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.
Is this copyright infringement?
I just made a new video for youtube. Since the song includes lots of timbres using a specific iOS synth, I recorded the screen of my iPad with the synth open, whenever its sound was introduced or brought to foreground. Is this allowed? I know I can use my guitar and hardware synths in video without caring to hide the brand name, logos etc., because if I own a instrument, I can use wherever and whenever I want, including in a video. But with software instruments, it's not so obvious to me, since with software, we don't own it, but instead a license to use it. Do someone know the answer? Otherwise, I'll have to edit the video all over again. Thank you!
Comments
I guess theoretically it is, but YouTube is full to the brim of 'first impressions/unboxing' type videos, so unless you're harming their brand I doubt it'd be a problem.
I think unboxing is like a review, and thus covered by fair use. The thing I want to know it, can I display the recorded screen of a software instrument in my videos the same way I can appear playing, say, a Fender Startocaster or a Roland DX7?
I should read the EULA. Why they don't make it simple and short?
I don't think you have anything to worry about, particularly if no income is involved. Even if you were in violation of something, they are required to send you a notice to cease and desist. As long as you comply, there shouldn't be a problem.
If you want to CYA, you could add notes in the description like "Such&Such is a trademark of Such&Such, Inc. No endorsement or approval by Such&Such is expressed or implied."
There's no copyright infringement for using an instrument to make something uniquely yours, even a software instrument.
If you tried to create your own software instrument using another software instrument's code that would be another story, because you're taking someone's work, but with music you are the author so they have no claim to something you have created (nor would anyone in their right mind make such a claim).
The one case where a copyright claim may come into play is when using loops or samples, which are written by someone else, but even loops and samples tend to be sold with the agreement that you can use them commercially. Just be sure to check first.
Here's my policy: I encourage everyone to use my instruments in as many videos as possible
@theconnactic, if that was true, imagine how many problems would have thesoundtestroom making their tutorials.
I'm sure you're not doing anything wrong.
Not necessarily the case for a video - the logo for example would be copyright of the owner, and theoretically you'd need permission to use it. I'm guessing most companies would have the same approach as @brambos and enjoy the extra promotion, but some could be twitchy about it, particularly if it's at odds with their brand.
Right on!!
@theconnactic Worry not.
As most of you probably know, my apps are heavy on loop and sample content, and in theory, using the apps' generative capabilities, you could base a whole track around something the app "composed" for you. And my policy is that you can use that for whatever you like, wherever you like - that's kinda the whole point of my apps.
A simple credit (if possible / appropriate) is all I ask.
Thank you, folks! I edited out most of of the screen recorded parts, and edited the ones that's left so the logos don't appear and the interface is barely recognizable.
i think this is unfounded and excessive worry
I'd say the answer is here:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2490020?hl=en
Yeah I knew someone who said that once - he used to grab stock photography from the web without paying and use it on his website. Until a well known U.S. photo library sent him a bill for tens of thousands of pounds - which, as he hadn't purchased the original they had every right to do.
I would recommend taking copyright very seriously. In cases like this I'd do the polite thing and check with the owners of the software first, just to see they're ok with it.
Yes, @MonzoPro! And since I cannot find a clear answer anywhere about my particular case, I decided to edit most of the screens out, and what's left is heavily edited beyond (easy) recognition. Thank you all!
Good plan. I'm sure it would have been fine as most developers would enjoy the free publicity, but you can never know for sure without getting their approval.
If you are going to go with that analogy i would say it's closer to state that canon sued him for making the original images with their equipment. This is an instrument. If an instrument maker starts suing musicians that paid them money to use them for musicmaking purposes it would be ridiculous. Oh and also helping them sell their products with free advertising. But i'm no lawyer.
There's no way to say this without sounding provocative, but why would you deserve a credit?
He would appreciate it is what he was saying.
That's fine. But are these loops categorically more proprietary than, say, the royalty-free loops in Blocs Wave? Ah, I'm just being cranky. I find as a grownup in a creative field, a lot of millennials tend to expect a published credit for simply doing a job they were contracted for. That said, the job market they face demands constant self-promotion. It's a bind.
It probably says something that I'm still impressed with the acknowledgments line on the first PiL record: "Public Image Ltd. would like to thank absolutely nobody, thank you."
Apparently:
He’s spent literally thousands of pounds on iPad apps. ‘Fortunes! My band recommended an iPad to me – well! That was whisky to the Indians. I got well fascinated with the games: the car racing games, the battleship games, the war games. I love ’em. I suppose you could call it somewhat addictive. You can’t stop and you have to let it run its course, and then when the bill comes in… haha! Reality bites.’
I guessed that. I'd like to see you use that argument in court and see how far it gets you.
We're not talking about using an instrument on an audio recording, the OP was questioning the use of the software in a promotional video, which is a different matter. There is no assumed permission to feature copyrighted material, such as logos in promotional videos or still images, and depending on the company involved that owns it, they can get very twitchy about it and the control of their brand.
Just because people do it, doesn't make it ok. Just because some companies are happy for the free promotion doesn't mean they'll all be.
My advice would be to check first, and cover your ass.
I have dealt with lawyers and courts several times. It's a surprisingly new and different world when you've never experienced it before. Especially when there's money involved. If you've never gone to court for anything serious you have no idea.
Sorry Dimitri, resistance to this man is futile. It's his jawline. Monumental. Swoon.
Most definitely toast
I see several sides of this; but what came foremost to my little mind is this: If I video record a performance of me playing my Yamaha Keyboard (or whatever brand) I'm not going to cover their logo with tape... but to be safe, maybe I should? I don't think I've ever seen this, but with weird copyright laws, who really knows what should be done?
Instrument manufacturers seem to make a point of prominently displaying their logos exactly where the audience will see them, so why would a software instrument be any different in regards to seeing their logos? Just throwing that out there.
Sorry. I understand the Fear of Lawyers here, but this is just not common sense (not you Toz, the overall Fear). Do you think if I am making a movie and I have a scene where my wife drives up in a car I need to put tape over the Audi logo in case of copyright infringement? No.