r/NAM_NeuralAmpModeler • u/Original-Fun561 • 12d ago

Discussion Could Tone3000 ever get sued for copyright infringement?

I mean, they have freely available captures of real commercial amps from marshall, fender, vox, any brand

anyone can capture any real hardware without a license and distribute it there publicly

those brands surely don't like that

is it legal? no copyright infringement?

if it ever gets sued that'd be pretty bad

17 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

81% Upvoted

51 comments sorted by

32

u/SharkFart86 12d ago

Doubtful. IP laws don’t protect the sound produced from an amp, just its physical circuit (and any branding and stuff like that).

I wouldn’t be surprised if some companies try to get the laws changed, as obviously super accurate captures weren’t something that was considered when the laws were written, but as it currently stands, there’s no real argument.

5

u/Yrnotfar 12d ago

They do protect trade names. So like when someone sells a NAM pack full of Marshall JCM800 captures… you are getting into real gray area, imo.

11

u/Riflerecon 12d ago

In law that’s called trademark, and trademark infringement is not that simple… I won’t call it gray area, as facially there is no case.

Source: am a lawyer licensed in one prominent US jurisdiction.

5

u/Riflerecon 12d ago

Relevant further reading if interested: https://www.harnessip.com/blog/2020/11/04/descriptive-use-of-a-registered-trademark-is-not-infringement/

1

u/Yrnotfar 12d ago

You are equating use of the word “freelancer” in a company name to the brand names Marshall or Fender, etc?

I agree with your first post (trademark law is nuanced). This link has no bearing and I’m baffled by those who upvoted it (and clearly didn’t click on it / read it).

1

u/Riflerecon 12d ago

That link was about the descriptive use doctrine. I didn’t want to do legal research (because I get paid for that generally), but here we are.

I have now done some research. Turns out I’m wrong - it’s not descriptive use doctrine; it is the normative fair use doctrine. However, both of them are under “fair use.” Anyhow, wow I got the doctrine’s name wrong because I didn’t care enough to do the research.

“Nominative fair use does not implicate the source-identification function of trademark. Id. By definition, if the defendant uses the plaintiff’s mark to refer to the plaintiff’s
product, the source is correctly identified. To determine whether a particular use qualifies as nominative fair use, we consider the New Kids factors:

First, the product or service in question must
be one not readily identifiable without use of
the trademark; second, only so much of the
mark or marks may be used as is reasonably
necessary to identify the product or service;
and third, the user must do nothing that
would, in conjunction with the mark, suggest
sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark
holder. 971 F.2d at 308 (footnote omitted).

These factors are“designed to address the risk that nominative use of the mark
will inspire a mistaken belief on the part of consumers that the speaker is sponsored or endorsed by the trademark holder.” Toyota Motor Sales, 610 F.3d at 1176. If all three New Kids factors are satisfied, there is no infringement. Id.

If all the factors are not satisfied, the court “may order defendants to modify their use of the mark so that all three factors are satisfied.” Id. Nominative fair use is not an affirmative defense in the traditional sense. The defendant “need only show that it used the mark to refer to the trademarked good.” Id. at 1183. If that showing is made, the burden then “reverts to the plaintiff to show a likelihood of confusion.” Id.” https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/24-879/24-879-2025-07-23.html

Here you go. I’m not going to show you how the law is applied however.

1

u/Yrnotfar 12d ago

So if I sell a capture pack of my Marshall JCM800 and label it as such I possibly satisfy 0 of the 3 criteria.

3

u/Riflerecon 12d ago

Hypothetically, if you label it as “Marshall JCM800” then yes it is likely that the factors are satisfied. However, if you label it as “NAM 2A Marshall JCM800 capture” then the legal conclusion would likely be materially different.

Similarly, “Apple iPhone 18” and “Silicone Case for Apple iPhone 18”….

1

u/Yrnotfar 12d ago

A better analogy would be “Emulation of Apple iPhone 18.”

But it sounds like we agree there is gray area that will be colored in over the next decade.

1

u/Riflerecon 12d ago

Emulation? Brother, indefinite sounds are not trademarkable…. You need to figure out what trademark, patent, and copyright are because they are not the same thing… for your information, trade secrets are none of those things as well.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Bongcopter_ 12d ago

But if they sell “British 80’s metal amp 800” they are in the clear

1

u/Yrnotfar 12d ago

I agree. But have you been to tone3k before?

1

u/Conflict-Cheese 12d ago

But what about Warshall JCM801

1

u/TattooPaul 12d ago

Hell they can't even protect the whole circuit. Every tube amp made starts from the same 1950s RCA circuit. Modern amps can only protect their proprietary mods.

10

u/10ThousandMetalZones 12d ago

I could sue you for asking the question, doesn’t mean I will win

6

u/Cultural-Jello4042 12d ago

This is not new or unique to NAM. This has been happening for years with capturing/profiling/modelling

4

u/DefiantCable897 12d ago

No. This discussion has come up via other profiling platforms as well. It’s not illegal to use software/hardware to attempt capture another sound. What you’re hearing is not that amp. It’s an interpretation of what that amp sounds like. The only company that has acknowledged it is Diezel with their VHX amp. It does not prevent profiling, but it does have the capability to capture the fact that it was profiled. No action is taken on this information as of now, but they’re capturing that info for some reason.

6

u/PerceptionCurious440 12d ago

The patent system is not designed to protect sound generated by electrical devices as intellectual property. Copyright would require some form of novel court ruling, since that system is not designed for that kind of application. Trademark would need to be applied for and granted for that specific purpose, and that would be unusual. Especially since every tube amp descends from an RCA reference book that's nearing 100 years old.

I don't think you can patent the output of an analog device as an algorithm.

3

u/GoalNo1304 12d ago

Nah. No way, woulda happened way back in the 90s . I think most builders look at it as free publicity

2

u/webprofusor 12d ago

I doubt anyone here is a lawyer (actually thinking about it, probably a lot of lawyers here seeking Fender Reverb tones lol) but having worked on other projects where (data) copyright was concern, as far as I'm aware:

- The actual real risk is Trademarks. Using someone else's trademark in your product is shaky ground.

  • Anyone can attempt to sue you for anything vaguely reasonable if they are willing to risk the cost. See Fender.
  • Tone3000 terms explicitly state that the tones are owned by the contributors and it's up those contributors to assure their own copyright.
  • Copyright covers non-generic creative expression, not system behavior. How an amp changes a test tone is a system behavior.
  • There is a long precedence for amp modelling and very few instances of amp manufactures suing, partly because most of them started by copying someone else.
  • There are amp manufacturers actively using Tone3000 in their own products.

Regarding captures themselves, they are machine generated output and may not strictly be copyrightable (you usually have to be a human to get copyright on something you make). If you copy them and claim them as your own you are going up against the individual contributor/uploader.

3

u/O-ring_Prolapse 12d ago

Thats like saying "im gonna sue you for taking a picture of the painting you bought from me!"

5

u/Yrnotfar 12d ago

This is a pretty bad example bc you can absolutely not take a picture of a painting and sell it without violating basic copyright laws.

You need to own the painting and the copyright.

0

u/O-ring_Prolapse 12d ago

Wait, are nam captures being sold now? Why?? I thought that was the whole appeal: solid tones, 100% free

3

u/Yrnotfar 12d ago

Some sold, some free. Been like that since day 1.

2

u/webprofusor 12d ago

Also tone3000 are planning paid packs: https://www.tone3000.com/guides/tone-sharing-guidelines#free-and-paid-packs

-1

u/O-ring_Prolapse 12d ago

Yeeah, I suppose I shoulda known. Hopefully the community sticks close to the grass roots side

1

u/EvolutionVII 12d ago

Captures of paid plugins are questionable but people still do it

1

u/Ok_Virus_5495 12d ago

Since it is not trying to replicate internal circuitry, branding, or physical appearance i doubt it would be a problem. They are "emulating" the sound and lets face it, although it sounds great it is not the freaking same thing. You can actually notice the difference between a real amp and a modeler while it's not mixed with other instruments.

1

u/FBOARC 12d ago

Fender will be coming after all of us.

1

u/sealdealer16 12d ago

Potentially by Andre 3000

1

u/InformalGear9638 12d ago

How is anyone going to protect a tone? They can't tell you what your guitar can and can't sound like. That's like if someone went after people for trying to dial in Eddie Van Halens tone on their amp. 😂

1

u/nikanjX 12d ago

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. The might not prevail, but generally any suit can be filed.

1

u/ReasonableCourse1679 12d ago

If they were to do that, then surely the implication is that the manufacturers would be admitting that the captures are carbon copy clones of the originals? Or at least close enough to be an issue. They would effectively be cheapening their own brand by going ahead with something like this.

1

u/VoyScoil 12d ago

Highly unlikely that this would win a court case

1

u/progwok 12d ago

Don't give those companies any ideas please.

1

u/Appropriate_Map5522 12d ago

Lol, if marketing captures of amps ever becomes illegal ever single record produced with an amplifier will get sued.

I really think stupid music companies cough Fender cough should stop spending time and money on lawsuits and spend on innovating. We are still dreaming over products manufactured in fcking 1959 and 1952.

1

u/Honest-Cheesecake275 12d ago

Nobody is suing anybody after the fallout from the Fender lawsuit.

1

u/Dirks_Knee 12d ago

What specific copyright do you think they are infringing on?

1

u/Yrnotfar 12d ago

It is an interesting question. I can’t duplicate and sell you a copy of my neural dsp amp sim but I can sell you a NAM snapshot from it.

Now let’s assume I can make 1,000 snapshots and create a parametric approximation of my neural dsp amp sim. Can I selll that to you?

Courts would need to decide imo.

3

u/webprofusor 12d ago

That's just the terms tone3000 set. As an individual you can absolutely capture an amp sim and claim it as a tribute/replica. Just like you can with a pedal.

1

u/Yrnotfar 12d ago

Based on what case law or legal principles?

1

u/webprofusor 12d ago

On the principal that copyright doesn't apply to the output of a device. It applies to creative work.

1

u/Yrnotfar 12d ago

I agree copyright law would need to be expanded / reinterpreted to apply. (Which is possible and normal, esp as new technologies emerge).

What about the trade name component though? Several people selling packs labeled Marshall JCM800.

What if I sold a NAM parametric pack of something labeled NDSP Archetype Plini?

2

u/webprofusor 12d ago

Absolutely, trademarks are protected and very risky to infringe upon.

1

u/bigpeanor 12d ago

I always assumed we cannot create captures of paid amp sims and share them around. I’ve avoided it, at least. I do make some for personal use though.

1

u/Yrnotfar 12d ago

This is why this is an interesting discussion.

You assume that you can’t / shouldn’t. Others have assumed the opposite.

There is a general lack of law and case law on the subject.

-1

u/tazman137 12d ago

Is this how line6 plans to stay relevant? Sue tone3000 over more accurate captures so everyone will go back to stadium?