Poll: Ethics of profiling using Impulse Responses

  • So Marshall designs, manufactures and sells a speaker cab, this is the holy grail of guitar tone and everyone wants it. A guy buys one and makes an IR of that cab and sells the IR's for a profit. Then you make a Kemper profile of an amp using that IR and sell it. What's the difference? Does the guy making the IR pay Marshall royalties? Just a thought...

  • So Marshall designs, manufactures and sells a speaker cab, this is the holy grail of guitar tone and everyone wants it. A guy buys one and makes an IR of that cab and sells the IR's for a profit. Then you make a Kemper profile of an amp using that IR and sell it. What's the difference? Does the guy making the IR pay Marshall royalties? Just a thought...

    I think - legally - that the difference is that the IR comes with a specific license stating what you can and can't do with it.


    Ethically... Good question. The IR is basically a very limited representation of the cab (based the "author's" own personal expertise and taste). The profile made based on that IR is, conversely (at least potentially) NOT a limited representation of the IR, and NOT based on the person doing the profile's own expertise and taste, wrt. to the IR portion.

  • Unfortunately an IR profile is like a software product, not like an amp or a microphone. So you don't actually own the IR, you get a license to use it in a limited fashion.


    For example from Celestion's site https://www.celestionplus.com/eula/


    "The Product is licensed, not sold, to you ..."


    Also, you are NOT allowed to create derivative work and distribute it - this is from the US section of the EULA but the same is there in the UK one:


    You agree that you will not:

    • copy, modify, create or attempt to create derivative works or improvements of any Product, or any portions thereof, to any person without prior written consent from us;


    So legally - if it is a Celestion profile - you can only record and perform with the profile. You cannot make a Kemper profile out of it and distribute it to anyone. Seems like if you make a Kemper profile and use that on a recording (or live), you are ok as long as you do not "make it available" to anyone else.


    As for what is ethical - I am not sure that software licenses that are this limiting are ethical :)

  • The problem is that the terms "derivative works" and "improvements" have VERY specific meanings and applications in the IP legal world, a world that's beyond my pay grade.


    Taking a Celestion IR, converting it and importing it into a Kemper profile means you're [re]distributing the IR essentially unchanged and unaltered. The illegality seems obvious to me.


    But loading the same IR into a UA OX (the OX can do that, right?) and then profiling that whole signal chain seems like a completely different beast. The new profile is a completely new creation. Sure, the IR had a role in influencing the sound of the profile, but the original IR is not included in any way shape or form.

  • You agree that you will not:

    • copy, modify, create or attempt to create derivative works or improvements of any Product, or any portions thereof, to any person without prior written consent from us;


    So legally - if it is a Celestion profile - you can only record and perform with the profile. You cannot make a Kemper profile out of it and distribute it to anyone. Seems like if you make a Kemper profile and use that on a recording (or live), you are ok as long as you do not "make it available" to anyone else.


    As for what is ethical - I am not sure that software licenses that are this limiting are ethical :)

    Where is it specified in the EULA that you're allowed to record and perform using their IR's? I'm not arguing you can't, however a derivative work could potentially be construed as a recording.

  • Where is it specified in the EULA that you're allowed to record and perform using their IR's? I'm not arguing you can't, however a derivative work could potentially be construed as a recording.


    Exactly the argument I made some posts back. Sure, they haven't come after you... yet.


    But based on such a strict definition of "derivative works" as some people are arguing, you can't even use them to create profiles for personal use.


    Even more worrying, there's nothing stopping someone unscrupulous with deep pockets from continuously haranguing you with legal cases, perhaps in multiple jurisdictions, with the intent of forcing you to pay them for a hit record.


    This is even more true because they don't define "derivative works" anywhere.

  • The problem is that the terms "derivative works" and "improvements" have VERY specific meanings and applications in the IP legal world, a world that's beyond my pay grade.


    Taking a Celestion IR, converting it and importing it into a Kemper profile means you're [re]distributing the IR essentially unchanged and unaltered. The illegality seems obvious to me.


    But loading the same IR into a UA OX (the OX can do that, right?) and then profiling that whole signal chain seems like a completely different beast. The new profile is a completely new creation. Sure, the IR had a role in influencing the sound of the profile, but the original IR is not included in any way shape or form.


    I think the OX can't load IRs, which is pretty sad. I've seen a lot of complaints about the fact that there's no V30 speaker in there.


    I think how IR makers ensure that someone isn't selling their IRs under some other name is by using them in a tool that compares IRs.


    In that regard, if the IR has gone through processing, etc, and is then being used as a Kemper cabinet - and I'm not just saying lifting and pasting, I am saying after completely running that sucker through preamps and compression, etc - I'm not even sure they have a case.


    At any rate, it doesn't strike me as some kind of nefarious usage of the product, it seems quite fair and to be expected when you are selling something which is only suitable to used as a guitar cabinet.

  • benvigil  ColdFrixion Yes, these are the murky areas. I work in software so I had to spend more time on these things that I would ever want. That being said, I am not an attorney, so these are only my best guesses.


    The way I picture it in my head is this. The IR profile is like a library. (As opposed to say a full application, like an editor or a compiler.) For libraries the "derivative work" generally means that you linked to that library - meaning that some functionality / code of that library is now part of your work. (Let's not go even deeper into static vs dynamic linking as that would complicate things more.)


    If you record with the IR, you basically are just using what it was designed to do - modifying the sound of the signal. If this is not allowed, then there is no point in having IRs as you literally cannot do anything with them :P (From the license perspective this is similar to using an editor to create a document is not considered derivative work in general.)


    If you "compile" that IR into a new profile, that is derivative work. If you distribute that (without written permission from Celestion) you clearly violate the EULA.


    Now I think that using the IR in the Kemper for yourself and only to produce sound (live or record) should be ok. If you think about it, the IR alone cannot do anything. You are basically "loading" that into a DAW too when using it that way. So while technically it may be derivative work, this derivative work is only used to make sound. Should not matter if you do this on a laptop or on a specialized computer, known as the Kemper. I think in this case the lack of actual re-distribution is the key. It is on your own Kemper(s) and you use these only to make sounds. You are not letting anyone else have this derivative work, only the finished music.


    It is also likely that if you in fact want to make commercial profiles with commercial IRs, they would sell you a (much more expensive) license to do so.


    I also agree, if you profile something with a mic and Kemper that is "running" one of these IRs, that should not be considered derivative work.

  • I find it a bit funny that we're discussing ethics of profiling tones from IRs, when they are just taking the tone from actual cabinets, which is essentially what we're doing with our Kempers. Either it's all bad, or it's not.

    Not peculiar to me in the least to me. When you make an IR, you are not making a copy of the cab - you're making vast decisions about the tone which has a huge impact on the sound. Not so when you simply copy the IR (or profile the IR, or convert it into Kemper format).


    Whether it is ethical or not, it is NOT the same at all.

  • Not peculiar to me in the least to me. When you make an IR, you are not making a copy of the cab - you're making vast decisions about the tone which has a huge impact on the sound. Not so when you simply copy the IR (or profile the IR, or convert it into Kemper format).


    Whether it is ethical or not, it is NOT the same at all.

    When creating an IR of a cab, you are mic'ing the cabinet, and sending a full range sound through it. The process is very similar to creating a profile, unless you are talking about EQ Tone Matched IRs.

  • All well and good, though sans a legal definition of "derivative works", it's purely speculative.


    Since the KPA's Cab Driver uses an intelligent algorithm to guess where the line of separation is between an Amp and Cab in a Studio profile, the Cab section doesn't contain a perfect reproduction of the real cabinet, thus substituting an IR for a real mic and cab in a Studio profile yields an imperfect copy of said IR. For instance, compare the cab section of a Merged vs. Studio profile. Given the imperfect nature of the IR reproduction with respect to Studio profiles, no, I don't believe there's an ethical delimma. Merged profiles? Maybe, but ethics aside, I'd prefer profiles creators use an actual mic and cab rather than IR's.

  • When creating an IR of a cab, you are mic'ing the cabinet, and sending a full range sound through it. The process is very similar to creating a profile, unless you are talking about EQ Tone Matched IRs.

    Making a profile of an amp = looking at that amp through a keyhole (as in you don't get the complete amp + cab in the room, you get a representation of ONE possible sound - which can then be tweaked further).


    Making an IR = same - looking at the cab through a keyhole


    Converting an IR to a kemper cab = getting the whole IR - NOT just a "keyhole representation". Thus, not the same thing.

  • I think - legally - that the difference is that the IR comes with a specific license stating what you can and can't do with it.


    Ethically... Good question. The IR is basically a very limited representation of the cab (based the "author's" own personal expertise and taste). The profile made based on that IR is, conversely (at least potentially) NOT a limited representation of the IR, and NOT based on the person doing the profile's own expertise and taste, wrt. to the IR portion.

    Good point.

  • Making a profile of an amp = looking at that amp through a keyhole (as in you don't get the complete amp + cab in the room, you get a representation of ONE possible sound - which can then be tweaked further).


    Making an IR = same - looking at the cab through a keyhole


    Converting an IR to a kemper cab = getting the whole IR - NOT just a "keyhole representation". Thus, not the same thing.

    Making profiles of all settings of an analog hardware cabsim (like the Palmer pdi 03 jb for example) IS getting the whole unit! This is not a keyhole representation.


    You could say almost the same with direct amp profiles. There are not too many options that make sense - you can easily capture "everything needed" of an amp head. And with direct amp profiles there is no human factor or talent needed. Everyone can do it. If you make "exaggerated" 500 direct amp profiles of a 1 channel amp head - selling that pack is not a keyhole representation, it's the whole beast!

  • Building upon the software library analogy (I dev software too), the KPA would be a software program that can replicate the behavior of any Windows program by examining the behavior of the program and spitting out a completely new Linux application. I know this wouldn't fly legally, but I haven't gotten to my point yet...


    Now suppose that Windows program linked to a 3rd party, licensed, and paid for, library for some functionality. During the profiling the KPA software didn't simply copy the library to Linux and relink to it. Instead, it profiled the libraries behavior right along with the program. IOW, it created a whole new program with the library's behavior baked in, never redistributing it.


    That's how I see the difference between loading an IR into an existing KPA profile and selling it (i.e. illegally copying the library to Linux and redistributing it), versus using an IR in a larger signal chain, perhaps with other IRs, EQs, etc., and profiling that signal chain (baking in the library behavior in the new Linux app).

  • Bah...put a license on it, do you want a royalty? Fine then i'll pay it. OTHERWISE. ...Mean time like 99% of the population we are gong to use them this way any how.... unless you specify. :).


    Ash

    Have a beer and don't sneer. -CJ. Two non powered Kempers -Two mission stereo FRFR Cabs - Ditto X4 -TC electronic Mimiq.

  • Making profiles of all settings of an analog hardware cabsim (like the Palmer pdi 03 jb for example) IS getting the whole unit! This is not a keyhole representation.


    You could say almost the same with direct amp profiles. There are not too many options that make sense - you can easily capture "everything needed" of an amp head. And with direct amp profiles there is no human factor or talent needed. Everyone can do it. If you make "exaggerated" 500 direct amp profiles of a 1 channel amp head - selling that pack is not a keyhole representation, it's the whole beast!

    Fair point - the lines get a bit more blurry with extensive profiling.

    That being said, I still think there is some difference. Some people sell all their amps when they get their KPA - but I recently bought a Marshall DSL18HR head and a cab because I want a "real" amp too. It wouldn't matter if I had profiles of that amp at every setting under the sun. In some ways, it may actually be down to user interface, haha. I like having a good ol' amp too, due to the simplicity of it. Whereas if we were comparing just an IR to a kemper capture ( cab maker conversion, for example) I wouldn't care about the difference. I especially see your point for the Palmer pdi03 jb.


    Legally, it is a different thing altogether due to the IPR laws being different (software licensing vs patents)

  • I forgot the name of the conversion tool to convert from IR to .kipr so I looked it up.


    Just to confuse the situation more, the first link found was from the Celestion site, including the Kemper video about the process:


    https://www.celestionplus.com/…emper-profiler-celestion/


    Now, clearly this workflow shows you buying the IRs, converting them, loading them onto your Kemper and using them. However there is NO mention of redistributing these new profiles on the site.


    Maybe the best would be if Kemper could take a stand here, the company likely has at least one guy who is better versed in corporate law than we are ;) and also, since they created Cab Maker, they have to know how much conversion is taking place, what the formats are, how derivative the work is, etc.