Freesound Forums

I voted for attribution only. It's simple, and fits with the spirit of the site.

I have to insist, this is really not correct (and it has been confirmed by the cc-licenses mailing list). You can agree or disagree all you want, but *legally* you can't say anything. Some licenses exclude "immoral" usage of material, but none of the creative-commons licenses mention this.

Notice the past tense I used in my previous message Bram? I will stand corrected if there is reason to :wink: I do not want to pretend to understand everything in detail and must rely in your knowledge and experience. I totally agree that there is no 'moral-clause' in the licence as such but what I meant is that you can use other clauses just for ones own moral grounds. And that is actually what you suggest yourself as well to Jovica.

So, yes, you are right in the strict sense and me and some others search for the room within the rules to bend it slightly the way you like.

Oh and yes, I actually did law back in university but I now understand that public law is something different from copyright law.

Attribution non-commercial for me, as has been pointed out already, this leaves room for negotiation. Perhaps this could be made explicit somewhere on the frontpage (or linked prominantly off the front page...) The reason? Well I like the idea of my samples spreading out into the works of others, espescially when they get in touch with me so I can have a listen; I also like the idea of some beer money, or possibly building commercial relationships (who knows ? ) therefore I don't want professionals scared off; However, being a cynical soul I am also slightly distrusting of businessmen and want to know that my samples are protected from exploitation

I guess what I am saying is that each situation where my samples make it into commercial products need to be considered on an individual basis, this is covered by the flexibility of the attribution-non-commercial licence, TBH if anyone other than a global mega-corp or politicaly detestable organisation uses my sound then I would let it go for nothing. After all we are all striving artists of some sort.

Shame about the turnout for the poll so far.

Peace to all inside

I voted 'attribution' .
I was a bit concerned that this meant somebody could re-sell my samples in a library, but under restrictions it states "You may not sublicense the Work"
That pretty much nixes that possibility as pretty much all legit sample libraries are sold to users as some type of 'license'. 'Attribution' for me then.

hello every one

This is FREEsound

lets get ourselves out of the way blocking creativity and back in the "business" of sharing samples that promote creativity

I vote public domain and let people get on with it

Life's too short to be checking back on every hi hat author you've downloaded from here....

We are the collectors of sound - why do we do that?

To make things with them... these are just audio colours

You can't expect the composers to not use them once you've put them out there and invited them to paint....

VOTE PUBLIC DOMAIN and let the creativity flow......

Hi Bram and others,
just an idea.
*Maybe* it could be good to add one, or more "license selection modes" when people upload a (set of) sample(s):
- "I'm an expert: I know all about these licenses, just let me choose one": just a direct listbox choice between the three (or more) availble licenses
- "I'd like to see a comparison chart that shows me the availble licenses and their differences": as it says, a nice single table giving a clear overview of the different licenses, just a wrapup of the links you provided (links included in table)
- "Guide me through this in 3 simple steps": uses a wizard that descends a decision tree based on a few simple questions like "Should people who use your sample(s) always mention your name?", "Can people use your sample(s) also for commercial work?", etc...--> quick and easy (you'll probably want to add the link to the full text in the end for completeness)

Then I would also add some "default license (<name of current default>" option everywhere (except the first time), that is stored in the user's profile, and always set that one automatically in the selection, so that most of the time you can just confirm this license thing for new uploads without having to select anything.

As said, just my two cents. I just thought something like that might make things easier and clearer maybe?

All the best,
Koen

attribution non-commercial is the worst license option on there

it means all composers who have used a sound cannot have that track released on CD

we are talking small electronic artists here who enjoy releasing 500-1000 CDs and make little more than £0 - £300 for their efforts (and often make a loss)

This is really stifling.... why do people want these sample sonly to be used in private sound projects that are heard only in the composers bedroom or in amateur productions???????

Bram
Hi everyone...

<snip>

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/

- bram

I do prefer freesound to be sharing fun, wondering, whatever about sound, without all commercial aspects that could go with it. So please no commercial use of my samples. If someone needs to please contact me about rights etc.

Seems simple to me ..

room
attribution non-commercial is the worst license option on there

it means all composers who have used a sound cannot have that track released on CD

we are talking small electronic artists here who enjoy releasing 500-1000 CDs and make little more than £0 - £300 for their efforts (and often make a loss)

This is really stifling.... why do people want these sample sonly to be used in private sound projects that are heard only in the composers bedroom or in amateaur productions???????

I wasn't going to contribute to this discussion ... but ...

Using attribution non-commercial does not automatically mean that money is involved. It may just mean the author wants to be consulted and to have the right to say yes I'm happy, or no I'm not happy, for my sound to be used in a particular commercial exercise. I might well feel I didn't want my sounds to be used to advertise something I disagree with on ethical grounds.

Yes of course even the non-commercial use may be a misuse ... I accept.

Just a funny thought:

Some of these restrictive ideas of freedom remind me of the current US Administration ideas of "freedom."

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

Thats the way :lol:

room
hello every one
This is FREEsound
lets get ourselves out of the way blocking creativity and back in the "business" of sharing samples that promote creativity
I vote public domain and let people get on with it
Life's too short to be checking back on every hi hat author you've downloaded from here....
We are the collectors of sound - why do we do that?
To make things with them... these are just audio colours
You can't expect the composers to not use them once you've put them out there and invited them to paint....
VOTE PUBLIC DOMAIN and let the creativity flow......

I like what room said so much that I really thought it should be posted again.

People must be thinking from the sound recordist point of view here rather then the musicians point of view. For musicians who use a lot of samples in their work, attribution and attribution non-commercial (especially) totally stifle creativity.

I voted attribution. An option for public domain would be cool too.

on further thought, the choice between 3 options would be best: attribute, attribute no comm, and public domain. Just make the license clear and also allow people to search by license type as well.

room
This is FREEsound

lets get ourselves out of the way blocking creativity and back in the "business" of sharing samples that promote creativity

I vote public domain and let people get on with it

Yeah, so this post is flamebait. Just dumping my sackfull of pennies on this discussion.

nickm
I've always found it odd that people post their works on internet sites like freesound and archive.org and somehow hope to exert control over how they are used. Trust me, someone, somewhere is using your work in violation of the CC license. If that bothers you, then the best way to keep control of your work is to leave it on your hard drive. Frankly, I don't give a rip if Osama bin Laden himself uses my samples. I posted them here in the belief that I'm giving back to a creative community here at freesound As I see it, as soon as I hit that "submit" button, they were no longer mine to control.

Clap Clap Clap. I concur.

~Kyle

guys, once you've made your point clear, please move out of the way for other people to post their opinions...

as said, this is a constructive thread, I will not alow even one spark.

- bram, flame

I voted for the three-way combination that includes Public Domain. For myself, I would always dedicate my sounds to the Public Domain, just as I do with my other creative works. However, I recognize that other people, including some very talented people, feel differently. Therefore I would like authors to be able to choose their license on a per-work basis.

Voted for attribution. With contact with the author of the sample other things could be arranged.

Hey All
My 2 cents
I voted for the three licenses, if it gets complicated so be it. If people are getting sounds for free they should be expected to do some reading to ensure they can use the sounds legally.

Coming from a sound effects, not music, POV here, I personally don't need or want credits on your work.
I would however appreciate you telling me when you did use my sounds and let me know how I can hear it, if possible. It would also be nice if you would attest to the fact that you used my sounds if I ever used you as a reference like that.
If you can afford to chip in something great, but if not (and I am no stranger to this situation) I will not hold you to getting a legitimate credit on the work.
I think if the sample user has the obligation to contact me and let me know, this community will grow closer.
On a recent project I was brought in as a contractor late in the development cycle, I overlooked sourcing from freesound simply because I couldn't guarantee a legitimate credit for the recordist(s), I had to turn to sounddogs where I knew I could get synchronization rights without attribution. (in this case it was hard enough to get proper credit for my work due to time constraints )
In this example, there was no positive effect for the freesound community, but sounddogs gets money. If instead of 20 dollars spent on someone elses effects I could've done more custom recording. More sounds for all (catch my drift?)
In any case if I upload something to freesound I want you to sound-design/mash-up/morph/be-creative and make something new from it. Part of this is me letting go (and keeping in mind that they are just sounds and not wee-children :wink: )

whew 2 cents over
Good to see from the responses I'm not alone in this
Dano

I know, I'm a "newbie from the prairie", but I thought already about CC licences for my own website.
Here's the elements I took into consideration (sorry for my english):

- technicaly, it would be impossible for me to track each sample I put on Internet. Unless I hire an army of lawyers to check each movie to see if somebody took my take of a river without telling me, at some point, I think we need to let go...

- the point of sharing sounds is to practice, meet people, create links and, maybe, work one day for money. That's why, here, I'd choose the "Attribution" licence. It does'nt hurt anybody (especially at the zone located near the wallet), and it make yourself known.

- the quality of the samples we can find here is directly linked to the security the "uploaders" feel about letting their samples. So a choice between different licences (from less to more restrictive) might keep them uploading...

- BUT, for the user, things need to be clear : not only should we explain what the licence are and what are their consequences, but also put a sign on each sound, so that they don not think "are they trying to nail me in some way ?"

- In addition, each "uploader" could explain their choice of licence, so that the downloader knows what to expect before contacting him for negociation.

For my own website, I decided to simply add a "Paypal donate" button... and propose a DVD of uncompressed sounds in exchange of a minimum donation ops: ... At this point of my "career", this is the only way I know to make some money to pay for new mics...

Conclusion : a choice between attribution and attribution NC should "do the trick", but with transparency...

Hope I was'nt too long...