Freesound Forums

Hi guys,

I think that choosing between 2 or 3 licences can be very confusing, both for new uploaders and dwonloaders.

The most popular licences in your poll seem to be Attribution, Attribution non-commercial and Public Domain.

1) Attribution is very similar to the sampling+ licence that you are using now, with the only difference that you can't use the work in adverts. Therefore there is not much point in changing it to that, beause then you are going to be using 2 very similar, but different licences. Confusing.

2) Public domain is a bit strange for people, since anyone can take the sounds and distribute them commercially. For example, someone can put sounds on a CD and selll that in shops. Also, from what i understand, the creator loses EVERY right, therefore he is not able to sell the sounds elsewhere, for example on a commercial library. The other licences allow him to do that, i.e. they are not exclusive.

3) Non-Commercial Attribution also has its problems. People can't use sounds in movies, or in their tunes, in fear that someday they might get sued if the song/movie is released. However, its a clear deal, what you can and what you can't do.

I think that all three licences are problematic. But since this is a community website, you might as well follow what the people want and go for 'Attribution, Non-Commercial'.

Please, let me hear your thoughts on this.

@ adcbicycle: you know that public domain takes away all control you may have over sounds? Now, I agree that more sharing is the way to go but with public domain you really can't do anything if someone decides to use your sounds in, say, a porn movie, sell it on cd and make profit or use it to torture prisoners. That would be something you can't recall because the sounds belong to 'public domain'.

I wouldn't like it...

(ok, the examples are extreme... but it may happen)

anastazio
1) Attribution is very similar to the sampling+ licence that you are using now, with the only difference that you can't use the work in adverts. Therefore there is not much point in changing it to that, beause then you are going to be using 2 very similar, but different licences. Confusing.

Not only that: Sampling+ has a part about using the "whole work" in a derived work. Sampling+ was meant for MUSIC, and taking PIECES of music from a whole song.

anastazio
2) Public domain is a bit strange for people, since anyone can take the sounds and distribute them commercially. For example, someone can put sounds on a CD and selll that in shops. Also, from what i understand, the creator loses EVERY right, therefore he is not able to sell the sounds elsewhere, for example on a commercial library. The other licences allow him to do that, i.e. they are not exclusive.

Some people don't mind others selling their samples... By the way, I was corrected by someone from creative commons: Public domain isn't a "license", it's a concious abscence of all licenses.

anastazio
3) Non-Commercial Attribution also has its problems. People can't use sounds in movies, or in their tunes, in fear that someday they might get sued if the song/movie is released. However, its a clear deal, what you can and what you can't do.

Unless you get permission for using the sample... then it's ok. I plan to put -for every non-commercial sample a link on the site that says: "contact the author for commercial usage" which automatically links to the private-message part of the website with the usernams filled in.

m1rk0
As for the sampling+ licence: I didn't really like it right from the start (btw., do the CC people know it is confusing?).

They know, but I think Sampling+ was invented for a very specific group of users: commercial artists that want to release their tracks to the general public for remixing. The license says: "you can use parts of my track and use them, but you can use the whole track, nor can you use it for advertising". FOr commercial musicians this makes total sense: advertising is one of the areas where they make the MOST money without any work from their side!

- bram

Yeah LG, I realize that I have no control over it. But that's fine.

I think I'd like to have some control over my music, since it relects on me and upon hearing it listeners may be able to link it to me. But it would be nearly impossible to connect me with one of my posted samples merely from hearing it in a piece of music or a movie.

Therefore I'm happy to have it available to anyone for whatever project they're working on.

Halion
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.

I elect the Sampling+ license, because it has the added ability to redistribute the entire soundfile, as well as selections from it. This seems the most in line with what this site's main purpose is: to provide free-to-use sounds that authors can fearlessly use in any composition, without question (although the Sampling+ license does have an advertisment restriction).

Choose Sampling+, so you can actually have the freedom that Freesound supposedly promotes.

~Kyle

You can view the Sampling+ license here:

http://creativecommons.org/license/sampling?format=audio

hi there.

In my opppinion, there should be 3 licenses. Attribution, Attribution NonCommercial and Public Domain. Because the three of them are going to be needed in Freesound someday, because of the ammount of people and the ammount of different ways to think about this subject.

This, of course, can be confusing.

To not be confusing i am with Bram on that the selection of the license should be simplified, and the reading of the license too. Also a "contact the author for commercial usage" link, that directs to PM/email, on non-commercial licensed samples is needed.

I also think that Attribution should be there by default.

I wonder if we can do what Bram suggested :

(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.

In order to simplify the license selection process (being .a. the default option). And linking from there to more complex explanation of the licenses.

I think there should be a CLEAR advice somewhere (or everywhere), maybe every time u download a sample, that you CAN negotiate the license with the user.

That's more or less my opinnnion right now.

Hello freesounders,

there are a lot of open questions on my side:

1) What are the destailed resons to change the licening rules?

-> if it`s just to make it easier for people (creators of sounds and users) it`s a bad decision in my opinion, cause everybody should (MUST!) have at least a bit of knowledge of the laws when he / she publishes or uses sounds. If it`s to make it easier for freesoundprojct (less questions from people) -> you will not make it easier by just changing the licence-type:

Bram, you wrote: "...we would like to switch to another license, or a set of licenses to make everyone happy." Maybe it`s necessary to make a extra page that explains detailed the dos and don`ts for creators and unsers (no matter which license will be chosen at the end). Sorry - but law is complex - that`s why people have to go to University for it. Non-lawyers will ALWAYS be confused - you just make it easier for them by informing them detailed (like you did very pretty at the beginning of this discussion). And very important: Laws are basic rules - not detailed ones. The detailes always have to be defined by the creators.

A less work-intensive alternative would be to make a link-page where you link all possible licenses to be chosen by the creator and say, that they have to inform themselfs, you can`t give juridical information since you`re no lawyer.

2) What ist the targt?

That has something to do with the goal of the freesoundproject itself. Free sounds for private use? Or: Free sounds for commercial use? Or both? It has a lot to do with the kind of people that will use freesoundproject.

That leads to an important juridical question: What is commercial? Commercial in the first place is to SELL the sounds themselves e.g. make a CD or download-link for money an earn mony with the freesound sounds (no matter weather this is done by a big company or a single person - cashflow is the point). The more dificile question is: are self-created sounds or musics that use one or more freesound sounds in an altered way and are sold, commercial too? Of course they are - cause they use kreative propperty of others - ever when it`s modified. But none of the existing licences defines this clearly. So it has to be defined by the author of the sound (or freesoundproject) to inform the user.

3) The Sampling+ licence is really very poor:
a) it gives the opportunity for file-sharing to other internet sound-pools - I just want to see my files at freesound (not anywhere else). And the freesoundproj. itself should safe it`s concept a little bit.
b) it gives persmission for commercial use of modified files: if somebody earns money with my work he / she should let me partissipate in one way. (To modify a sound you just e.g. put a little echo: it`s altered! - That`s law.)

Oh my! I wrote so much. Sorry for that. For now: I will vote when I have more information.

Greetings: bilwiss

Here is something I posted to another thread that explains more of my position. Another question that I have is what is expected of someone who has already used such items in commercial works, once the license has changed? If the works are created while the license permits it, how is this handled?

~Kyle

kyleklip
I understand your position, however, you are forgetting a specific class of individuals who are growing exponentially in the music/entertainment industry: the so-called prosumers.

Prosumers are those who occupy the increasingly grey field that lies between consumer and professional media creators. Since the prices of equipment have fallen, this group has grown larger, and is largely responsible for the whole podcasting/vlogging phenomenon as well, and should be nurtured.

Prosumers are not gigantic studios trying to get free stuff instead of dropping the $500 required for a Quantum Leap sample pack. Prosumer's barely can afford to buy any of their software, and often rely upon open-source alternatives to hone their chops, with hopes of being professionals looming in the future. I am sure that the majority of sound contributors here are prosumers as well: having better than average equipment than a built in PC mic and soundblaster soundcard, and being midway between seasoned pro's and novice hobbyists.

The way I see it, if you want to be marketing your sounds as professional clips that should be bought and paid for, please do not post them here. If you want to use this site as a testing ground to improve your skills or share a little of your creativity with a community, remember that we're all trying to be successful with our chosen media, and most importantly can't afford to spend large amounts of money on expensive sampling collections.

What happens if I use some of these sounds on a podcast that ends up generating some money? What if I find just the right clips to make a great beat to use at a DJ or other type of musical performance, that happens to be a paid gig? I would rather have a clear conscience that these sounds are free to use for such purposes, without tracking down and negotiating with multiple creators.

This site is for people who cannot afford the expensive sample collections, but still rely upon high quality and intersting material. If we start putting up restrictions against commercial use, much value is lost to those who are trying to make it on a shoestring budget.

Respectfully,

~Kyle

as said before, sampling+ isn't an option... I shouldn't have added it to the poll:

there is a fundamental problem with Sampling+ that it's a license for MUSIC and not for SOUNDS. The legal part of the license speaks about "usage of the whole work":

Your Derivative Work(s) must only make a partial use of the original Work, or if You choose to use the original Work as a whole, You must either use the Work as an insubstantial portion of Your Derivative Work(s) or transform it into something substantially different from the original Work.

Hence it really is unsuitable for sounds, as it is VERY ambiguous for sounds (you are almost always using the "whole work", but is the way in which you use it "insubstantial"??). This is what sparked this discussion. I was even asked a few times by people from creative commons to rethink the licensing.

My bad for adding it into the poll.

- bram

Therefore I'm happy to have it available to anyone for whatever project they're working on.

Ok, I get your point. But you still think this even when a certain project crosses an ethical line you wouldn't cross yourself? In other words: you really don't mind it if a sound gets used in an objectionable project? Or do you acccept that you can't control that in the first place anyway?

Just curious how you look at this because I really have to change my mindset to accept my own samples to be part of the public domain...

I have been contacted by quite a few people about using sounds of mine in their projects and always ask if a credit is possible (maybe even a link depending on the project). I wouldn't want them to have been scared off by legal issues. So, "attrib" in my opinion shoud be available. "Pub. domain" Why not.

If we do end up with multiple license options it would be good to have the short license discription on each sounds page and as mentioned maybe a small field for the author's specifics.

My general statement would be something like this: "Dear potential free sound user, I am offereing all my sounds to you for free. I would like to be credited as ______ and would appreciate a link to_____, but am open to discussing other options. If you do have a budget and would like to pay for use of the sound, it would be greatly appreciated. You can contact me at____. Please do drop me a line to let me know if you liked or used a sound, as it makes my day better."

In the case of the "attrib.non-com" It would be good to emphasize to potential users that the author may wave the restrictrition for non comercial use for a fee, credit or even nothing. Thus giving the author the ability to negotiate with someone willing to pay for commercial use.

I guess it's good to have the "non-com"option, but in the end this is "Freesound" and I think most people coming here expect exactly that. Based on my experience, most people who have a real budget for a project are not looking for free sounds.

i think that the attribution liecense is swell!

LG

Therefore I'm happy to have it available to anyone for whatever project they're working on.

Ok, I get your point. But you still think this even when a certain project crosses an ethical line you wouldn't cross yourself? In other words: you really don't mind it if a sound gets used in an objectionable project? Or do you acccept that you can't control that in the first place anyway?

If I'm not mistaken, even with the "attribution non-commercial" license, someone could take your work, use it in a non-ethical way (just not charge $ for it), not inform you about it, AND they would attach your name to the work.
Just because it's non-commercial doesn't mean it's ethical.

At least with the public domain you don't have to be explicitly associated with the project if you don't want to.

I voted for Attribution, because I would have no problem if people made money from the sounds I have donated, plus I believe it's a great way to show off what you can do in a way that can lead to works for hire. If someone finds that they keep using sounds from the same few people in their commercial works, it's not inconceivable that those few people would be contracted to do works for hire just for that person.

For the record, my "favourite" option would be a voluntary attribution license.
(which I guess really is public domain)

I think it should be up to the user of the sample to decide if it's practical to attribute the sample to the creator and if the creator deserves the credit in the user's view. We should have some faith in the user, if they're very grateful for the sample, I'm sure they'll want to credit the creator.

The more open and free the better in my opinion.

Fratz
I voted for Attribution, because I would have no problem if people made money from the sounds I have donated, plus I believe it's a great way to show off what you can do in a way that can lead to works for hire. If someone finds that they keep using sounds from the same few people in their commercial works, it's not inconceivable that those few people would be contracted to do works for hire just for that person.

~Kyle

adcbicycle
At least with the public domain you don't have to be explicitly associated with the project if you don't want to.

Honestly, I think keeping some control on the fate of sounds is ok. You don't like the project? Just say no and done with it.

@ adcbicycle and Dobroide: that is exactly my point as well! There are just some things I don't want to be associated with / contribute to / or want to give a my (anonymous) support to because there is a sound of mine used. Even when my name is not there. It is an ethical thing.

And with the other licence you just can say no, right? Of course, it could be ignored but then... well, that is just simply out of my reach.

Oh c'mon, I just want to have the illusion I can control what happens to my sounds! :wink:

dobroide

That's no consolation, if I ever listened to one of my sounds in (say, but put your own phobias here) the campaign of Bush for president, to promote nuclear energy, or something alike I would feel sick regardless of my nick appearing anywhere or not ) :wink:

Honestly, I think keeping some control on the fate of sounds is ok. You don't like the project? Just say no and done with it.

What about a non-profit right wing group made a bush promo, or a nuclear energy commercial with your sample... nothing you could do to stop them, and there's your name associated with it.

But I agree with you dobroide, we should give people the option of attr and non-comm attr... but also, the option of pub domain is very important.