Freesound Forums

So then, woups freesound prove or notprove authorship.

bulbastre wrote:
How does cash-generating harm an Attribution license? I could understand a Non Commercial...

You can still claim that no attribution was given, on an attribution only license.
My point related to when your sound is being used as part of a high profile work - such as a A-grade movie, a top musical hit, etc.

Of course, if no attribution is given on a non-commercial license you can claim furhter damages as several terms of the license are being violated:
1) attribution
2) no commercial use

Okay, to summarize.

1) Re-tagging files on freesound with proper licences inside would be good, because it would elliminate some attribution problems in endless recycling going on in the internet. Sure - it will not elliminate intentional modifications, but on the other hand - it will point, that the modifications were made rather intentionally.

2) Re-tagging files via some sort of checkbox (user's control panel decides whether it's "always on" or "always off" and some indicator during registering on FS - what is set by default on sign up) - would be useful, because user will have the possibility to keep their tags, or replace them with licence template. This is also good because not everyone knows how to use tags manually.

3) Fingerprints/watermarks outside standard tagging system would not be useful, because tags allow to see the licence for most (99.9999%?) of people, while digital watermarking requires specialized software or services. Tags are supported by both - software players and most hardware players as well. Digital watermarks would be also useless if the file was re-streamed. While digital watermarks also can be removed, as I pointed before - let's focus on eliminating some problems (ambiguous situations, that tend to heat emotions).

Question. When implementing tag modifications on already uploaded files - would it affect file access structure on FS servers?

I'm mostly ok with all that compilation, but I find watermarks useful for some cases like perhaps sef's or malevolent people who intentionally removed the tags, ace under the sleeve style, even if those cases are 1%. As for now though, yes, it's a lot of effort for too little gain.

ayamahambho wrote:
1) Re-tagging files on freesound with proper licences inside[snip]

Nope, We will never change the original uploaded files on freesound. In any case, we would have to implement some kind of cross-format tagging thing, something we don't have the time for. If you want to tag your sounds with a license, go ahead. But what stops people from removing this tag? What is the advantage?

ayamahambho wrote:
3) Fingerprints/watermarks [snip...]

Fingerprints/watermarks only works within certain constraints. Sounds have to be long enough and there aren't a lot of watermarks that will survive re-encoding/re-sampling/...

In any case, freesound is not in the business of enforcing copyright. To be brutally honest I even partly think that the discussion of SEF's particular usage of sounds should be done elsewhere. I.e. freesound allows you to upload your sounds and share them with a permissive license, freesound is a tool just like many other websites. But we can't police the internet and it would be very counter-productive if we actively did so. If you really want to complain, complain to youtube/mediafire - they are allowing the infringement! I have stepped in a few times when big artists -accidentally- use our freesound stuff, but mostly because I thought it was cool they were using our sounds and tried to educate them.

I'm still waiting for SEF's reply to my latest reply to him. I did look at some of the files he is hosting and I do think that he is not following the rules. We can ask him to play nice and get more respect from the freesound community and hosts. If he doesn't want to play - so be it. Then we can only complain to youtube.

I also strongly feel that this discussion is destroying the nice community feeling in FS, not the fact that someone is breaking the rules. People will ALWAYS break the rules. And as I've repeated over and over again: copyright and CC are the same, they are rules for legal re-use of sounds. CC just gives you more power to do the right thing where in Copyright you are automatically breaking the rules.

greetings,

- Bram

Bram - I think I pointed the advantages of (semi-)auto tagging (according to licences selected by user) clearly.

1) If such tags are removed, it increases the probability that it was done intentional (and not that the file was re-distributed in wrong way due to lack of understanding of licences). If a file was just redistributed, then it is signed and does not require any additional text fields on a separate website.

2) If files are redistributed across the internet by people who found them somewhere else (thus - they may believed that it is fine due to the context in which they found these files), then such files would be attributed automatically. Thus - no stress. (and you know these bots that grab and index any multimedia content, without giving the context that may be described in some sort of text form).

Read few posts above. It's about exposing some situations and clarifying others. Sure - it is not a cure for all things that can happen. I think we speak about different things (I don't care about SEF - he is not my problem; I just point certain borderline situations). I speak about making things easy.

To avoid server overloads - I would add some sort of flag, which files were re-tagged.

*

Correct me. When uploading files on freesound - licences refer to only sonic content of audio files OR ALSO to filenames and tags as well?

To my understanding, re-tagging (confirmed by user) with licences would not violate content related rights.

Hey ayamahambho, I fully understood your reply. I just think it is a really bad idea to change the uploaded files in any way. You upload "A v1.0", we give "A v1.0" to the users, not "A v1.1". It could also potentially mean that we overwrite information that is already there. If there is a checkbox then people kind of need to know what we are talking about...

The other replies I gave were not meant for you, but for other people posting in here...

- Bram

Why? It would be a template based automation tool, on the side of the server, accessible for user only if they decide to use such feature.

I would promote it as an automation tool for online tagging, with simple way of adding "licence description" tags, so that users don't need to have any knowledge on how tagging works.

Among advantages - I would mention it in simple words (just keep in mind, that english is not my native language...):

If your file is accidentally ("cloud hard drivers" common mistakes too!) copied somewhere else on the internet:
- by other user,
- by robot website that find links to files (following websites or download accelerators),
- by person who found such redistributed link without description
by activating this tool - you can be sure, that the file contains your licence details (lincence you selected) inside so called "tags". This tag information seen by almost all software and hardware media players. However keep in mind, that if tags are removed intentionally or by other software - this information will be not available, and thus your files must be attributed in classical way.

It's just a sketch of an idea I would consider (signs of time), nothing that "you must".

If by default is off - then no problem for people who are far away from technology.

And I would not say, that this is skip from version 1.0 to 1.1. That's why my question about licence reference: only sonic content or sonic content and filenames/tags.

I agree with ayama, but I don't get Bram's comment about the checkbox?

Guys,

I'll repeat: we will not change to content you upload. Adding metadata (ID3/mp3, WAV?, BWF, AIF?, ogg, flac?) to files is *changing* the files. If you upload an audio file the file people will download is an EXACT copy, not a fudged file.

But nothing stops you from adding these license meta-tags yourself to the files. Go ahead!!

- bram

(
... but if some of you feel like implementing this in freesound, go ahead, the source code is right here:
http://github.com/MTG/freesound
if you implement it we might add it, hell it's a free feature then!
)

We're not asking you to change the content we upload. We're asking you to offer the possibility to change it / complement it. After all, freesound adds licenses to our content, along with a description and grouping options.

bulbastre wrote:
We're not asking you to change the content we upload. We're asking you to offer the possibility to change it / complement it. After all, freesound adds licenses to our content, along with a description and grouping options.

I don' tthink this is correct at all:

1) Freesound does not add licenses to our content - the user selects which license he/she wants to use from a number of available options. The licenses are not created by Freesound either, they are a selection of CC licenses which the creators of the site decided would make most sense and be the most useful for the kind of contents they intended to be housed on the site. There are many other CC licenses which are not in use at the site.
Bottom line is: the user actively decides which license to set for each uploaded sound.

2) Freesound does not add descriptions or tags. Again the user must type these.
Moderators may request additional info be added or they may suggest additional description or tags. But the mods cannot change descriptions or tags themselves.
The admins I am sure can, in theory, make changes to tags or descriptions. But they don't. The only change they will make is to delete a file if it is found to be a copyright infringement.

3) "Grouping options", i.e., sample packs. Freesound allows users to group samples, but this is done by the user, according to their own selection criteria / choice.

From a legal perspective, if Freesound wants the responsibility for uploaded contents to remain with the users, then Freesound should leave the uploaded contents exactly as it was uploaded. The moment you start modifying uploaded contents you become a co-author and the rules of the game change.

1) I'm not asking for freesound to add anything to my content - I'm asking it to allow me to select an option that allows me to actively choose from a number of available options.
Bottom line is: the user actively selects which tag to set for each individual sound.

2) Freesound shouldn't have to write down the tags within a file the same way they don't write down the tags freesound currently uses.

From a legal perspective, I have no clue.
It seems silly that the responsibility is shared with freesound (as in coauthoring) if there's a disclaimer attached to the tagging options like the one proposed before. If it still would be considered coauthoring, then, oh well... Well, it sucks XD but we can't do nothing if that's what the law says.

bulbastre - I think what he means is, that while user will have the file tagging option under their hand - if file was stolen, then fresound as the "indexing tool" would be sued on first place. That is - if file was found externally (imagine mass findings), and if tag contains any association wort to freesound (like username link guided to here), then copyright trolls would not bother and just kick the freesound.

On the other hand - copyright trolls would not bother anyway, and sue fresound and the user.

Yep, law sucks.

I realise this should really be the end of the dispute by now, but upon discovering this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnlD1iXQgW8&list;=PLbHLRmc3X2rGK-YLkca5GQQhoQYYWKwkL

Which is basically this, that I wrote :
http://www.freesound.org/people/FoolBoyMedia/sounds/217799/

I am in two minds. I am happy that my sample track has reached a wider audience and I have had a few people contact me with regards to using the full track for their projects (they contacted me via FreeSound might I add and not the SEF YouTube channel.).

On the other hand, I am annoyed SEF doesn't use my original title for the song and the attribution is a pitiful circumvention at the end of promoting his/her own pages at the bottom of the show more tab.

I am also annoyed that someone is able to skim all these recordings, post them on YouTube and use that intentionally to attract people to advert laced videos that generate some form of income, no matter how big or small.

I understand that SEF is not claiming ownership, but neither is he honestly stating where he obtains his sounds from and in most cases that I have seen from other users work being used in the same way, the attribution is minimal compared to all his own promotional needs.

I have also read from him on this thread

"To conclude, some of you may think I'm a bad person. But that's okay, I assure you in good faith that my intentions are not harmful."

Harmful, maybe not. But entirely disrespectful to the entire community by skimming sounds and using it for your own promotional needs (monetary or not) without even asking permission to use said sounds.

I am not so much bothered with license restrictions but the overall personal agenda that I can't help but be slapped in the face by, is also a slap to the entire community of FreeSound.

To atone for your sins (please detect the implied comedic tone here SEF), I think a re branding of "Sound Effects Factory" to "Freesound(.org) Factory" would be appropriate. As it is essentially the whole concept of FreeSound.org transposed to a YouTube channel, all other links to MediaFire and wherever else would be removed and replaced with all original titles for the sounds with links to the users profile, where people are able to contact them directly.

While SEF claims to of given back, I am not convinced by the statement :

"Recently I have spent out of my own pocket to purchase a Zoom H4n recorder and I have been making field recordings and other sounds for the site here in a way to give back."

I know not how that money got in to your pocket in the first place. But I believe that recording a minimal number of sounds over the past few months after being a member for 2 years, says to me that you had no intention of giving back until this was highlighted.

Now this is my view, and I am by no means telling anyone what to do or how to do their own thing. I would simply like to suggest that any revenue that has been generated by the use of the "Sound Effects Factory" channel YouTube advertising should be given back to the Freesound.org seeing as it has not been the own personal work of SEF.

I am planning on donating today as I have been graced with some project work thanks to the site and emplore the owner of SEF to at least think about my above statement regarding advertising revenue.

If it wasnt for FreeSound.Org, SEF, where would you be?

P.s I hope this does not warrant a banning from FreeSound, I believe I am speaking on behalf of everyone affected in whatever way, knowingly or not, and only want this site to thrive, as it has been a fascinating 3 months since I have joined with regards to the reach across the globe for the use of some amazing work by the talented individuals on this site.

On the other hand, I see Bram opened to the possibility of someone implementing that in the source code. Does that mean he's legally happy with that option but not wanting to take the work?
At the end, would this be legal or not?

Also, Bram, any advancement with your conversations with SEF?

And last but not least: if FreeSound doesn't enforce law or actively protect the copyright of its users, do you recommend a complementary service?

I've been recomended SafeCreative.

bulbastre wrote:
... if FreeSound doesn't enforce law or actively protect the copyright of its users, do you recommend a complementary service?

I've been recomended SafeCreative.

"SafeCreative" may be able to automatically detect copyright-infringement , but "SafeCreative" are not going to "actively protect the copyright of its users" , i.e. take legal action on their behalf.

It's unreasonable to expect any media-file hosting service to "actively protect the copyright of its users" , least of all non-profit ones like Freesound , ( the lucrative YouTube don't even do that, other than "in-house" copyright-infringement where one YouTube Channel copies another ).

Unlike legitimate media companies, ( e.g. record labels, games manufacturers ), prolific copyright thieves are largely indifferent to the prospect of bad-publicity, ( such publicity could even be counter-productive : the offender may benefit from the notoriety ).

bulbastre wrote:
Does that mean he's legally happy with that option but not wanting to take the work?

I got tired explaining Changing ID3 tags (or BWF headers, ...) in files changes the file content. I that that is not such a good idea to change files after they are uploaded. And, secondly, it's a pain implementing (=coding) this in a way that works with all file formats. It's actually impossible for some formats.

Replying to other things, not this quote from bullbastre:

1. Timbre could you please stop spamming the forum with various threads about various files @ freesound for now and with information on takedown notices? Once we have everything cleared out with SEF I will create one forum in which you/anyone can post takedown-wishes for SEF.

2. As long as SEF is not doing anything illegal (Timbre, posting links to freesound usernames instead of particular files is a very gray area) I'm cool with him copying freesound files to YouTube to make money. As long as the files are attributed and not NC licenses anyone can copy what SEF is doing and we're cool with that. We're not so cool with the mediafire hosting as it has no attribution.

3. The practice of putting the attribution in under the "read more" section is shady, but it is not illegal.

grts,

- Bram