Largos wrote:The honkytonk instrument has four licenses
Of the samples that aren't original material, the majority of them come from freesound.org, of which the honkytonk piano is an example. At that time, freesound had just implemented a license.txt generating script that had a bug which caused all possible license options to be listed, instead of the correct one chosen by the uploader. (ie, You couldn't determine the actual license.) So that's a bug in that license.txt which will need to be fixed. But that is not representative of the remainder of the license.txt files, and it should not be implied otherwise.
The electric bass instrument of the OP has no custom license, so whoever made it owns up to 50% of any song it's used in.
Where did you get this legal advice?? First of all, copyrights are not treated the same way in every possible jurisdiction, so blanket statements like the above are seldom ever true. Secondly, I've read copyright case decisions from USA courts that contradict the above. For example, Rob Van Winkle (Vanilla Ice) was sued for using a sample of Queen/Bowie's "Under Pressure" without obtaining any license to do so. He lost the case, but the resulting remedy was not that Queen/Bowie ended by owning 50% of "Ice ice, baby". So in what jurisdiction(s) is your above statement legally applicable? Did you get this from an attorney specializing in copyright law?
==================
I have addressed the matter of the No Budget soundsets' licensing and usage numerous times before, and I always say the same thing as I said earlier. The purpose of these is to provide the
best sounding instruments using freely available sources. If there's a choice between two sample sets where one has CC0 and the other has an attribution stipulation, or a commercial restriction, or some sort of usage limitation, I will still choose the latter if it "sounds better". The intent is to address the needs of people who want "the best-sounding free instruments" -- not the needs of people who don't want to deal with copyrights.
These limitations don't concern me because I have no intentions of selling my music, nor taking credit for someone else's work, or otherwise doing things that would violate the license terms or require unrestricted rights. For people whose needs are likewise, they should have nothing to fear from using the No Budget series because the licenses are all laid out for them. OTOH, if someone needs to have unrestricted legal rights to source material, then he
must do the following:
1) Purchase unrestricted rights directly from the copyright holder (or an "agent" of the copyright holder, such as his publisher).
2) Before releasing a work using copyrighted material, get that work accessed by an attorney specializing in copyright law (and licensed in the jurisdiction where you reside) to ensure you're in compliance.
Anything less than that means that you've not done the necessary due diligence to ensure that you're not violating copyrights. I dislike folks who complain about others' approach to licensing (for example, the "license police") when those folks fail to do what needs to be done to ensure their own compliance. Those people have no moral high ground from which to lecture others about copyright compliance, and they should stop doing that immediately.