Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Samples, Mangles, Composition, Copyright?
I hope this isn't opening a can of worms, and I'm guessing it's been discussed before...
But, I'm curious who has authorship copyrights to sounds that came from copyright material, but doesn't sound anything like the original anymore?
For example... when I first got Fieldscraper, Sparkle, iDensity, etc. a couple seeks ago... I started playing around with iTunes tracks that I knew how they were supposed to sound, so that I could hear what the app was doing. One of the tracks I was playing with was Echo and the Bunnymen's "Lips Like Sugar". After I'd twisted up a bunch of parameters and had the track over modulating against another copy of the track running at a different time and speed, etc. It eventually evolved into something somewhere interesting, but no longer sounded anything like the original anymore.
All I did was buy an app and play with a bunch of parameters until I liked what I heard. I didn't write the song "Lips Like Sugar" nor did I design the app tool that allowed me to mangle it up so much.
So, is the resulting track still the intellectual properly of Echo and the Bunnymen? Or, does it belong to the app designer that made the mangling possible? Or, is it now my intellectual property due to the compositional and effects decisions I made?
I'm not sure of the answer... legally OR ethically.
On one hand, I hate it when someone takes one of my copyright protected photos, runs it through some effects apps, paints over it, and makes something new out of it, and then puts it up for sale without permission or even a credit to me for the source image... even though you can still vaguely tell the source image was mine.
Thoughts?
Comments
Are you going to sell your version of lips like sugar?
No, but it got me to thinking... especially after I read that you can't use any of the Launchpad packs in your commercial productions. With their loop packs they explicitly say the artist own the rights and you are only free to share your creations using them. That's it. Period.
I'd more likely want to use something as background soundtrack or possible in a TV commercial, but most of the time I'd just as soon by royalty-free stock with that stuff so that I don't have to worry about it.
Mostly just curious. What if I did want to sell it?
I'm sure that i read somewhere that it doesn't matter what you do to a sample, how much you process it, it is still the property of the original 'recorder'
If you process so much that the original is no longer recognisable, then is it possible for someone to prove what the original material was ?
There is the principle of "new and different" applied to intellectual property cases but it's pretty subjective, as you might imagine.
As for fair use, I urge you to read any of the articles written about Girl Talk. Those articles put fair use in a very practical context for sampling musicians.
Only ever if there's money.
This is only true for Artist Soundpacks (i.e. NinjaTune Artists). You can't use this for commercial use.
However, for Non-Artist packs (most of the packs in Launchpad for iOS), these you can use commercially. You just can't re-sell the loops.
I hope that helps?
@skiphunt -- actually in Launchpad, it's the new(er) Ninja Tunes packs that can't be used legally in your commercial song. The regular packs are from Loopmasters and can be used in a commercial recording (with limits).
From the Loopmasters site (via Launchpad site)...
"As a summary, all of the Loopmasters samples included with the app are royalty free. In terms of the license, you can use them in your tracks and don't owe money to Loopmasters or Novation. The only thing you can't do is make the samples available individually again"
Edit* was too slow...didn't see Lauchpad comments above **
Same here!
If it is totally unrecognisable then no-one could ever make the connection with the original track(s). But like everyone says, if no many is made that point is moot.
It wasn't even Sting who wrote the melody it was Andy Summers, and he got screwed by both of them for a long time
It becomes a derivative work and is subject to licensing from the original copyright holder. This will likely only be an issue if you a.) publish something even if only for free on SC, YT, etc. (yes, even then CR takedowns occur), b.) publish something for sale c.) perform something live for any kind of remuneration.
If you are playing it to yourself or, .e.g. a group of friends at, say, a party, then no issue.
I believe so yes, Sting won because he owned the copyright to the song, even though Summers came up with the melody he had no rights to the money made from its re-use even though it was the riff that was used by Puff D.
It just goes to show you should trust no-one when drawing up contracts within bands for ownership/copyright etc...., and it is the cause of many bands splitting up.
Bands like U2 who have an equal split agreement will always outlast those where one individual gets the lions share, as money is never the subject of an argument or dispute.
Oh I DO have sympathy for anyone who has been shafted by this sort of thing. That was my point
The advice being based on the fact that if a dispute gets to court it is only what is in the contracts etc that matters, friendship and gentlemen's agreements go out of the window.
Copyright is a minefield which is why the legal costs are so high, it is very difficult to say if something is original or not, and if it is not original, has the person making the 'copy' even seen or heard the original ?
On the bright side, we don't have to pay in order to play 'Happy Birthday' any more
@Launchpadforios that's actually good to know. It was keeping me from buying. If I'm free to use non-artist packs commercially (just not resell loops), I might have to pick up a couple. thx
This is the key. If money is exchanged and the original is recognizable and contributes in some way to the said procurement of money from a consumer, then it's trouble. Girl Talk skirted all this by making all of his recordings free downloads (and proper attribution, etc). He makes all his money from live performances.
smack it up, flip it, and rub it down.
SXSW 2010