Originally posted by kitphillips
so why did image line not put it in its own folder? just throwing it in A folder with a bunch of other loops is just asking for trouble IMO.
That's what I'm thinking. If this bloke would get in trouble because of Deadmau5, I think the guy has a case on Image Line. It doesn't tell you it's not royalty free anywhere, while Image Line claims to provide royalty free samples. Putting uncleared samples in the same folder with royalty free samples is asking for trouble. From what I've read so far there is no way to to see that the samples in question are uncleared. And the author of the `rip-off` very likely hasn't heard of Deadmau5, until he knocked on his door to sue.
If less is more think about how much more more would be.
-Frasier
Nov-22-2008 10:05
Blake_Jarrell
Concentrate
Registered: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
I've read all the forums and write ups about this and I'm still not able to make sense of something...
Did Deadmau5 make/give/grant the use of the loops to Image Line? If so, what was the intended purpose or agreement of their use? If not, why wouldn't he threaten to sue Image Line instead of the bedroom producer who claims to have never heard of the song? (I believe this Dirty Circuit guy, he's coincidentally from my dreaded hometown of Metairie Louisiana, the laws of physics do not apply there!!!!)...
If less is more think about how much more more would be.
-Frasier
Nov-22-2008 11:26
kitphillips
is actually a guy.
Registered: May 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Well, if he signed over the rights to image line, theres a chance that they could sue him because he then went on to use material that they owned in a commercial release...
Clearly the guy who used the loops had heard of Deadmau5 because he named the track "Berlin", I think? Which makes me wonder why he even bothered to try and release the track?
Originally posted by kitphillips
Clearly the guy who used the loops had heard of Deadmau5 because he named the track "Berlin", I think? Which makes me wonder why he even bothered to try and release the track?
The samples used had "Faxing Berlin" in their filename, I guess that's where he got it from.
Well, I think it's a little pathetic from Joel to instantly sue the bedroom producer without even listening to his side. If he did that, he should knew that Image Line probably was the one to blame.
However, looking it from the other side. I personally think that if it's not cleary stated if samples are free to use, it's not wise to use them. Because I think that it has to be clearly stated that the samples are free to use, not the other way around.
___________________
Upcoming releases:
Hernandes ft. Stine Groove - Without You (Kyota remix) (Redux Recordings)
Kyota - Senegal (Flashover Recordings)
Nov-22-2008 13:54
MrJiveBoJingles
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Jun 2004
Location: U.S.
quote:
Originally posted by Theran
However, looking it from the other side. I personally think that if it's not cleary stated if samples are free to use, it's not wise to use them. Because I think that it has to be clearly stated that the samples are free to use, not the other way around.
As far as I know, Image Line billed all of the FL samples as "royalty-free."
Nov-22-2008 14:11
whiskers
old skool
Registered: Sep 2001
Location: in your dreams
quote:
Originally posted by Theran
Well, I think it's a little pathetic from Joel to instantly sue the bedroom producer without even listening to his side. If he did that, he should knew that Image Line probably was the one to blame.
However, looking it from the other side. I personally think that if it's not cleary stated if samples are free to use, it's not wise to use them. Because I think that it has to be clearly stated that the samples are free to use, not the other way around.
So, everybody in this story is in the wrong. But, Joel is coming off as a huge jackass once again.
___________________
Nov-22-2008 17:18
Storyteller
Supreme tracneaddict
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Quoted from the Computer Music website:
quote:
I installed the FL demo and took a look at what it said regarding samples.
If you go to Help followed by Product Information followed by Samples and Sounds you will see the following at the bottom of the page:
"All samples are royalty-free, which means you can use the samples in your own compositions and songs without paying any further royalties. You are not allowed, however, to resell or redistribute any or all of the samples as a sample pack or sample CD."
You can find a link to another forum discussing this as well.
I'd say Image Line is wrong and the one to blame. Not Dirty Circuit nor Deadmau5. I personally think Deadmau5 should aim his legal action towards Image Line.
If less is more think about how much more more would be.
-Frasier
Nov-22-2008 18:05
psymon.d
mr. dilkington
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: nightbus
quote:
Originally posted by Theran
Well, I think it's a little pathetic from Joel to instantly sue the bedroom producer without even listening to his side. If he did that, he should knew that Image Line probably was the one to blame.
Yes, yes indeed. He seemingly cannot do more in his humanly power to become less of a personable character. He's an asshole and he's adamant on showing the world just how much of one he is, from one incident to the next. Whether using a loops like those make for good music isn't the point here (though I'd have to admit I think that's a pretty cheap way of going about production). If those samples weren't bundled in with all the other presumably royalty free drum loops, then I'd begrudgingly take on Joel's point of view. But, of course, this isn't the case and he's rushed to conclusions, yet again exposing himself for the douche he is. It's imageline's fault if they didn't get the full licensing.
just throwing it in A folder with a bunch of other loops is just asking for trouble IMO. 
