that these algorithms can and do make mistakes, and that there are dispute resolution systems available to you.
However, nobody told you that back in the day. You’d go and buy the thing, use the “licenced” sounds, including whole sequences, not knowing that they don’t belong to you.
A pop band used a preset sequenced sound (like, the whole thing, drums, bass , etc.) in the 80s for an actual hit. I’m sure they had no idea they didn’t actual own that preset. If the company would be out of their minds, they had every right to sue the band and get publishing from this preset.
I needed a filler techno-ish track for an EP recently, and I had a tune that was basically 3 or 4 Maschine patterns, complete with the original kit sounds, cobbled together. Almost no production applied, mastered through Izotope and the track is happily streaming away on all platforms via Tunecore.
I think the message is as ever, use patterns and samples creatively and there should be no problems. It’s not to say there won’t be occasions where you need to justify your work, but as @Timo00 says, there is always a dispute system available.
After all, these limitations (read irritations) are there to protect us.
A YT video with a house groove of mine has just been flagged with a contend ID violation. The infringement is directed against a used loop from the Steinberg library “Midnight Dance”. My objection, stating that Steinberg allows the use of the loop for its own songs and that there is therefore no infringement, was rejected.
According to my research, the YT channel accusing me of contend ID infringement appears to be a content troll whose business model is aimed precisely at ripping off other youtubers.
I’m going to have YT delete the relevant part of my video so that these lousy guys don’t make any money from my video, which I worked on for over 100 hours. Yes, the guy can be mighty proud of having destroyed my video…
Many moons ago, I uploaded an ambient piece (swirly pads, no bass, no rhythm), along with some photos of clouds that I took outside my front door.
The video was flagged as infringing some rock band’s (that I’d never heard of) copyright.
YouTube is anything but perfect.
