Freesound Forums
IMPORTANT: the future license of freesound
Started October 24th, 2006 · 208 replies · Latest reply by dobroide 13 years, 4 months ago
skiptracer
Previously I advocated options, but I think I want to change my persuasion to public-domain, simply because this site is unusable otherwise.I cannot and will not keep track of ever single sample I use. It's just too time consuming.
Hi
Now let's take that scenario, where, in order to produce music (or anything else) you have to use a lot of samples.
Under my point of view, you have various options:
1)You record your own samples (time consuming)
2)You pay for the samples you use (money consuming, so: time consuming, working to pay them)
3)You use royalty-free samples from magazines or other websites (not that easy to get together a bunch of those with quality, tho)
4)You use Freesound, doing what the license says you have to do.
5)Stop using sounds
If it happens that we choose something else than Public Domain and you are not going to track every single sample you use from Freesound, please DO NOT use samples from Freesound.
What software do you use for music ?
Under (i.e.) cubase is quite easy to keep track of used samples with the sample pool.
If you edit samples in external sound editors, just keep the sound ID, sound filename, or sound's author name in the resulted processed filename.
As you may have noticed, when you download a sample, on it's filename you have:
1) The ID of the sample (wich can be used to access its page in Freesound)
2) The name of the user
3) The name of the original file/sound
Example:
Your sound RadioStatik3, when downloaded, gives this filename:
495_skiptracer_RadioStatik3
where "495" is the ID, "skiptracer" is your nickname and "radiostatik3" is the filename.
You have enough tools to keep track of the samples you use and it's not such a big problem.
We had a discussion for sounds used on movies, people complained about the difficulty to put all that info on the credits. After Children Of Men sound guys used a Freesound sound and attributed it correctly (next to Aphex Twin and Radiohead) those arguments do not hold that much water.
http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/files/children_of_men.jpg
Giving attribution benefits the authors of the original sound, it benefits Freesound, it benefits Creative Commons initative, and under certain perspective it benefits humanity.
And I don't think is such a big effort in echange of such an easily searchable, vast and variate free sample source as Freesound.
Thanks for your time.
(edited for typos)
plagasulskiptracer
Previously I advocated options, but I think I want to change my persuasion to public-domain, simply because this site is unusable otherwise.
I cannot and will not keep track of ever single sample I use. It's just too time consuming.
...
As you may have noticed, when you download a sample, on it's filename you have:1) The ID of the sample (wich can be used to access its page in Freesound)
2) The name of the user
3) The name of the original file/soundExample:
Your sound RadioStatik3, when downloaded, gives this filename:
495_skiptracer_RadioStatik3
where "495" is the ID, "skiptracer" is your nickname and "radiostatik3" is the filename.
You have enough tools to keep track of the samples you use and it's not such a big problem.
Maybe if you only use a couple of sounds, unmodified. What if you load 20 different sounds into a sample editor and cut&paste to produce new sounds? What if you download 200 sounds into a directory and use a granular processor to generate new sounds from all those? Even if there were automatic tools to keep track of all attributions it would be too much of a pain to actually use it.
We had a discussion for sounds used on movies, people complained about the difficulty to put all that info on the credits. After Children Of Men sound guys used a Freesound sound and attributed it correctly (next to Aphex Twin and Radiohead) those arguments do not hold that much water.
That was one single sound.
And I don't think is such a big effort in echange of such an easily searchable, vast and variate free sample source as Freesound.
Maybe not, but it's an even smaller effort to not have to do it. And if someone is forced to attribute all 500 sounds used in an album on the backcover or on the website, do you think anyone is ever going to read through those references? And assume someone else samples a loop from that album - does he have to check exactly which of those 500 samples that loop contains so he can attribute them? Or if he can't do that, does he have to list all 500 references as well?
Anyway, I guess the discussion is pointless since Bram has already said that there will be multiple licenses and one of them will be "public domain".
larslplagasulYou have enough tools to keep track of the samples you use and it's not such a big problem.
Maybe if you only use a couple of sounds, unmodified. What if you load 20 different sounds into a sample editor and cut&paste to produce new sounds?.
In that case attribute the 20 of them, nobody will complain if u attribute some sound that is not in the final mix.
larslWhat if you download 200 sounds into a directory and use a granular processor to generate new sounds from all those? Even if there were automatic tools to keep track of all attributions it would be too much of a pain to actually use it.
What software do you use to do that ?
While this is a bit of an extreme example and starts to be like searching for the third leg of the cat (yeah, spanish xpression), if that is really your problem i am sure i can get someone to write a small program that just collects all the samples in a folder and turns them into a .txt with filenames+author names so you can attribute the 200 of them.
But you are probably just trying to come with a difficult scenario.
larslplagasul
We had a discussion for sounds used on movies, people complained about the difficulty to put all that info on the credits. After Children Of Men sound guys used a Freesound sound and attributed it correctly (next to Aphex Twin and Radiohead) those arguments do not hold that much water.That was one single sound.
Indeed. I suppose that now you will say that is impossible to attribute in film credits more than one sound, i suppose also that you will keep saying that until a dozen of sounds appear in the credits of another movie.
Anyway we already proposed various solutions to that, like placing a link in the credits that takes you to a site where u have all the samples attributed properly, plus a link to freesound.
larslplagasul
And I don't think is such a big effort in echange of such an easily searchable, vast and variate free sample source as Freesound.Maybe not, but it's an even smaller effort to not have to do it.
That's the spirit
larslAnd if someone is forced to attribute all 500 sounds used in an album on the backcover or on the website, do you think anyone is ever going to read through those references?.
Just people really interested in it. Do you really read trough the credits of a movie?
larslAnd assume someone else samples a loop from that album - does he have to check exactly which of those 500 samples that loop contains so he can attribute them? Or if he can't do that, does he have to list all 500 references as well?.
You are confused with the license.
None of the licenses suggested, nor the one we actually use, demand "share-alike" wich is the name of what you mention.
The license of the final work is independent from the license of the Free.sounds used in that final work.
Example: If i make a song and i use Free.sounds in it, i can copyright it for selling and you just WOULD NOT be able to (legally) loop my song at all.
------------------------
I am all about adding Public Domain as a licensing option for Freesound users. What i really find difficult to assimilate with my little spanish brain is such a lazyness in giving support to this kind of initiatives.
I am going to ask Bram to start a new forum for "attribution problems" and i'll give away one bottle of wine for each REAL problem of attribution for wich we (community) can't find a solution at all.
One bottle of wine
Thank you very much for your time.
1) I'm an egotist. I like to get credit for stuff I've done. I don't care about getting paid for it, because money just makes things ugly. But Whuffie is always good to have.
2) I like choice. The idea of multiple licenses rather than just one allows us the freedom to tailor-make the up-front rights to our needs. There are some sounds I've done that I wouldn't mind restricting from commercial use, or would like to try out a Share-Alike license with. And there are several hundred sounds in my library here I wouldn't mind uploading as public domain because they're not really worth the CC'ing.
plagasullarsl
What if you download 200 sounds into a directory and use a granular processor to generate new sounds from all those? Even if there were automatic tools to keep track of all attributions it would be too much of a pain to actually use it.
What software do you use to do that ?
I don't know if there is any software that does that, but that's not the point. I could easily write a program to do that. The point is that it's possible, and it would be made more difficult by an attribution requirement.
While this is a bit of an extreme example and starts to be like searching for the third leg of the cat (yeah, spanish xpression)
Do spanish cats have less than three legs? What are you doing to the poor creatures?
And assume someone else samples a loop from that album - does he have to check exactly which of those 500 samples that loop contains so he can attribute them? Or if he can't do that, does he have to list all 500 references as well?.
You are confused with the license.
None of the licenses suggested, nor the one we actually use, demand "share-alike" wich is the name of what you mention.
The license of the final work is independent from the license of the Free.sounds used in that final work.
Example: If i make a song and i use Free.sounds in it, i can copyright it for selling and you just WOULD NOT be able to (legally) loop my song at all.
I know that, I was assuming that the first song (using "original" samples) was released under a license that allowed sampling, or that the writer of the second song had received explicit permission from the writer of the first song to sample it. I was also assuming that the second song would also be considered a "Derivative Work" of the original samples in the meaning defined in BY 2.5. Maybe this isn't true? Does the attribution requirement only hold for "first generation" derivative works? I thought that wasn't the case because the license says nothing about any restriction in scope like that, but maybe someone else could clarify?
I guess what it comes down to is whether you see the samples on Freesound mainly as significant creative works in their own right, in which case it is reasonable to require attribution, or mainly as tools to create other works, in which case attribution is just in the way.
larsl
Do spanish cats have less than three legs? What are you doing to the poor creatures?
Nothing at all, we all love cats. They simply have four legs (most of them at least) , and that's why trying to see three is nonsense.
larslI guess what it comes down to is whether you see the samples on Freesound mainly as significant creative works in their own right, in which case it is reasonable to require attribution, or mainly as tools to create other works, in which case attribution is just in the way.
Wrong IMO. It comes down to whether the *author* wants attribution or not. Please note: the author, not the user. It's quite simple, I think...
saludos
i think that instead of "public domain, attribution or attribution-noncommercial depending on the sample", we should just have "public domain or attribution depending on the sample", because "non-commercial" is too limited IMO..
From the licenses listed in the poll only "Public Domain" is suitable for development of free games (none of the creative commons licenses that need attribution, sorry). Did you ever consider to allow GPL as an option for sound licenses?
Well, I voted for "Public Domain" as it is surely the best option for music, movies and games alltogether...
GPL doesn't really make sense for stuff like audio. What is the "source code" exactly? A protools session? The raw recording?
And you have to furnish this to anyone who asks?
Ostensibly, PD is easier. There are also the options of retaining copyright but allowing people to use it for any purpose- or even to release all rights. In some countries such as the U.S., it's not exactly clear whether an individual even can put his own works into the public domain, but allowing any use is a bit more clear in this regard.
Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it, this conversation is confusing enough as it is.
For free games, what about the approach I suggested here?
There is also the film equivalent of a URL in the credits roll to a file that contains a full attribution list.
My goodness. I just voted for the "optional mix" option, but the reality is that I'd rather see nearly everything here as "attribution". I favor "attribution" over "public domain" because I like to attribute and be attributed. I do not favor the sampling licenses because of quirks in the license definition, about "advertising".
I think that a "user option" would be fun, though, in case a commercial enterprise wished to make a cool sound from a movie, say, available for use at home but not commercially. Then the option to post BY NC would be nice.
But for me, I'd love this place best if it were all BY and not BY SA.
Well, it looks like the eventual solution will be to allow the uploader to choose a license. This *would* make things even more confusing for the downloader though- I propose not allowing ShareAlike licenses to be used because, AFAIK, they are all mutually incompatible for making derivative works.
Toddd
From the licenses listed in the poll only "Public Domain" is suitable for development of free games (none of the creative commons licenses that need attribution, sorry). Did you ever consider to allow GPL as an option for sound licenses?Well, I voted for "Public Domain" as it is surely the best option for music, movies and games alltogether...
That's what I want to say! Agree you!
I am all about adding Public Domain as a licensing option for Freesound users. What i really find difficult to assimilate with my little spanish brain is such a lazyness in giving support to this kind of initiatives.
I echo the sentiment.
Also, I'm one of those people that will read the credits and the more information that's given, the more interested I am. I don't even like to see unreferenced stock footage. I want the details.
I have become irritated and slightly generally distrustful of filmmakers and game designers, because I find too often that they don't seem to attach importance to attribution. Even if I've been paid, I like to have acknowledgment and resumé material.
I'd love it if, when this problem is resolved, a post were made to this thread so that I could decide how to proceed. I want to load up a host of sound effects and drops of original music. There's a lot of stuff I want to give up to the world and see it fly free, but there's far more that I want to be available to advertise my professional services with. If people don't see the importance of that, then it's just the wrong context for professionals to participate in, which isn't so terrible, but it would be a shame, because I like the philosophy so much.
Loki: I think if you examine our Sampling Plus license, you may find it suitable for this purpose. It was developed for commercial artists who wish to allow creative re-use and remixing of their work, and also redistribution with attribution.
I too love Freesound, and if I make any money from what I'm currently working on (with a handful of samples from FS), I'll be supporting it for sure.
I like the attribution-only basis, because I think it's great that people all over the world who have access to different sounds can share them with others. Some members may be more prolific than others; some might have more interesting sounds than others — but each is contributing what he or she can. If I still played a musical instrument, I'd do my bit there. As it is, I now live in a part of the world (Maritime Canada) quite unlike where I was born (Liverpool, England), so I know that there are sounds here that can't be found in other places. For instance, I never lived this far out in the wilderness, with all sorts of animal sounds around. I think I just recently (and some might say predictably!) uploaded the sound of live lobsters in a box: probably not destined to feature in a top-10 Europop hit, but someone might need it eventually! I just want to say, I haven't even scratched the surface yet, but I look forward very, very much to sharing those sounds with the rest of this community. And thanks to all the other users out there who feel the same way.
I wouldn't want anything for my field sounds other than the warm, fuzzy feeling of knowing that someone else might sometime have a use for the thing I did, even if they make money from it. I think that if you're a member of Freesound, you're generally not here to exploit others. It's everyone scratching each other's backs, and the more, the merrier.
That said, I think it's only courtesy to mention the people whose material you've used, if you have space on a CD jacket or whatnot.
man, do I wish there was a free liceonse choice/public domain/cc0 already.
anyways, just writing here to let you know that there's now a 'new' 'better' version of public domain dedication out: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
