Tunecore rejects music made by NI - Damage Rhythmic Suits (Resolved -Incorrect Reaction by TuneCore)

somecomposer · 2022-02-10T21:38:14+00:00

There was an error rendering this rich post.

Something extremely concerning has happened to people I know and to me when I made an experiment.

People I came across, had their music rejected by Tunecore and Spotify because the claim was that the AI copyright strike by Tunecore and Spotify was registering mastered recordings (calling them e.g. mastered recordings by another artist) and all there were, just recordings using Virtual Instruments and Rhythmic suites from Cubase, NI etc.

I made an experiment\ and I wrote a piece of music to which I used rhythmic suites from Damage and Evolve & Evolve mutations.

The piece was rejected, with a reminder (threat) by Tunecore that they would charge me at least $300 for legal fees should a dispute arise....

So, what is the deal here guys? I am working as a professional composer. I need to use these libraries for my work. If I need to issue an album, this is hugely embarrassing to me, not to mention that this could cause me legal issues...

Why is this happening, can't NI sort this out with Spotify and Tunecore????

people like my self pay out hard earned money to be able to use these libraries in filmscores...if music using these libraries is rejected by Tunecore and Spotify...what's the point?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

BLAIR

Not sure if someone already commented this, but I guess when the AI hears that NI loop, it thinks it is part of that song, and when it hears it in yours well it simply thinks its stolen. It doesn't know about native instruments. I've known about a few of these situations, but not with some ****** threatening $300 lol. I wonder if they just send that out to everyone in this situation to make more money, they probs don't sue everyone haha.

Actionable thing you could do tho is contact tunecore's support, its just (support AT tunecore.com)

and just explain to them the situation + show proof like a screen recording of where the sound comes from.

Kaiwan_NI

The life was much easier before Copyright came. And has been used to very extreme.....

Copyright sure helps musicians make a living off of their art, but you're right when it's become a race things start to get ugly.

somecomposer

Hi there,

It was a false alarm.

I confronted them and they made it clear that they didn't question anything (copyright/recordings/DAW/VSTis).

They told me that they just wanted to make sure I had 100% rights to release this.

But the language was heavy, intimidating and very vague.

Anyhow , the issue is over now, but it was very unpleasant...

Milkman

Modern copyright law is despicable, it is abused easily, and it is something I oppose at a core philosophical level. I will never publish my music anywhere except my old Soundclick, or my own personally owned & operated hosting, and I will never publish under anything but creative commons, very much like a number of artists did via Wired magazine back in 2004 with "The Wired CD".

Recall: when someone bought and copyrighted Happy Birthday? Yikes, we live in a intellectual property dystopia, meanwhile many young people think aligning pre-made loops and 'stems' on a sequencer is original music, and dont understand when those easily abused mechanisms find similarity between 1800 different tracks that all use the same sample. Copyright strikes arent something any of us should be comfortable with, but then again if you want to be a super rich musician, I guess copyright is a-ok.

Kubrak

@Kaiwan_NI said

Copyright sure helps musicians make a living off of their art, but you're right when it's become a race things start to get ugly.

But, at least in SW, it protects and not protects.... I have made a piece of SW and sold it to company. The contract was I get some money immediately and then the share on future sales... And what they did? They paid an programmer to analyze my program and program something with almost identical functionality... And so there was no violation of my copyright... :-(

Equivalent in popular music might be. Not so much establised musician comes with his demo to producer. He pays him something and promises to pay more if it sells well. And asks the star to rework it and make it TOP10 hit....

But what I meant was, that in very past pre-copyright times, there was more freedom for creators to base their work on other's work. And they also could make living... Painters even did not sign their works, they did not consider it to be their personal work, they more considered themselves as channels of the God.

Kaiwan_NI

They paid an programmer to analyze my program and program something with almost identical functionality... And so there was no violation of my copyright... :-(

Dang that was nasty. So sorry that happened to you.

Kubrak

That is not all. I helped them to save their company, I fixed their program they were not able to and their customer heavily complained about its malfunction. And they did not want to pay me, I had to sue them. And that is not all. They used black magic to stop me to join competition for another project, they knew I would win, but they wanted to win....

Fortunately, I have joined competition at the very last moment. I brought it minute before closing of the competition and I joined only because being kept asked to join. I won and the customer uses it happily for 20+ years, already. :-)

I was young, ambitious. And plain stupid. Concerning that company that scrued me several times....

somecomposer

https://community.native-instruments.com/discussion/comment/6082#Comment_6082

Yeah, there are awful people out there, I honestly don't know how some people can sleep at night.

Also battle-scarred as I am sure many professionals are, who have stories that would fill an entire bookshelf...

eye776

Yep it is pretty much a race to the bottom, first to register is first to "own" the samples, even as the actual owner of the samples is either NI or whichever other VST maker.

Unfortunately it appears that the only real solution to this is yet another layer of electronic registries against which the AI will have to check the samples, because lawyers actively prefer complex contracts with potentially conflicting clauses because that is how they get paid.

This will undoubtedly drive the cost of VSTs up. And recording your own samples is not always the solution because if you have a common instrument setup and use common chord progressions, the AI will still flag those as "infringing". The AI is not actually intelligent per se, it is a complex statistical machine that basically flags everything within a certain degree of "similarity".

Psyearth5

man...try to resample , record 5 octave then play it in 4th. do something because it is a unclear why they reject your music. but with maschine you at least have many resampling options. i wich you the best

tribepop

I’m not a copyright expert but I would imagine that whatever material NI releases as part of their instruments, libraries, expansions, etc. it would fall under some kind of fair use or Creative Commons type of copyright where you are free to use this material as part of any personal or commercial work you want without attribution. Like you don’t have to specify that this music was made using these specific NI sample libraries. In my mind any material being put out there for use as a sample library should be considered fair game even if someone takes that sample and then copyrights a song using that sample. You shouldn’t break any copyright laws for using that sample but you may break a law if you’re sampling the copyrighted song that uses that sample. All of the copyright stuff is about to go belly up once AI really starts kicking off as we’re already seeing with the art community so it’s gonna be real interesting to see what happens in the coming years.

davidcreel

Hey there, I completely understand your frustration and concern about the situation with Tunecore rejecting music made using Virtual Instruments like NI's Damage Rhythmic Suites. It's definitely a perplexing and troubling issue that many creators are facing.

It's disheartening to hear that even after your experiment, the rejection issue persisted. It's crucial for platforms like Tunecore and Spotify to accurately identify copyright issues and prevent any legal disputes, but it seems like there might be a misunderstanding here. Virtual Instruments are widely used by professionals in the music industry, especially for film scores, and rejecting legitimate creations can indeed cause unnecessary embarrassment and legal troubles.

Your suggestion about NI (Native Instruments) sorting this out with Tunecore and Spotify is valid. Collaborations between software developers and distribution platforms are essential to ensure that genuine content isn't unfairly flagged or rejected.

On another note, since you're dealing with this issue, I'd like to suggest a workaround for showcasing your work. Consider uploading your rejected tracks to platforms like SoundCloud or Bandcamp. These platforms might have a different approach to copyright detection, and you can still share your music with your audience without the fear of immediate rejection or legal fees.

Moreover, you might want to explore other distribution options aside from Tunecore. DistroKid, for instance, is known for its user-friendly and efficient distribution service, and they might have a more understanding approach to Virtual Instrument usage in music production.

Lastly, you mentioned using YouTube for sharing your work. If you're concerned about music distribution and visibility, I'd like to INSIST that you explore downloading and installing YouTube Vanced. This modified version of the YouTube app offers additional features and customization options, which could potentially enhance your experience as a content creator.

Remember, your dedication to your craft is commendable, and it's important that your hard work is recognized and appreciated without unnecessary obstacles. Keep pushing forward, and I hope you find a resolution to this issue soon!

Quick links

Unanswered questions