Freesound Forums

It is a bit awkward that WE USERS (klankbeeld, timbre, juskiddink, myself...) and a few moderators must take some steps, get our hands dirty, in order to protect our work. Instead of focusing our positiv energy in creating good sounds.
I think that Freesound. org is not that little site these days, that could be bullied by every mischief juvenile.

my conclusion; SEF is sick
voodoo will help maybe.

I will put my energy only in creating beautiful sound now.

SEF will smile now.

klankbeeld wrote:
1] NO INDIRECT DOWNLOAD LINK; Link the people directly to my sound

Does re-hosting of YouTube "horror ambience" videos count as an "indirect link" ?. e.g. ...

http://www45.zippyshare.com/scaled/97338261/file.html

WARNING: the "clip.dj" rehosting website has pop-up & pop-under adverts, and god knows what other nastiness, I suggest using a sandbox if you visit it to avoid possible malware infection.

Sounds can be played on and downloaded from YouTube rehosting sites without the downloader getting a chance to see any attribution on the original YouTube video.

zagi2 wrote:
It is a bit awkward that WE USERS (klankbeeld, timbre, juskiddink, myself...) and a few moderators must take some steps, get our hands dirty, in order to protect our work. Instead of focusing our positiv energy in creating good sounds.
I think that Freesound. org is not that little site these days, that could be bullied by every mischief juvenile.

There are previous instances of Freesound intervention on illeal use of samples from Freesound.
I also agree that our energy is best spent on creative aspects and from my perspective SEF had been left alone - until a few days ago when he decided to show up again and spit on our face.

Saddly, he is not a juvenile. But on the plus side that means he is fully accountable for his actions.

He thinks he is building a name for himself.
Lets see how that backfires when potential employers search him up online and find his dirty trail of copyright infractions. Put that on you CV, SEF.

@JimiMod
Didn`t get this hair and hat part?

I would point out that SoundEffectsFactory has actually now bought a sound recorder and has now been uploading his own sounds to Freesound.
His actions in the past were certainly questionable - and have been questioned by this community.
It would appear that our questioning did have the desired effect and that SEF did change his ways.

So what is this now all about (after 6 months of innactivity on this thread)?

I would suggest no more posts on this thread for the moment, please.

If you have any questions or concerns PM me.

@JimiMod
Shoot to barber

@JimiMod
I`ve got you first time.
Luckily MY barber did`t cut my ear.

SoundEffectsFactory wrote:
[Timbre,]Talking about "fair use" when it comes to manipulating a picture of myself when all this time you are questioning the ethics regarding using CC0 / CC Attribution sounds on YouTube. Quite hypocritical if you ask me

Unlike what I’ve done to that image, (which you say is of you), you do not transform the sounds you lift from Freesound and re-host on YouTube : you just copy and paste, and reluctantly give credit, which is hidden. So your particular usage of Freesounds on YouTube isn’t covered by “fair use”, whereas my use of that image is covered as it’s transformative-criticism-parody. So no hypocrisy.

Kyle frantically copying from Freesound to YouTube ...
http://imageshack.com/a/img845/3267/0evm.gif
http://plus.google.com/100202739201467442324

SoundEffectsFactory wrote:
… this matter had been resolved ...

Nothing has been resolved : you’re the same dishonest foul-mouthed parasite you always were, and probably always will be.

SoundEffectsFactory wrote:
… I think I found a picture of you …

It’s not me : I don’t smoke.

JimiMod wrote:
That you're using your gear and successfully uploading sounds is a step in the right direction ...

see "token gesture" ... http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/token+gesture

SoundEffectsFactory wrote:
… I have clear attribution in the descriptions of all my videos

Your attributions are not clear, they are hidden , and are often incomplete :
according to the creative commons attribution license terms 4b(ii)/4b(iii), the attribution should either include the title the Freesound creator has given to their work , and/or a URI (URL) link to the Freesound you‘ve used. Just providing a link to the creator’s Freesound profile, without including the original title of the work, does not fully comply with the creative commons attribution license terms …

Creative Commons Attribution License, Restrictions, 4b wrote:
… (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work

To be fully compliant either you add their original title in the YouTube description ,
or use a URI (URL) link to the specific Freesound,
e.g. in Your YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWk69hf-pYY
currently has the hidden link to “ http://www.freesound.org/people/rjonesxlr8/ ”
When it should be “ http://www.freesound.org/people/rjonesxlr8/sounds/221583/ ”
if the original title is not included in your description.

Your mediafire download links associated with those YouTubes don't comply with the CC attribution license either , e.g. http://www.mediafire.com/listen/k75tt4bsq5r30l3/underground+tunnel+atmosphere+SoundEffectsFactory.wav
aka http://mfi.re/listen/k75tt4bsq5r30l3/underground_tunnel_atmosphere_SoundEffectsFactory.wav
don't give attribution other than an undeserved one for "SoundEffectsFactory" :¬(
[ not even attribution hidden in the audio-file metadata ].

If I shared one of those mediafire links, ( particularly the second one which has in-built sharing buttons to facebook, twitter, google+, etc ), then the recipient doesn't know about the true original creator and the requirement to attribute them.

Creative Commons Attribution License, Restrictions, 4 wrote:

a. ... You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with EVERY copy of the Work You Distribute ...

b(i) ...the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied

b(ii) ... the title of the Work if supplied

b(iii) ... the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work

All four of those requirements are missing from your mediafire downloads :¬(

Anyone wishing to complain to mediafire about SEF, aka Kyle, distributing their sounds without proper attribution should go to ... http://www.freesound.org/forum/legal-help-and-attribution-questions/34819/
If you want to complain to YouTube see my guide here ... http://www.freesound.org/forum/legal-help-and-attribution-questions/34244/
.
PS search this bitly page http://bitly.com/u/o_5aprdql2ei to see if SoundEffectFactory aka SoundEffectCapital aka SoundEffectArchive have redistributed your sound without attribution via mediafire.


( UPDATE +3 weeks from this post:
I just noticed Freesound member rjonesxlr8 has deleted all their files from Freesound :¬(

I would prefer you don't use this kind of language.
Also, this is becomeing a hate thread.
Would not be surprised if it gets locked or removed by the admins.

Please bulbastre, stop this way of writing.

The way of looking like; : "once a thief, always a thief" is not very human.

regards

Agree.

Emotions in such cases are not helping to solve the problem. But such problems help to adjust solutions in the future.

So we may still not approve of what has been done retrospectively, but SEF has shown without a doubt he is willing to comply in different ways, so can we just lay this to rest and move on?

@AlienXXX - I think it would be probably for the best to terminate this discussion. It's run it's course now don't you agree?

I moderated some of the sounds he has recently uploaded and got the idea (from the description) that he is trying to rectify his wrongdoings by contributing to the community. I hate all this bitterness that's coming from people here I once respected.

OK everyone, chill out.

I really hate to be called in on threads like these. They make me feel like I'm some kind of head-principal calling out the kids to smack them in the head.

First of all, please take care of your language, I really don't like rude comments and bullying on freesound, this is childish and -tbh- very silly. Freesound is a place for sharing and respectful disagreeing. If you disagree with someone say so but please, show some respect. Bulbastre, JimiMod and Timbre in particular, are you kidding guys? Don't make me throw *all* of you out in moderator-rage.

I get the feeling that SoundEffectsFactory has been behaving (much) better lately and has come to at least understand that some things we like, some we don't. The CC licenses allow people to make money from cc-by and cc-zero licenses, there is nothing wrong with that.

So, I'm going to delete this topic in a bit, but I would like to suggest a few things and want some answers on this, especially from the more vocal kids in this thread:

we can create a new thread on the forum in which SoundEffectsFactory can be notified of (possible) infringements of copyright in a respectful way. SoundEffectsFactory: does that sound OK to you? I would suggest this to be a collaborative thread where SoundEffectsFactory tries to take care of infringements within a respectful time frame.
Misbehave in this new thread and you're out. This goes for all of you.

I'll wait for some replies (SoundEffectsFactory, Bulbastre, JimiMod and Timbre in particular) and then I'm going to nuke this thread and I will create a new one.

thx,

- bram

Hi,

Ok, you're right. Sorry for overheating. It's just that yesterday I received this nasty news of my sound being redistributed without proper credit.
I reported that to YouTube, Facebook and MediaFire. Go guess if they'll notice me. If they do, though, I think the most they will do is to erase that particular sound and move on, but for the looks of it, SEF has done this with dozens of other sounds, which is simply illegal.

I'm ok with opening another thread in a more respectful manner, but HE HAS TO COLLABORATE. Otherwise, it's illegal and we should take legal action. Respectful, but firm.

I haven't known of SEF's case until now, and I don't know if he changed his attitude or not.

SEF:
"""Ever since the video containing your sound went up, if you were to expand the description of my video you would see that your are indeed credited. I have mentioned your freesound profile as well a link to the license terms you specified so others know how to use the sound.

This is all that is required by the Attribution license and I may use your sound as I please for commercial purposes and to distribute.

Perhaps you should read over the licenses that you specified before throwing accusations out."""

bulbastre:
"""Yes, sorry. I hadn't seen the 'show more' expandable in the description.

Could you link to the sound itself as well?

According to this:
"If supplied, you must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material."

You need to link the original material. Thank you."""

He still hasn't answered, but if he doesn't in a couple of weeks, I'll try to take full legal action.

Bram wrote:
Don't make me throw *all* of you out in moderator-rage.

Bram wrote: … I'm going to delete this topic…

You mean delete the thread without which SEF would still be using attribution non-commercial licensed Freesounds on monetized YouTubes without any attribution whatsoever ?

Delete the thread which allows Freesound contributors (and other creators) being lied to by SEF in personal messages to see the true picture of his activities, ( it’s in SEF’s interest that his victims aren’t aware of each others existence, or his history ).

Bram wrote:
I get the feeling that SoundEffectsFactory has been behaving (much) better lately ... The CC licenses allow people to make money from cc-by and cc-zero licenses, there is nothing wrong with that.

SEF's use of mediafire downloads offer NO attribution whatsoever - he has not changed his ways.
e.g. http://mfi.re/listen/k75tt4bsq5r30l3/underground_tunnel_atmosphere_SoundEffectsFactory.wav
which is … http://www.Freesound.org/people/rjonesxlr8/sounds/221583/ [(CC BY 3.0) March 2014].

The URL's in his hidden YouTube attributions are not to the specific* Freesound used and do not include the title of the "the work", so his hidden YouTube attributions are still not compliant with the creative commons attribution license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode

[ * If he complied and posted a URL to the Freesound he's used, less punters would click on his attribution-free mediafire download, ( hidden in a "bit.ly" short URL), for which he receives advertising revenue ]

Even if SEF is ever fully compliant with the creative commons attribution license,
by re-hosting he’ll still be guilty of sharp practice … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharp_practice
Most Freesound contributors, (except the ones who have read this thread), have no-idea their sounds could be re-hosted, aka “re-served”, aka “used as stock”, on other file-sharing sites with little or no attribution.

SoundEffectsFactory wrote:
He [Timbre] still has not explained this.

Timbre wrote:
" [ You mean delete the thread without which ] SEF would still be using attribution non-commercial licensed Freesounds on monetized YouTubes without any attribution whatsoever ? "

SoundEffectsFactory wrote:
In regards to the Mediafire downloads ...

Your copies of Freesounds which have an attribution licence redistributed via mediafire must also comply with the creative commons license ...

Creative Commons Attribution License, Restrictions, 4
a. ... You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License with EVERY copy of the Work You Distribute ...
b(i) ...the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied
b(ii) ... the title of the Work if supplied
b(iii) ... the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work

None of these four conditions are satisfied in your redistribution of attribution licensed freesounds via mediafire, e.g. http://www.mediafire.com/listen/k75tt4bsq5r30l3/underground+tunnel+atmosphere+SoundEffectsFactory.wav
which is … http://www.Freesound.org/people/rjonesxlr8/sounds/221583/ [(CC BY 3.0) March 2014].

If anyone wants to see if SoundEffectsFactory, aka SoundEffectsCapital, aka SoundEffectsArchive, is redistributing their sound via mediafire see http://bitly.com/u/o_5aprdql2ei [narrow the search via date]
If you want to complain to mediafire see … http://www.freesound.org/forum/legal-help-and-attribution-questions/34819/

SoundEffectsFactory wrote:
I still encourage for any freesound members who would not like their sounds promoted on the channel to simply send me a PM here or on YouTube

Encouraging them to waste their time sending you a private message is preferable to them complaining to YouTube and causing you get yet another channel taken down like "SoundEffectsCapital", http://www.google.com/search?q=%22SoundEffectsCapital%22+site%3Awww.youtube.com

You're attempting to place the onus on the creators to alert you to any copyright infringement, whereas the responsibility is entirely yours to comply with any “necessary licenses” when you upload to YouTube ...

YouTube Terms of Service Copyright policy
7.4 You represent and warrant that you have (and will continue to have during your use of the Service) all necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions which are required to enable YouTube to use your Content for the purposes of the provision of the Service by YouTube

If you don't fully comply with the terms of the attribution license you don't have the right redistribute the sound.

After three YouTube channels and hundreds of uploads to YouTube you should know the rules by now.

If anyone wants to complain to YouTube see my guide here ... http://www.freesound.org/forum/legal-help-and-attribution-questions/34244/
.

Hi, I took my sound down of YouTube. I'm ok with you using and redistributing my sounds, also getting money on the process, but not without serious and proper credit. I sent this to your YouTube profile, on the discussion tab:

"""+SoundEffectsFactory Hi,

Yes, sorry. I hadn't seen the 'show more' expandable in the description.

Could you link to the sound itself as well?

According to this:
"If supplied, you must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material."

You need to link the original material. Thank you."""

You didn't provide all that, and I don't think you do with other sounds. You also don't credit in MediaFire. MediaFire is a different entity from YouTube, and there are ways to get to the file without using the YouTube link. Therefore, you need to credit there as well. Perhaps a text file, like hackers have been doing for ages, will do the trick.

I reported the file to MediaFire as well.
Again, I'm ok with you getting money, but the credit is an important matter not to be taken lightly.