Freesound Forums

@Richard: I voted attribution-non commercial but if I could, I would revoke my vote and change to attribution. You convinced me that this point. Bram, ist this possible?

-Erdie

Richard,

Well said -

I rarely use Freesound sounds in my projects for similar reasons.

As far as the sounds I upload - I'm glad to know that someone is able to use them. Sounds that I have any attachment to - I don't release. More often then not I'd just be happy to know where and how they're applied.

freq / aka Rich

Coming from a sample-based musician's standpoint, I strongly feel that attribution is potentially harmful to the community.

My work-flow consists of me downloading masses of samples from this site, sifting through them, and throwing them into compositions.

I flat-out refuse to track down and send emails to the creators of every sample that I use. It would be extremely time consuming and creatively stifling.

Based on how I feel about the issue, I don't want others to feel the way I do as well. Why would I release samples that somebody would potentially not use because they don't want to bother sending emails to me?

Ideally I would like everything public-domain, but based on people's sentiments expressed in this forum, I'm advocating for allowing attribution as an option. I just simply won't be downloading anything that's not public domain!

At least having a public-domain option, I think, is essential. If one is not provided, I'm going to have to specify it externally. Maybe I can create an email address that will automatically return an email saying "my samples are public domain, don't bother asking me anything."
(something to worry about: if you don't provide options, people who want the options will be forced to use alternative means)

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......

This should be reiterated. ^^^

Erdie
@Richard: I voted attribution-non commercial but if I could, I would revoke my vote and change to attribution. You convinced me that this point. Bram, ist this possible?
-Erdie

Don't worry it's just a vote...
When the time comes I will send a "change the license of your samples" to all authors.

By the way, for Richard: Attribution stops people from selling your samples (i.e."relicensing" your work) so that's a perfect option for you!

About Attribution-Noncommercial:

1.
By the way, there is a BIG problem with attribution-nc which hasn't been touched here yet: if the author changes email address and forgets to do so, the sample becomes 'orphaned'. Orphaned samples can be used if they are "attribution", but what if you want to ask permission for a commercial work ( the definition of "commmercial" in Attribution-NC includes universities, schools, theatre plays, any music performed, etc etc.).

I mention this because it's a big point in the feedback which I got over at the official "license-discussion mailing list at CC".

2.
Someone on that also mentioned: "if you were a font creator, would you want to decide which text could be written with your font?". Basically, Attribution-NC is VERY "unfree" when used in the sense many of you want to use it in. Freedom is in the eye of the beholder: someone using your sample for a Bush campaign might hurt but isn't not allowing them just as bad as what the Bush people are doing? It's a fine line... True freedom comes with a heavy price. I think that the voice of many should be heard (so Attribution-NC will be an option), although I hope few choose Attribution-NC.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the decision forming in my head:

From the votes and the feedback I have already decided the three options must be given. For each option I will try to explain -in big fat red letters- what the negative and positive points are.

- bram

I've come across a few instances of people saying that they can't do this, or it's impossible to do that. But unless you're actually forced to do the kind of work you do, or forced to accept certain clients, you have alternatives.

Given those alternatives, it'd be more honest to say something like "if I had to do such and such, I'd never get any work done within the time frames I'm typically given. Because I want to do this sort of work, I will not do this".

After reviewing the Creative Commons site, I believe I'd use the Attibution license on FreeSound and add something like "No Attibution required" to my descriptions. The Attibution license states:

"Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor."

So, it looks to me like I can choose to specify "No attibution required" and still maintain copyright and the right to stike a deal for something different. I agree with Richard that "Public Domain" is too open and with others that requiring attribution is too restrictive.

Bram
About the decision forming in my head:

From the votes and the feedback I have already decided the three options must be given. For each option I will try to explain -in big fat red letters- what the negative and positive points are.

- bram

Seems like the logical compromise to me as well.

Just a quick question:

What's the purpose of having "attribute, attribute non-commercial depending on sample" AND "attribute, attribute non-commercial, public domain depending on sample"

Who would NOT want public domain to be an option? It seems illogical that somebody would incur negative consequences from other people's options.

Merely for simplicity?

the share alike license makes most sense for me - especially since this is a sample site - attribute - and realease it as a "gift" -- or you can always ask for rights, from the creator, m

skiptracer
What's the purpose of having "attribute, attribute non-commercial depending on sample" AND "attribute, attribute non-commercial, public domain depending on sample"
Merely for simplicity?

Simplicity.

You know how hard it is to explain Sampling+, and in general, the (un)legality of recording certain sounds (remembver the digital synth chaos).
Now imagine 3 licenses, all very ditinct.

Surely chaos ensues.

- bram

Bram

Now imagine 3 licenses, all very ditinct.

Surely chaos ensues.

i fear you're right Bram! :?

just noticed this last night surfin' on http://ccmixter.org/
is similar to Freesound but more focused on music than sounds
all material is licensed under Creative Commons
but you need to discover WICH license for each sample!

here @ freesound, being realistic, this can take A LOT OF TIME
it could scare producers/prosumers and make to lose many potential users/uploaders
because of eventually deadlines or the mole of work, as already performed
people can be pushed to search only aimed at some type of licence (let's say Attribution or Public Domain for example)
dispersing the potential of all others samples under different licences ..too bad

so.. yeah having multiple licenses i think it will be more than a bit chaotic :?

at least, maybe, it's better to keep a singular license, not the actual Sampling+ thought
but the license that best fit the orginal mission of Freesound : built a collaborative database
[this is Attribution for me

jimblodget
After reviewing the Creative Commons site, I believe I'd use the Attibution license on FreeSound and add something like "No Attibution required" to my descriptions. The Attibution license states:

"Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor."

So, it looks to me like I can choose to specify "No attibution required" and still maintain copyright and the right to stike a deal for something different. I agree with Richard that "Public Domain" is too open and with others that requiring attribution is too restrictive.

This sounds like a good solution, however, what happens when the author doesn't specify at all how he wants to be attributed? Or will you be required to choose a manner of attribution from a drop-down dialog or type something in a field every time you upload a new file?

I didn't read the license so maybe it's specified in there. If it is, please don't flame me for being lazy. I'm over my head in work here.

Bram--I'll accept your judgment on this. To me, the whole point of "Free sound" is, well, free sounds, so make it as easy for potential users of the sounds as possible.

--David Mooney

suonho

here @ freesound, being realistic, this can take A LOT OF TIME
it could scare producers/prosumers and make to lose many potential users/uploaders
because of eventually deadlines or the mole of work, as already performed
people can be pushed to search only aimed at some type of licence (let's say Attribution or Public Domain for example)
dispersing the potential of all others samples under different licences ..too bad

so.. yeah having multiple licenses i think it will be more than a bit chaotic :?

My suggestion, make two different websites.
Freesound : the site where sounds are actually free
Attributedsound : the site where users can add their own restrictions and bureaucracy to their samples

I don't understand why people are so afraid of "public domain". From reading the comments here people actually think attribution adds a whole extra level of control to their sample.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the only difference between public domain and attribution is that attribution means you are forcing the user to put the creators name somewhere associated with the piece... that's it, that's all... besides this little thing the sample is in the public domain.
By choosing public domain instead of attribution you are giving the freedom to the user to choose if they want to credit you, that's the only difference.

adcbicycle

<snip>
Correct me if I'm wrong but the only difference between public domain and attribution is that attribution means you are forcing the user to put the creators name somewhere associated with the piece... that's it, that's all... besides this little thing the sample is in the public domain.
By choosing public domain instead of attribution you are giving the freedom to the user to choose if they want to credit you, that's the only difference.

I think you are wrong. With public domain, any one is free to do whatever they want to with the sounds. I could take all of your sounds and resell them in a collection and leave you totally out of the deal. With Attribution, this is not allowed. This is the one reason I prefer Attribution, though I agree that the actual attribution clause is a big limitation.

-Richard

RHumphries
I think you are wrong. With public domain, any one is free to do whatever they want to with the sounds. I could take all of your sounds and resell them in a collection and leave you totally out of the deal. With Attribution, this is not allowed. This is the one reason I prefer Attribution, though I agree that the actual attribution clause is a big limitation.

-Richard

I took a look through the attribution license but did see this limitation. If they include your name on the collection I think they can do this, the license states that you waive all royalties.
Can anybody verify this?

just a comment: out of 8 possible choices there are *five* with about the same number of votes (in the range 40-50), hock: Isn't striking? Right what you could expect if votes where cast at random, or nearly so.
I can be wrong, but maybe users - including me - are so confused/uninformed that the poll simply cannot show any clear trend because we really don't know the meaning of the options. Just a hypothesis, anyway...

I understand people complaining about attribution getting in the way of works but it should be the users decision to make public domain or attribution. With attribution required you at least can prevent people from stealing your samples and actually selling them in a sample pack to unwitting users. Someone could even charge someone for public domain samples use. If they do this without attribution you can collect royalties on them.

Public domain doesn't offer this option. But public domain does free you from possible bad associations with other people's works.

I think people are really ungrateful to complain about someone who releases sound with just attribution required. Whats more you can still ask for a freedom from attribution in a situation someone might freely grant you if you explain the situation.

The 3 licenses would suit each set of users best. Those who want complete freedom, those who don't mind attribution for free sound. And those who just want to only share and listen to other sounds. Search filters should be able to help people get the sounds with particular licenses they want.

People who use sounds in commercial projects should take the time to make sure sounds their using are legally usable. FreeSound should just make the terms of use as clear as possible to users.

can we have a "gabber" only license?
i'd like my samples to be used only in gabber