And there is the issue. Sound is not legally considered to be tangible. ie. it can't be defined in a way that would satisfy a court. It is that simple. There is not a single case of a sound ever being able to be protected by copyright.

Certainly recorded music CAN be defined because the notes can be written down on paper but though the sounds define the notes it is still not the sound that is tangible it but the music itself.


When it comes to a mechanical instrument, particular mechanics ( and electronics ) of the instrument can be defined and can be protected under copyright. The details can be documented if needed. Likewise the brand name is certainly protected. Now a sample of a sound can also be protected because it has
a tangible bit pattern and waveform. Every sample is different no two are alike even if they sound similar and the way 2 photos of the same scene are no identical. A digital sample CAN be identified in a court of law.

Although the original analog sound and a digital sample ( that can be used to make a sound ) may seem the same to some of you, legally they NOT.

( By the way that photo of a blueprint is simply the same as a scan of a photo as the blue print can be defined in a court of law so is always protected ).

Bottom line is an analog sound is NOT tangible so can't be defined in a court of law.