Is it legal to use famous producer's drum kits ?

Most of em don't care.
The green lama for instance, I think that dumbass is oddwin lol.

But on some seriousness, use any kits you find if ya want because quite frankly, it does not matter and no one cares :p

Also, it is possible to create your own since there are many, many, many tools out there for that already.
Battery
Kong
Drumaxx
Tremor
Any regular synthesizer with a noise module and regular module
Sampling.
Ricky Romero vst.
 
Last edited:
I'd wager a lot of the so-called "producer kits" are illegally sampled - in other words, those selling them haven't cleared those rights to those recordings. Of course if it's being officially sold, it's a different thing.
 
Well if you sampled ?uest's drums because he's actually playing the drums, he might come after you.

But can't you just dig and search for sounds on your own??
 
Sure, they're just individual sounds. Sampling complete drum rhythms is another thing. I use drum kits to get real (at least better) sounding drum hits. How the kicks and snares and hats are drawn out is still unique and your style of music. Drum kits are fine, sure. It's why producers sell them.
 
Last edited:
Sure, they're just individual sounds. Sampling complete drum rhythms is another thing. I use drum kits to get real (at least better) sounding drum hits. How the kicks and snares and hats are drawn out is still unique and your style of music. Drum kits are fine, sure. It's why producers sell them.

Just to be clear, just because they're "just individual sounds" doesn't make them (other people's recordings) any more legal - it just makes it practically impossible for most people to notice where a sound came from, especially after your own processing. But, truth be told, I don't think there's ever been an actual lawsuit based on just single (drum)hits - the closest call is probably still the 2005 NWA vs Funkadelic case, with about 2 seconds of guitar sampled in 100 Miles And Runnin' (from Funkadelic). But frankly any of this'll hardly be an issue unless you're seriously blowing up and have a bunch of recognizable samples in your songs...it's good to be aware of this though.
 
Last edited:
An individual snare hit sounds pretty legal to me, ...and you're paying for it. It's a snare sound. Nobody can legally own it. It's not art or music. It's just a noise at that level. Until you craft it into something of value, it's just a sound.
 
And I'm not talking about samples. Sampling 4 measures of a drum fill (or a guitar melody) is bad, yes. But that's something of value. ONE individual snare hit or ONE individual high hat crash, is not. That's what I'm talking about.

It's like trying to legally own the color purple so people can't use purple to paint pictures. ...it doesn't make sense. lol
 
Last edited:
An individual snare hit sounds pretty legal to me, ...and you're paying for it. It's a snare sound. Nobody can legally own it. It's not art or music. It's just a noise at that level. Until you craft it into something of value, it's just a sound.

Somebody legally owns the recording though, technically. It's not claiming to own all similar snare sounds. That was the point - even single hits are theoretically in the grey area, even if practically it's a non-issue and I personally don't have anything against sampling. I think the bigger issue with selling "producer kits" isn't the fact that someone's sampling some drum hits, but rather that they're making money off other people's work.

I also think the whole thing gets more complex when you expand the thinking beyond just "drum hits": how do you define "one sound"? Are other sounds less permissible for free use than others? Is the brevity of the sound the defining factor here? If cymbals are ok, how about a gong that can go on for a minute or two? If that's ok, how about other "single sounds" that go on for just as long? Again, common sense of course tackles a lot of these questions, but it's not hard to see that drawing the line legally or technically is a bit more complex.
 
yo, an individual drum "hit" is not music. ...This is the 21st century.

it's like saying a color is copyright or under patent. Don't play lawyer bro, I have friends who are lawyers. You cannot own a specific individual sound. I mean, you can try to argue but ill be here making new pieces of music. Compositional works of music use sounds on an individual level, but on AGGREGATE make new music. ...bro, you can't own the color purple, it's public domain. Cheers.
 
Last edited:
who up, let me ask my lawyers. I'm a producer bro, but I have friends who are lawyers and like....ya they're asian and masters at pokemon go. lemme ask them lol, lol it's music brother.
 
Uh, not claiming that it's "music" and the color analogy is just off - I'm simply trying to explain that it's the recording that's protected: if you and I record the exact same snare with the same setup and they sound exactly the same, the one that I recorded is mine and the one that you recorded is yours, even if no one can tell them apart. No other snares would be "claimed" in this scenario besides our respective recordings' copyright belonging to us. That is, again, technically. In the real world it doesn't really matter, as already said, but the line where it does start to matter is blurred.
 
Look, you can change the pitch a drum hit so easily that this argument is pointless. And sampling would sure as hell be banned. I'm pretty sure if you change something enough to make something new, it's okay. The key word is enough. You can't take the the entire song like the blurred lines situation.

But a snare and kick hit, ...really? you can arrange them into whatever rhythm and beat you want.
 
Of course you can make almost anything unrecognizable, but that's just getting away with it. It doesn't erase the original recording's copyright, and that's exactly the point I was trying to get across to the OP & other beginners - if you sample without consent, go ahead, but be aware that there's no point at which it technically becomes legal. Not "don't do it" but "understand what you're doing"; changing something enough doesn't change that. Look up the NWA/Funkadelic case, as it's a good example - the lower court ruled the sample short & unrecognizable (because it's been pitched & is only two seconds long), but this was overturned.

I perfectly understand what you're saying, though, and this shouldn't stop anyone from experimenting with sampling.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top