Freesound Forums
IMPORTANT: the future license of freesound
Started October 24th, 2006 · 208 replies · Latest reply by dobroide 13 years, 4 months ago
I am really grateful for the work and dedication of people who put sounds on this site.... I actually think it is one of the best resources in the audio world - the geotags are genius too.... but my attitude to the samples reflects the means for which I use them.... in a creative flow - searching through sounds, getting inspired by them and using them there and then.... getting into the programming and composition of a piece I am on....
I've uploaded a fair few samples and when people ask me if they can use them or how I want to be credited - I say just use them no credit needed - I don't need a pat on the back or a line in a CD case of somebody elses work.....
I was wondering about a site model where you get out of the site what you put in ... with users being allowed to download 4 x the number of samples they have uploaded..... but at the same time i see a problem with this in that it might encourage inferiour samples being uploaded....
I just wanted to say I love the site - I love the sounds that are being shared - I think some of your have found amazing sounds (like a beautiful colour) it is lovely to take that away and paint with it....
Public domain is sneaking up I see - basically its looking like a hung parliment!
love David :idea:
No matter what system is chosen, I want ot be able to continu to choose for the sampling plus license because it is the only one that has some restrictions of the use for advertising for stuff. And that is where I want to be able to choose. This way nobody can use my samples to promote things I don't want to promote. So my suggestion is to add all licensing possibilities.
I voted for public domain because if someone is posting sounds to this website in hope of eventual monetary gain then some part of that person's ego is being confused with the pleasure they receive from creating something that they enjoy and that they want others to be able to enjoy as well. If they are posting strictly for profit and they don't enjoy the process then maybe they should hoard their sounds until they find someone willing to pay for them. What was the original intent of the freesound project? To make money or fame or to share sounds for the common good. From what I've read, the intent was the sharing of sounds for a variety of purposes. Why, now would we want to take steps to make it more confusing or difficult to do what was originally intended? It was supposed to be easy and it seems to me that public domain is about as easy as it gets. If someone is getting possesive, controlling or worried that their sounds are being used inappropriately or by a person or entity without a pure intent then this is not the forum for the sound in the first place. It seems to me that posting a sound to this website named "freesound" would require an attitude of not only wanting to share the sound but also of letting go of how the sound will be used.
Hi; newbie here with no uploads to vet my views, but hey:
I like the choice of three licenses; "attr", "attr. non-com", and "public domain". I like letting things into the public domain, in general.
ermine
It's simple - two possible licenses for any sound is complexity users don't need.
I say let them learn. Growing up is good. Learning things is important. How to choose a license is a skill these hypothetical users need to go ahead and develop, in my opinion.
...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...
It should be the creator's choice to necessitate that level of interaction. I can certainly foresee wanting to give a bunch of samples to the world without wanting to have filmmakers / producers emailing me or what have you. Most of those folks annoy me, honestly. Take it; leave me alone. My largesse is an arm's-length kind of love.
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...
AMEN! TESTIFY ERMINE
My choise is 'Attribution'. I would prefer 'Public domain' but it's against of the copyright law of Finland (weird legislation we have here).
I believe we make the world a better place by allowing people to use our best creations for any commercial or non-commercial project.
I agree with the sentiment that people don't really know what they're voting for.
It's obvious that public-domain only isn't going to succeed (too many people disagree with it, you'd have a mutiny on your hands) and that attribution only and attribution non-commercial aren't going to succeed (or at least they would leave a large portion of users unhappy ).
Attribute+Attribute-non-commercial is simple. It's easy to understand "you can't use this for commercial purposes" or "you can". Somebody working on a commercial production will avoid "non-commercial", while somebody who's not won't care.
Attribute+Attribute-non-commercial+Public-Domain is sort of complicated. Users have to keep track of which samples they need to attribute and which they don't (many might simply waive the public domain business and send mass-emails to all sample uploaders). Still more might completely avoid attribute samples and go solely for PD samples.
Others may just simply violate the law and ignore attribution.
However, this is "free" sound. And many users (like me) don't want to make people attribute. It throws a wrench in the gears.
The real argument is between choices and more choices. Should public domain be an option or not.
----------
Also, one solution for the complexity of choices: offer a default choice (i.e. "easy install" w/ software) and options for those who know what they're doing (i.e. "custom install" w/ software).
Then again, this doesn't make it much easier for the downloader who still needs to understand the rules.
----------
And just a little take on public domain:
When I first discovered this website, I payed no attention to the license. I didn't realize that sample+ included attribution. I haven't attributed any of the samples I've used.
Now that I'm faced with the law after the fact, it almost makes me want to just throw out the tracks and not have to worry about it, rather than back-tracking to attribute. Actually, I'd rather just break the law. I have, and I will.
Secondly, attribution puts people in a new, strange place with releasing music.
Have you ever listened to an album where in the liner notes, there are attributions to 50 different people who have contributed source material? It's kind of impractical and bizarre.
How do you attribute with a song that's shared on P2P? Include the attributes in the ID3 tags?
What if you sell an album released with a Creative Commons license that allows sharing. An owner of your album rips it to his computer and shares the self-tagged files (-attribution). Does that mean the creator of the album is at fault for not attributing?
Couldn't a user make 1 copy of the CD with attributes and release it as public domain, give it to a friend to rip and trade back to the creator, who would then package the material (having renounced ownership) and resell it as his own?
What happens when each of your 50 attributees require a different form of attribution!
I feel like attributing is going to create a mess for some power-users.
Based on that logic, I am left advocating public domain. But is that reasonable?
----------
Another thought:
So what if somebody takes your samples and sells them for profit? It comes at the cost of the buyer. If you discover that somebody is selling your samples, spread the word and let people know you can get them for free.
----------
Is there an "Attribute only if Commercial" option?
----------
Some people don't really know what they're voting for.
I have no idea!
I agree with rambleon 100%.
the site is called FREESOUND PROJECT. its not called
"oh that samle you can use for whatever but this sample you need to give me prop's for and money"
the word FREE doesn't imply anything other than JUST THAT-FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
the word free is very specific.
LS
I agree with rambleon 100%.the site is called FREESOUND PROJECT. its not called
"oh that samle you can use for whatever but this sample you need to give me prop's for and money"
the word FREE doesn't imply anything other than JUST THAT-FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
the word free is very specific.
No more replies in the last few days about this interesting dilemma! The problem that many have regarding public domain is that people can do whatever they want with it! That's fine with me but the real question is. Why would we share with someone that does not share but just takes our sample. The purpose of freesound is sharing and sharing is a two way relation. Even though I think Attribution is not the solution and that we should go more freely than that (That is my opinion!), I feel Public Domain is to free sometimes, particularly when it is someone that does not "share" with us.
What would people say of having two types of licences depending on the type of users you are. If you are a "sharer" you have a less restrictive license and if you are a "downloader" you have a more restrictive license... Is it something easy to do. I know that this issue has been raised elsewhere and they got stuck when they discovered that someone could upload not qualified and illegal samples for just downloading a sound and we would end up with problematic samples. If you raise the Bar at a certain number of uploaded sound and ask for a certain delay membership to proceed with freely usable samples.... Could this be done easily? What are your thoughts on the subject Freesounders?
I don't feel being "ripped off" if someone who has not uploaded a single sample would use my samples which I have uploaded. I think it is just flattering when somebody uses my samples 
It simply does not matter to me. I know that there will always be those who will contribute and those who will not. If this is supposed to be freesound, it should not matter.
I am not losing anything if a "freerider" downloads my sample and uses it however he wishes. I just hope that it makes him happy and he uses the sample well.
If I want to profit or trade my samples somehow, I will choose a different forum for that. I think upload/download rationing would complicate things and maybe lead to bad quality samples filling the library because people would be force to upload "something".
Again, what does freesound stand for?
It's not just a matter of the author wanting to make profit or not. Look at this particular case that happened to me just today: a guy asked for permission to use one of my sounds (a horse neigh) into a commercial game. My answer was:
"Ok, I only hope your game has not content objectionable to me (racism, animal brutality, etc)"
Ok, some people has the right to think that I'm trying to impose some form of censorhip on other's creativity. But on the other hand, do I have to trust someone out there is not making profit with a game in which horses are slayed, dogs are tortured or the like? I think not. Even if I don't want to make a penny from my sound I still may not want/condone some uses. That's my point of view.
LG
Money is not the issue at all - but the idea that you can (at least partly and depening on the honesty of users) have a say over the type of use is valuable.
Sure! We are all nice folks here FS, but let's face it: there are plenty of 'bad' guys out there with an internet connection. What if a neonazi group wants one of your samples to promote their rubbish?
With samples labelled non-commercial at least you and I could answer "ok, but you must pay me 10 million bucks. Still interested?" Some of you may say, hey this kind of people will use the sound ilegally anyway. I say: right, but if they do I can also give them some serious trouble... You know, Al Cappone went into jail because he forgot to pay taxes
I must say to those of you who think public domain is the way to go: freedom is nice in every aspect of life including sound. And that's exactly why one should *not* help in any way to enemies of freedom.
oh, sorry about the fuc** wordy post
I admit it - I am a "freeloader". I neither have the skill nor the equipment to record sounds. I have used sounds from the site to create sound effects for a short movie I made of my family and friends telling corny jokes. I credited the sound authors (as instructed) in the movie and it was never distributed publicly. I gave copies to only those people who appeared in the movie telling the jokes. Recently I have been looking for sounds I can use for meditation.
I respect the sounds and the sound authors. I appreciate the dedication and quality of the recorded sounds. I love freesound not just because I can get sounds for free but more I love it because of what it represents. I believe that whenever a community or group of people come together to support a singular purpose or goal, the outcome of that purpose or goal will be an exact result of the intent of the group. In other words, if we free ourselves from worry and fear, the outcome will be free (fearless and without worry). If we concentrate only on our fears of what could happen or our worries of what might become of the sounds (or anything else for that matter) then we are more likely to make our fears and worries become the reality which of course then everyone would just say, "see, we were right to be worried". The point is that either way you focus your energy, your intent, you are defining the result you will get. I want to expect the best from everyone. I know that may seem naive and I know there are "bad" people that may abuse the sounds or take advantage of the author's however, when we allow ourselves to become suspicious or give in to our own fears and worries, we are moving our own consciousness closer to that of those we are afraid of or worried about. My conscience is clear and I prefer to keep it that way by expecting the best. Maybe you would disagree, after all, I am a "freeloader".
I'm not a professional, and my project's GPL, and by that commercial use should be allowed so it can make its way onto Linux distribution CDs and such. If some sounds of fire and gun clacks from Freesound are keeping me from doing this because of a silly license, then it's ridiculous, and shouldn't be called "free" sound in the terms of free speech.
leileilol
I'm not a professional, and my project's GPL, and by that commercial use should be allowed so it can make its way onto Linux distribution CDs and such. If some sounds of fire and gun clacks from Freesound are keeping me from doing this because of a silly license, then it's ridiculous, and shouldn't be called "free" sound in the terms of free speech.
How many people though that sounds were free at FREESOUND? How many Freesound sounds are being used now without a decent attribution...
Anyway...
I voted "attribution", "attribution-noncommercial" and "public domain" depending on the sample. It might be confusing to new users, but better they learn a little now, if it spares them a law suit. I have not yet uploaded sounds to the web site. When I do, if I have the option, my uploads will be public domain. I would rather sound itself were public domain, but I'll opt to leave it up to each individual contributor. They may know something I don't about the laws. I am worried that a sample could be uploaded as public domain, that is later used commercially and becomes locked under the restrictions of a copyright. Things have gotten so bad in that arena, it wouldn't suprise me if a law suit could be negotiated regarding something along the lines of, retroactive copyright infringements. I hope that is just my uninformed paranoia. Again, I don't know the laws but it apears big $penders make them up as we go along.
I voted "attribution only", although the arguments for "attribution-noncommerical" or both are persuasive. My reasoning is that the whole point of creative commons is to get rid of the whole approval process by pre-approving your work for use by someone else.
Also, don't forget about our largely "prosumer" user base:
kyleklip
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....
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.
I agree here. Most likely, a large commercial project like a T.V. advertisement or feature film will not be able to meet the attribution requirement anyway (ads have no credits, film credits are strictly regulated by unions), and would be given the option of working something out with the sample author. Still, this is a bit of a nuisance.
Perhaps uploaders could elect to include their samples in a "best-of" pack that corporations could buy a license to, waiving the attribution clause (while saving them time and effort from having to clear every single sample)? The proceeds could go to fund freesound.
The paid model doesn't really go against the open-content philosophy either... look at software that's free for personal use but requires corporations to buy a license.