I’m not sure if this has been addressed in the past, hence I’m posting to the help forum. I realize if this has not been discussed with conclusion, you may have to rattle a few Commons legal cages to get an answer.

((Using quotations to indicate explicit language in the print material or sites.)) If bands clearly release samples, a capellas, studio tracks, etc. for both the purposes of "remix[es]" and "non-commercial us[ag]e" would it be permissable to upload remixes involving this material (under the NC license)? What if the material is simply stated to be OK for "non-commercial us[ag]e"? What about contest materials from other sites that explicitly allow "non-commercial" use?

I also wonder about about "royalty-free" sample pools and samples with "free-to-use" statements (that is, the creator/owner stating in plain language that posted material is free to be used). Are those acceptable for inclusion in mixes?

Now, let me be clear that I have no intention of posting any such source material here without a clear license to distribute. However I will gladly link the appropriate reference (whether pointing to a description of a physical product or to the correct webstite).

Sorry for such a PITA question, but I am sure as more and more similar sources come online it will become more and more of a concern. Besides if these are useable sources, using them (with appropriate links) will in short order greatly expand ccMixter’s overall "sample pool".

*meow*

Hey Porch,

The unfortunate part is that you’re asking for legal advice ("is it legal to use samples from ‘source xyz’ on ccMixter?") and you will never get that kind of advice from staff because no one at Creative Commons is allowed to give any kind of legal advice whatsoever.

The rule is: if you own or are given permission from the owner of the sound to post material to the web under a Creative Commons license then it’s ok to post.

Personally speaking I’ve interpreted most of the licenses to say that I own the music created with those loop sets. As long as I significally mangle the loops/samples into something new and something that can’t be interpreted as redistribution of the loops library itself, I would be ok. But it’s on a case by case basis and I’m not a lawyer and following my example could very well get you sued for using ACID loops incorrectly — I used to say Sony would be insane to sue their customers just for using their loop products, but considering that Sony music division has no problem suing their customers and installing root-kit viruses on their laptops because they suspect them of being Al Qaeda or something, I can no longer say with confidence that "sanity" is a consideration over there.

I also interpreted cases like when the Beastie Boys say "for personal use only" to be a legal loophole for their lawyers to come after someone who starts to use their pells in a way they don’t like. It’s a big loophole so our site policy has been to not allow those pells on the site since it doesn’t look like you own the resultant remix.

VS