Hi there. I currently own Solaria and Kevin, and as I understand it, I can use any music I create with them for commercial purposes witout paying royalties to Dreamtonics.
However, reading the licence agreement, I see that one of the terms states that t Dreamtonics can change the licence terms at any point without informing the user.
Does this mean that if I released a song comercially, Dreamtonics could change the terms unilaterally and start demanding royalties on the song?
Even if they changed the terms, they wouldn’t be retroactive to music produced before the terms were changed.
I’m fairly sure this kind of phrase appears in lots of "EULA"s without ever being invoked. I assume it just covers them from tying themselves down should the need arise due to market forces or legal necessity, bearing in mind this has to acceptable (and enforceable) in multiple countries, and in a fledgeling technology.
Thank you for your responses. It would be nice to hear some clarification from a representative if Dreamtonics if they are reading. I’d hate to have a song get mild success on a streaming service (however unlikely that is) only to find I need to take it down at a later date else be charged.
The term you refer to also explicitly states that it takes effect when the change is made.
5.1 Dreamtonics may change the content of this Agreement without prior notice to the User. Such modification will take effect at once when it is made. This Agreement may be terminated by the sole resolution of Dreamtonics if You breach this Agreement.
If you need more explicit confirmation, Dreamtonics does not respond via the forums. You can contact them at [email protected].
I understand that at this point, Dreamtonics is a software company trying to sell software. If they decided not allowing/trying to demonetize people to publish their creations made with this software, the software sales would decrease considerably and it would harm their bussiness. Customers will quickly find an alternative that wouldnt chase them.
If in the future it happens that a song made with one of their voices achieves great success, there is a lot of royalties associated to it, and everyone wants to use that same voice, etc… and they decide to claim performing royalties for that song to get a cut… not sure how that would work. Proving it is their performance would be impossible since it is not. Maybe they could a find a way to claim rights on the vocal footprint of their singer, but that actually should belong to the person that the voice wastaken from. And a vocal footprint is not a performance. It is the person programming the song who is making the performance.
In my head, this is just a virtual instrument. Could toontrack claim performing royalties for me using SD3 for my drum-tracks, EZ keys for my keyboards or EZ bass for my bass lines? or Native Instruments for using a Kontakt instrument? only if I use one of their MIDI packs? but would they sell those MIDI packs if people finds they chase their customers for using them?
I wouldnt worry about that unless you see that actually happening. These companies are making more money from me by selling me their software than they could ever make from royalties of my creations (which would be 0 at this point XD).
If it was in the EULA, yes they could. This thread is about whether changes to an EULA could retroactively claim royalties.
There are vocal synths that require additional contracts to use commercially. Eleanor Forte AI has a clause that if your usage exceeds $1000/year net revenue, you must contact them to negotiate a further contract, which could involve royalties.
There are also many vocal synth products (mostly Vocaloid products, but also Xia Yu Yao for SynthV Studio) where you must request permission before publishing a commercial work (though this doesn’t necessarily involve royalties). This is usually a formality to ensure the contents of the songs do not violate the EULA or negatively impact their brand, since vocal synth products that include a character often serve as the “face” of a song, which is a distinct difference from traditional virtual instruments.
Claiming royalties retroactively after a unilateral decision to change a contract would be unlawful in any country with a normal legal system.
I think I maybe didn’t explain myself clearly. I’m not concerned about retroactive royalty demands. That would of course not be legal as Perry just said.
My question is about if a change in the terms of contract could, from the point of the change onward, lead to royalties being demanded. At that point it would mean either taking the song down and re-doing the vocals, or coughing up.
Changes to the contract would only affect something created after the change to the contract.
Something created prior to the change would be covered by the terms of the contract under which it was created.
So no - changes to the contract could not create royalties being demanded if they didn’t exist under the contract at the time it was created.
Thanks Arbor_Lea for bringing up the subject. It would be great if Dreamtonics clearly states that there may be changes of some sort, but this particular issue would not be one of them, to ease uncertainty about the subject.