Freesound Forums

Hi everyone...

As many of you know, the Sampling+ license has sadly been a bad choice for freesound in the past. It's a confusing license, especially for sound effects (as compared to songs) as it has confusing legal talk about using the "whole work".

So, we would like to switch to another license, or a set of licenses to make everyone happy.

However, choosing this license isn't easy. In the poll above I suggest a combination of 3 licenses, please select the combination you like best. The problem of using VARIOUS licenses is that it becomes harder for the end-user to understand. My personal choice goes towards using both attribution and attribution-noncommercial.

Here are the URL's for all licensing options I propose:

1. "attribution": http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
2. "attribution-non-commercial": http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/
3. "public domain": http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
4. "sampling+": http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/

I did *not* choose the "share-alike" licenses (which forces the author of the derived work use the sample license) as it's even more confusing and in my opinion doesn't make any sense for samples/sounds/sfx.

this is a really important poll, so please, everyone, vote and comment.

- bram

I prefer 'attribution - non-commercial' as this is the most unambiguous one and still leaves room for specific agreements between author and user. The other licenses are either too strict (e.g. attribution) or too ambiguous (e.g. public). Well, just my 2 cents.

but, "attribution - non-commercial" is stricter than "attribution"...

- bram

in order to fully understand the differences between all these license would it be possible to describe shortly all these options with there special features?

and before proceeding to voting, would it be possible to exchange point of views on the licenses so that the many of us that are not familiar with the subject can know more prior to voting...

thanks

- bram

but, "attribution - non-commercial" is stricter than "attribution"...

Well, I think that is a matter of interpretation (yes, this is law...). Personally, I feel that a/nc leaves more room for individual arrangements and that makes me feel that it is less strict. But strictly (!) speaking, 'attribution' is less strict because it defines less situtions. So I guess it boils down to the interpretation and the consequences rather than to the literally form of the licence.

attribution-noncommercial: same as above, but you may not use the sample for commercial purposes..

Ok, I see what makes you think this one is strict. Mind though that it explicitely leaves freedom for the author and user to negotiate on the use of a sound - see article 8e.

Bram
attribution: if you use the sample, you have to say who made it.

suonho

Bram
attribution: if you use the sample, you have to say who made it.

this got my vote :wink:

I agree with the idea of saying who did it but I am having problems to do that in the final credit of a film. Is there another way to credit the owner of a sound without having to credit every sample in an end credit roll of a film? Would it be possible to have a log on the Freesound site so that it would keep a history of usage of that sound in the world and act as an official credit and be compatible with the license.

As you probably know, every line of a credit is a very political issue. Even though I am very excited and happy I discovered the site... I am having a good pleasure to share my sounds with the community. I think the originality and the sound quality of the samples on the site could be very helpful for me occasionnaly, but, unfortunetly, I have not used any because of that restriction of crediting the owner. I agree with the principles but I really don't feel it's realistic to do it in the end credit. We use about 500 sounds in a movie, so, because I got 10 sounds from freesound, I have to credit every single one of them, ok, but not in the credit...

Am I the only one who's having this problem?

I voted attribution-noncommercial only, yet I do not object to commercial uses and often give permission when requested... So I would like to explain my vote

May seem paradoxical, but if you state 'just attribution', less instructed users tend to think that your intention is to force them to put your ugly nickname into the credits of their millionaire, 'wonderful-de-la-leche' video production (we had a discussion on the subject earlier this year, I think).

Instead, by stating 'non-commercial' this guys will probably get in touch with the author, then some form of agreement can come out (e.g. trade name for cash). As for common mortals (meaning non commercial users), they won't be scared by this restriction anyway.

BTW, with so few people voting we won't get any clear output. We need more votes!

I have voted for "attribution-noncomercial" as well, primarily for the same reasons as Mr. Dobroide. The (few) people who have contacted me regarding use, we have worked it out. Personally I have no problem with the "attribution" also, but I think I can only vote once, right? And I do not wish to speak for others.

martypinso
Would it be possible to have a log on the Freesound site so that it would keep a history of usage of that sound in the world and act as an official credit and be compatible with the license.

The 2.5 version of the attribution license alows the original author to "give away" his attribution to a third party.

By the way, in your case you can always say:

"This movie uses many sounds from the Freesound project (add logo here ), for the detailed list of sounds see http://www.yourmoviesite.com/list.html"

Or something similar. I think this is correct.

- bram

Bram, I voted like you, to support a choice of attrib-nc and attrib licenses, but reading the comments on here and looking at the current status of the poll I am coming round to the majority view - attrib-non-commercial only. Why? It's simple - two possible licenses for any sound is complexity users don't need. It doesn't preclude commercial usage of freesound, it simply precludes free commercial usage of freesound. The commercial user has to contact the author and strike their own deal, and they might as well get a signed "I recorded / created this sound and didn't pinch it from Hollywood Edge etc" and a credits waiver. In return for some hard cash or a kiss or whatever...

What would cause me to leave FS as a contributing member would be an enforced attrib including commercial use. I hate the copyright cartel for what they've done to the public domain, and the way they despise the people that pay their rent, and commercial users have all sorts of special needs and requirements they would really need to clear with the uploader anyway. A unequivocal license attrib non-commercial seems a great way to give non-commercial users who can't afford the futz of negotiating each sound an easy way to understand what they need to do in return for usage of any (post-change) freesounds. Commercial users get a clear statement that freesound is not free for commercial usage, so if we have a sound they fancy and can't get from Hollywood Edge and can't be bothered to shoot themselves then they can strike a deal with the author, getting extra assurances they need at that point.

A win-win situation it seems

I chose "I want to use "attribution", "attribution-noncommercial" and "public domain" depending on the sample"

Let the makers of the sound decide what terms they want to release it on. The license use maybe a little confusing to new users, in that they need to read each Creative Commons deed, but really that is what anyone should actually do that is going to use these sounds anyway.

As far as giving a person the option to remove attributions, the option is there no matter what license its released under whether its commercial or non commercial attribution. A user just has to speak with the author and the author can give that individual a waiver of the license if they so choose.(whether the waiver is allowed for free or allowed for a fee). At least by having commercial attribution available a person may make free use of work with it as long as they use attribution. This is especially useful if the author needs to use that sound in a deadline but can't get in touch with the author in time.(but has no problem giving credit to that sound in their work)

If the site becomes non commercial use only, I believe users like me will run across this site and quickly ditch it because it becomes a bunch of unuseable sounds. I find it rather aggravating to find sites advertising free sounds to use, but you can't use it to actually make money with. A change to only a non commercial attribution only license will truly make this project become Unfreesound.

Personally, 99% of the time I'm not going to bother contacting a non commercial attribution sound to negotiate it into a commercial project.(the sound would have to be truly one of a kind for me to do so) It becomes way too much time to negotiate over what is one particular sound.

If you multiple licenses are implemented, a search filter that searches for sounds that only fall under a certain license would be very handy for people.

hehehe, as you can see it will be very difficult to please everyone, and in the end I might have to go with the 3 licenses, like soundhead says.

soundhead: I agree, choice is nice, but it also creates confusion. Look at ccMixter, they have "all" licenses to choose from and it's a bit of a chaos. For example, when someone remixes a sound, what licenses are possible for this sound?!

ermine: I'm not going to enforce non-commercial only. I have to go with the "relatively most common denominator" to please as many people possible. In the end -for the uploader- it could be as simple as choosing between:

(a) people who use my sound have to mention my name.
(b) people who use my sound have to mention my name, and can't use the sample for commercial purpuses without asking explicitly.
(c) people can do whatever they want with my sample.

and set (a) to default.

And guys,

1. Let's not jump to conclusions just yet, I plan to let this poll go for a rather long time.
2. Let's try to keep as civilized as possible, if this thread turns into a flame war I'm deleting posts, I want this thread to be as constructive as possibke

- bram

I chose Attribution only, for these reasons:
non-commercial attribution seems contradictory to the freesound project to me. The use for the samples in this database is greatly reduced if by default they are not to be used for commercial means. This is the number one reason why I am a member of freesound in the first place. Otherwise, it would be no more than an elaborate hobby. I don't wanna have to check every sample to see if I can use it for commercial means. In fact, if I see that I can't use a sample commercially, I will not download it even if is the best thing I've ever heard. It just seems pretty pointless to me.

Attribution seems good. People know what they are going to get. If you don't like to see your files used for commercial means, then don't submit them.

Public Domain, I dunno. Seems ok aswell. I am a strong believer of "the clearer the better" and Attribution seems clearer to me.

I agree with Halion.
Attribution

I have no problem with content being used for commercial means.
and
I love the very simple language.

Honestly I couldn't care less what people do with my samples, but I know other people do. I'd prefer the choice be left open to the author/artist who made the sample. Not every artist understands the license, but should at least know what they want out of it.

My only concern is that nobody turns around and tells me they made the sample instead of I and that I can't use it.

I agree with what most people say, the step from sampling+ to attribution and/or non-commercial is good (where the "and/or" should be dicussed thoroughly).

As for the sampling+ licence: I didn't really like it right from the start (btw., do the CC people know it is confusing?). I also didn't understand the exception of advertisement and its implications (if someone makes a song with it and that song is used in an ad, will that be allowed? The song could have any licence...).

I believe I tend towards attribution and non-commercial and would recommend another field for the database where an author can explicitely add a comment for the usage of his sound (one that doesn't interfere with the licence, of course). E.g., an author could explain how exactly he would like to be credited (must there be a list of all samples in the credits of a movie or is it enough to show the name in the list of "Sound Designers"?) In the description of the few sounds I have on freesound already, I have stated that I would like to be credited with my real name, not my user name - I would really prefer a special field for things like that. Or the author could encourage people to ask whether they can use the sound differently (e.g., "If used in no- or low-budget productions, please ask, I will probably allow usage for free." or something like that).

Mirko

I really want public domain to be one of the options for the sound-poster to choose.

I would very much like to have all my samples released under a public domain license. I feel bad when I see my name in the credits for a radio play when I know it probably took longer for them to research the credit and post my name then it did for me to record and post the sample.

Please please please let "public domain" be an option.

I vote, attr., non-comm attr. and public domain.