Soundfonts Copyright

Zynthianic Sounds
1

Hi everyone! How are you? I recently purchased a package of soundfonts (SF2) from a music producer who sampled his Nord, Yamaha, and other keyboards. He edited, adapted, and refined the original sounds, but I’m not exactly sure how the sampling process was carried out.

After thinking it over, I became concerned about copyright issues. I want to use these sounds only for personal, and play church, but I don’t want to infringe any rules or harm anyone. I did a lot of research but couldn’t find clear explanations regarding the legality or potential consequences of using soundfonts derived from keyboards that have been purchased or shared online.

From the little information I found, it’s mentioned that there’s a copyright question concerning the samples present in the keyboards, and that there’s a difference between sampling digitally and doing it analog (using microphones). I also read something about whether the original sample is digital or synthesized, but all of that still left me with questions.

I see, for example, libraries of samples from famous keyboard brands being licensed by Native Instruments for Kontakt, but I’m not sure if that regulation applies to independently created soundfonts. Could someone clarify this? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

I’ve looked in other sources on the internet, but haven’t found any official statements from these brands—just vague discussions full of nuances.

2

Hi @francesconi !

My 5 cents:

For personal use, you shouldn’t worry about it. You bought a “product” and you can use it.

If the producer that you buy the SF2 from is infringing Yamaha/Nord copyrights, it’s not your problem. Think about this case:

  • I buy a disk from artist XXX
  • Artist XXX is infringing copyright by using material from other artist YYY without authorization

Nobody is coming to subpoema to me for artist XXX infringingment. He is the only responsible and artist YYY will claim to artist XXX compensation for every copy he sold, but consumers has no liability on this.

Anyway, presets and patches are not considered subjects of copyright laws as they are just a “list of numbers” (parameter values for a given system or model). If the preset include “audio recordings”, then these audio recordings could be subject to copyright.

Moreover, the producer bought his keyboards and this bring to him the right to use it, including all factory presets . They are work tools and he can use them for producing his work pieces. If his work-pieces are SF2 files, i doubt nobody can go against he because of this. It would be a very different case if he had accessed internal memory of keyboards and extracted the digital information, because the firmware itself is owned by Yamaha / Nord and protected by copyright laws. But by making recordings from the keyboard, including very short recordings, he is not infringing any copyright law. He is simply using the tool to do his work.

Of course, i’m not a copyright lawyer and this is only my opinion. Perhaps other zynthianers could complement my words.

All the best,

2 Likes
3

Coincidentally, I watched a video yesterday where a presenter had been vilified for mistakenly describing one user’s use of synth sounds to not be infinging copyright. The mistake was that he had believed the synth has been used just for its internal sounds but in fact, some demo material had been used. (This was a video contrasting the licensing of Yamaha and Teenage Engineering.) The useful info from that video was that no one considers using presets as copyright infingement.

Of course, if you mimic and instrument and resell the results then we have a different set of rules. (I am looking at you Behringer!) But to take a free soundfont that is derived from presets in another instrument, and to use it for personal use, there is only a slither of risk of copyright infringement and as @jofemodo says, this won’t be enforced.

But of course, there are hawks out there who will chase down every last cent of revenue that they can, no matter whether their claims are valid. (I am looking at you SCO!)

3 Likes
4

I appreciate the clarifications, as I truly have many doubts about this topic. I understand that soundfonts (SF2) replicate the use of real keyboards, although the audio samples generated differ from the original sampled sound due to the work of the professionals who developed them, including improvements and transformations. I must admit that all this leaves me quite confused. These keyboards were purchased legally, and the producer who sampled them altered the tones to sound more professional or to have specific characteristics, reducing the need for adjustments.

There are many pianos in SF2 format available on the internet, both for purchase and free use, but there is little clear information about their legality. I apologize for my lack of understanding, as I really don’t know anything about samples or copyrights, and regarding the latter, it’s truly complicated, haha. I’m just trying to play my keyboard with the Zynthian in a completely honest way.

Come to think of it, this kind of conversation can go far, given the apps, libraries, and simulators involved.

5

I find that topic really interesting and had several questions myself towards that topic.

I can follow every argument above. But I came across some forum threads which were finally taken down because of copyright violations where people “sampled” soundfont instruments or kontakt instruments from existing commercial sampe libraries. I wonder where the red line would be then between recording a Nord Stage without access to internal memory and recording a sample library.

Other topics I was thinking about is:

  • Creating soundfont from commercial libraries you own from unencrypted wav files
  • Using tools like ConvertWithMoss for converting nki instruments and ncw samples
  • Sharing these soundfonts (in that case without including the original sample files) for free intended to be used by people owning the same commercial libraries.
6

Hi @hannesmenzel , I like your questions. Did you find any answers?

I would like to find the answer to this:

I wonder where the red line would be then between recording a Nord Stage without access to internal memory and recording a sample library.

After a lot of research using GPT as a consultant lol, and diving into several forums on the internet, I got even more confused, it really is a path that can go very far. I got to some answers and many other questions…

  • In the case of keyboards with digital sounds or that mix wave synthesis with samples, since the source would be the result of PCM samples, the sample would be protected by copyright and any copy of the ROM would be a derivative work that requires authorization.

  • If the soundfont originated from the sampling of a keyboard that uses pure waveforms, there seems to be no protection. So sampling a Nord piano would be a problem, but not a Nord organ. Confusing!? to me

  • However, sampling is essentially the capture of sounds through MIDI messages, and in theory it is like a performance, and the essence of an instrument is performance.

  • Some manufacturers prohibit copying via MIDI in their manuals or license terms. But I don’t know how legal that is.

  • I sent emails to Yamaha, Roland, Korg, Kurzweil, Studiologic, Dexibell, Clavia, Novation, UDO. The only one that responded to me clearly was Novation, which said that all of its samples are royalty free. Korg did respond to me, but they sent me to ask a local dealer, who diverted their response to a “safe” path for them.

  • Among the keyboard manuals I found, only Yamaha’s mentions anything about copies, but no other. The funny thing is that some brands even allow the reading via USB of soundfonts or other types of samples, such as the Dexibell, which reads SF2. Even Roland, which from what I’ve noticed is one of the most restrictive, allows the reading via USB of wav samples (or similar) on some models, if I’m not mistaken.

Excerpt from Yamaha’s manual:

  • Copying of commercially available musical data, including but not limited to MIDI data and/or audio data, is strictly prohibited, except for personal use.

  • This product includes and includes content whose copyright is owned by Yamaha or for which a license to use third-party copyrights has been granted to Yamaha. Due to copyright and other relevant laws, you are NOT permitted to distribute media on which such content has been saved or recorded in a state that is substantially identical or very similar to the content in the product.

  • The content described above includes a computer program, Accompaniment Style data, MIDI data, WAVE data, voice recording data, a score, score data, etc.

  • You are permitted to distribute media items on which your performances or musical productions using such content have been recorded, and in such cases, permission from Yamaha Corporation is not required.

  • I used artificial intelligence to help me with the legal issue and came up with this information:
    Personal Use: Capturing sounds from a keyboard via MIDI is not illegal, as long as the sounds are used exclusively for personal, non-commercial use. This is widely accepted as an extension of the intended use of the instrument. This is considered a “performance” of the instrument and not a direct copy of the digital data (ROM) stored on the keyboard. Commercial Redistribution: Creating derivative libraries for sale or public sharing may violate manufacturers’ copyrights, especially if the sounds are based on PCM recordings or protected presets.

  • Would it be illegal to buy SF2 soundfonts, even if I didn’t know these details?

  • During my research, I found reports that argue that some keyboard usage contracts include abusive clauses that are not upheld in court, and since there is no official acceptance of the contract in a physical piece of equipment, these clauses make no sense.

  • Finally, I didn’t find any real positioning from the brands, with the exception of Novation. The interesting thing is that the SF2 package I bought is from a music producer who is sponsored by some brands, and there is no retaliation, in fact this is quite common in Brazil; several producers sell their own timbre packages. It’s a gray area that no one speaks out about.

1 Like
7

I found this thread interesting, and found some of the details on what is and is not OK, per your research and other’s contributions, surprising.

I’m curious where you landed on the original question - Are you now comfortable using the sounds you purchased?

8

Hi @tunagenes,

I’m curious where you landed on the original question - Are you now comfortable using the sounds you purchased?

About the first question: I bought the soundfont package in my excitement to have more beautiful tones. I’m building a keyboard using a condemned Kurzweil with semi-weighted keys, using Arduino to map the keys and Zynthian to reproduce the sound, all integrated.

I am a Christian and would use these soundfonts to play in church. I believe we should offer our best to God, and doing this was my best effort, considering that in Brazil I cannot afford a good keyboard. I had to sell some items to buy the Raspberry Pi, the condemned Kurzweil, and the soundfonts.

However, an offering to God must be pure, and if there is any doubt or lack of clarity involved, I prefer not to use it. After thinking a bit about pirated Kontakt libraries and the free availability of SF2 files for Audio Evolution, I decided to do some research and discovered that soundfonts can be illegal.

Regarding the soundfont package I purchased, it contains 60 SF2 files, of which only 14 use synthesized sources that, according to my research, would be free for use. Unfortunately, the pianos—which were my main goal—are not included in this group. Therefore, answering the question: for now, I feel comfortable using only 14 of them, although I have removed all of them from my Zynthian.

Personally, I think a clear stance from companies would help me and many others in countries where keyboards (and not just keyboards) tend to be very expensive. Perhaps a basic soundfont package offered at a low cost could encourage people and give them the feeling of having something closer to an original keyboard.

Here, it is very common to use the Audio Evolution app precisely because of the cost of equipment. A mid-range Android phone with a cheap audio interface already sounds better than the entry-level arranger keyboards we can afford. Additionally, the app itself is reasonably priced.

I was looking at American websites and saw that a “Numa Compact X SE” costs around $900, which according to my research is equivalent to 124 hours of work at minimum wage in the U.S. ($7.25/hour = Source: Google).

In Brazil, this same keyboard costs 10,700 reais, equivalent to 7 months of work at minimum wage (1,518 reais/month).

1 Like
9

Hi @francesconi ,

I did not really dive deep into that topic, because reading audio data from keyboards was not my intention. I was more interested in these questions concerning other sample libraries of different heritage. There was also something written in the parallel sfz topic.

What mostly concerns me is what kind of instruments I can use personally and what kind of intruments I would even be able to share.

2 Likes
10

From my POV, it’s obvious you can use “personally” any SFZ you got legally. I mean, you can create music pieces with it or perform using it.

For sharing the SFZ, it must have a license that allows this. Kind of CC, for instance.

The best

11

Yes, i recently thought about taking off my own instruments from pianobook, because I intended them to be used by everyone for whatever they like, but pianobook has a conflicting EULA.