Freesound Forums

I began writing a response to a question about the legality of borrowing sound effects for use in a video game, and I got a little caught up in it and realize I was simply spouting opinion rather than any tangible legal information or inquiry. So, I figured I would instead post it here to see how you all weighed in on it.

Is one free to use borrowed sound effects as elements in constructing a video game? With a little investigation, I've yet to come to any conclusion on the legal perspective on it, but it has since sparked thought into the philosophy of the matter:

In a game where the player shoots a variety of guns, for example, almost all the gun sounds are either paid-for samples (such is why you may hear familiar gun sounds often if you happen to be into these types of games, action movies, etc.), or have been recorded by the game creator. To the average ear, most gun sounds are relatively indistinct from one another, as would be other sound effects that occur in a common environment (object impact noises, footsteps, doors opening and closing). Some obviously are more effective/appealing than others, and become popular if they are part of a marketed sample package. This seems to be why they warrant a monetary purchase on behalf of the user; they fulfill their intention of being effective in their contribution to the presentation. Because they are 'sound effects,' this still implies that they still be discreet and don't 'steal the show.' They aren't intended to reveal themselves to the user/viewer for what they are beyond the 'fourth wall' of the presentation. Unless that person happens to have the 'ear' for sound effects, like the case i mentioned earlier. But that person is not the typical viewer, and should not be relevant to the intention of this sound effect's inclusion, which is the differentiating factor between a 'sample' and a 'sound effect.' Contrary to the previous, a sample is presented as a 'guest member of the cast,' so to speak. The inclusion of it is made obvious, and central to the context of its presentation is the fact that it is meant to stick out as a premeditated inclusion rather than simply another supplemental element of the presentation.

To use a diabolical laugh from an old 50's movie as the sound effect for a boss character in a video game, for example, may or may not fall under the category of sampling: should it be under the intention of creating a fairly obvious nostalgic reference to the particular source, I think that would be a sampling of that sound, rather than a theft. If it were to simply be a case where the intention is to leave viewers with the feeling of "oh, that was a really cool evil laugh," then that's simply taking credit for someone else's work. If we used instead the well-known and parodied, loud, jarring outburst of laughter from Hillary Clinton originally heard during an interview from recent months, it would be clear that we were simply attempting to transparently reference, with humor or mockery, a well-known person and event, and shouldn't need to worry about giving Hillary Clinton due credit.

It's as though you're citing a source in an essay: if a quoted idea is presented in a matter such that it blends in with the rest of the words that make up your theses, that is plagarism, accidental or not. To cite the creator of the idea is to simply put it in a different context, so that it stands out clearly rather than lining the fabric of your work. With sound effects, these citations are required, however not necessarily in the written, MLA-format sense of written work. Citations of sound effects truly need simply be implied, such that the vast majority of the game's target audience recognizes the reference. That is what I think is an acceptable use of borrowed sound effects: when they appear within the context of being an obvious reference of other material, at least to the majority of those who would play this game. Even if players don't recognize what particular obscure old movie this diabolical laugher originates from, the intended effect on a player upon hearing such the sound effect (in the case of a legitimate sampling versus that of theft) would be "oh, that laugh is just like those 50's sci-fi movies," instead of simply adding to the presentation discreetly without sparking a conceptual connection.

While your opinion can sound true or should even be true in some ways, it simply isn't the way the law has recently worked.

You can check this link on a recent court ruling about sampling:

http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2004/09/08/6th-cir-theres-no-such-thing-as-ide-minimisi-sampling/

Even a small fragment would be considered grounds for a law suit. There have been past rulings that have gone the other way but this is probably
the most current ruling on the subject.

Another thing that might interest you is that public domain RECORDINGS are not actually in the public domain till 2067 or later.

http://www.acidplanet.com/help/faq/?page=copyrightissues&T=1654

You can rewrite and record your version of the song but not actually use the original recording.

This is at least how it is in the United States.
Very frustrating and confusing.

http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/samplesViewSingle.php?id=19268

- Bram

Bram, I don't mean to sound like a party pooper but you shouldn't have that sample up and the ones from the dare unless they have authors' permission.

If they don't, they violate copyright. Its not FreeSound, its stolen sound.

I would point to the lawsuit that was involved with Pump up the Volume:

http://www.tatp.org/blog/?p=120

The sample was distorted to be unrecognizable but since someone mentioned the original source, the original author filed a lawsuit.

Plus you have the recent case of this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Upright_Music%2C_Ltd._v._Warner_Bros._Records%2C_Inc.

They don't care how few notes have been changed. They just care if the sound was created by you or from someone who gave permission.

For the sake of making a hell of a lot of noise in the public space if a lawsuit follows, I allow gray areas like this on Freesound.
The Amen break is another one of those samples we allow on Freesound: it isn't legal, but at what point (2000 records sampled it? 4000? 10000?) does a sample stop being copyrighted and enter the public domain? These particular border cases are interesting.

Blantant infringement to copyright we do not support/condone on Freesound. Grey areas that can be discussed, we do. Even if it's just to keep pushing that boundary a bit.

I would like to see a court of law defend the fact that a 200ms slice could be copyrighted. And hey, I might write that that's a remix of MIA, but... it actually isn't. Or is it?

Let's not be governed by FUD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt a *bit* of anarchy never hurt anyone.

- Bram

Alright, stick it to the man!

Bram
I would like to see a court of law defend the fact that a 200ms slice could be copyrighted. And hey, I might write that that's a remix of MIA, but... it actually isn't. Or is it?
- Bram

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York basically did say taking any sample is violation/stealing.

The lawsuit that was settled regarding Pump up the Volume only seemed to happen because Dave Dorrel said that M/A/R/R/S used
Stock Aitken Waterman's sample in a really distorted way that Waterman wouldn't have even recognized if Dave Dorrel
didn't mention it on the radio.

In Bridgeport Music v Dimension Films is another case where the court basically said : "Get a license or do not sample - we do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way." ( I disagree but that's how their ruling it)

http://www.musiclawupdates.com/index_main.htm
(in the addendum section)

You don't allow people to put up sample libraries why allow people to post up vague samples that have been twisted but are
still not owned by them?

Why set up users of this site up for potential lawsuits when you don't really have to? Why compromise the site's legitimacy with
samples like this?

I would say leave the potentially infringing samples to the "underground" sites. Is there really a demand for these samples to be
posted? People are more likely to rip these samples or steal them somewhere else. The remixes/twists can be interesting to listen to
but their posted up here like people truly have a license to use them when they could instead get in trouble for using them.

It just doesn't seem right to set up unwitting users for problems like this down the line.

Then again... we (Freesound nor the people who run it) are not in the usa.

Again: blatant copyright infringement: no, very, very grey areas: yes.

First of all, I'm not so sure the argument that worked in the US would work in Spain, second of all, if we ever get a take-down notice (still to happen), we shall take down.

All samples posted on Freesound are -ultimately- a risk to the initial uploader. Like YouTube we have a review process that tries to iliminate the illegal parts, but like youtube
I'm quite sure we have illegal samples taken from sample libraries. Any owner of such library is welcome to supply us with their library and using MTG technology we can
immediately filter out all infringing files automatically. The people who entered dare3 all very clearly know this.

Would you say the same about each and every music piece that is distributed online, but uses the Amen Break?
For example, but obviously not limited to http://ccmixter.org/files/sharp/5513

We are strict, very strict even, when it comes to moderating.
Now that I review, some of the samples in dare3 (or 4?) need removing because they are a bit too literal.

- Bram

I am not sure if the Amen Break is something that could be considered copyrightable. The courts would probably have to determine whether its that unique or just something a lot of other people could have come up with just like you can't copyright a C major chord.

However, I think they would find grounds if the original recording of the Amen breakbeat was used versus someone who records their own performance of it.

I can't remember exactly what the courts said in regards to someone who cites a sample in a piece for artistic quotation but it was something along the lines of your free to cite that element if you reproduce the sound yourself to sound like it, otherwise pay for the license to use the original sample. (Its stupidly inefficient but that's the gist of what they said) I guess their logic is they're protecting the performers of the original recording.

I realize you are in Spain but is copyright law that different there? That I really wouldn't know. I've been under the impression from reading stuff that generally countries tend to have similar laws for the most part. But I really can't say how it would go down in Spain.