Freesound Forums
"SoundEffectsFactory" youtube channel
Started February 1st, 2013 · 426 replies · Latest reply by Timbre 9 years, 2 months ago
Timbre wrote:ayamahambho wrote:
And another suggestion if I may ... Should not be the FS sounds be auto-tagged with proper proper licences, so that in case of pure re-distribution cases - licence information is available inside the files?That could overwrite the metatdata the author had already put on the file they uploaded to Fresound ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata#Digital_music
Also no consistent metadata format across all audio-file-types ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ID3#Implementation_in_non-mp3s_and_alternatives
Freesound could offer the option via a tickable box. I guess most of freesounders don't bother using tags, and if they do, they'll simply skip this option. On a similar way, steganographicly tagging things could be implemented batch-style, although I guess that will cost a lot more to implement.
Trebblofang wrote:
One can try to "watermark" her/his samples, using steganographic means ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography ), for example using this free multiplatform tool: www.silenteye.orgFor mp3 files, see: www.petitcolas.net/fabien/steganography/mp3stego/index.html
For review of other available tools check:
www.jjtc.com/Steganography/tools.html
www.securityfocus.com/tools/category/55
Thank you.
Very useful!
I am the thing that goes bump in the night...
Freesound Housekeeper
Assuming the audio was not transcoded by SEF, effectively removing any "steganography" in the process, How would a metadata-format unique to Freesound enable a customer of SEF to realise the second-hand sound they'd been given required attribution ? : the customer is never going to see that data : it's not going to show-up in a media-player or Audio-editing software.
[ The same is true of ultrasonic watermarks, e.g.
... http://www.freesound.org/people/Timbre/sounds/223719/ ]
Timbre wrote:
Assuming the audio was not transcoded by SEF, effectively removing any "steganography" in the process, How would a metadata-format unique to Freesound enable a customer of SEF to realise the sound required attribution ? : the customer is never going to see that data : it's not going to show-up in a media-player or Audio-editing software.
It always helps to proof in court that particular FreeSound file was used.
There are many audio watermarking schemes being immune to transcoding,
like AWT2: audiowatermarking.info/awt2_main.php
Been following this thread off and on for a while now. Tonight I was randomly checking the SEF channel out of curiosity to see what all has been appropriated from Freesound. When I saw this one in particular: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqWG6MHL99M&list;=PL634EA6C284405875
In the comments someone asked: "Nice, dude are these royalty free? Just wondering"
To which SEF responds: "Hey there, Yes all the audio displayed on my channel is completely copyright / royalty free to use in your projects. All I ask is that you credit my channel for uploading the sound in the description / credits of your project. Thanks! 
"
It surely doesn't seem right to ask "that you credit my channel for uploading the sound in the description / credits of your project." Shouldn't the actual artist who created the content be credited in peoples projects? Why does the middle man who's done nothing except provide a link need to be credited over klankbeeld? For doing what? It's kind of ridiculous actually..
Yes, his attitude sparks the whole point of this thread. Not only he's not complying with the copyright license, he's claiming authory. Which is wroooooong.
We should do a screen capture of all these things and go to court.
dheming wrote:In the comments someone asked: "Nice, dude are these royalty free? Just wondering"
To which SEF responds: "Hey there, Yes all the audio displayed on my channel is completely copyright / royalty free to use in your projects. All I ask is that you credit my channel for uploading the sound in the description / credits of your project. Thanks!
I don't like to speak in behalf of others, but this simply is not fair.
dheming wrote:
To which SEF responds: "Hey there, Yes all the audio displayed on my channel is completely copyright / royalty free to use in your projects. All I ask is that you credit my channel for uploading the sound in the description / credits of your project. Thanks!
...And the original poster replied:
Ah okay, cool, some really good work here. Will most definitely credit you if I use any of the sounds. Cheers.
He seems to believe that SEF is responsible for creating the work.
It's not even true to say that the sound is "copyright free". This implies that it has no copyright attaching to it. All sounds on freesound are copyright of the person who created them, regardless of how they're licensed.
This makes me really nervous about uploading any more sounds to freesound.
Trebblofang wrote:
... It always helps to proof in court that particular FreeSound file was used.There are many audio watermarking schemes being immune to transcoding,
like AWT2: audiowatermarking.info/awt2_main.php
Once you are aware of the infringing material a digital signature is unnecessary as, like a painting, it's "signed all over" : [ here's one I made earlier ... http://imageshack.com/a/img824/1111/wzg0.gif ]
Here’s a quick no-cost idea to increase the chance of compliance with an attribution license …
A concise message on the Freesound upload page* suggesting contributors include their name / pseudonym and the URL of the creative commons license they have selected in the metadata ( ID3 tag ) of the audio-files they upload to Freesound.
Something like ...
" If you want attribution, ( aka credit ), it is more likely to occur if you include your name or pseudonym in the metadata ( ID3 tag ) of the audio-files you upload to Freesound , e.g. include a URL to your Freesound profile, e.g. http://www.freesound.org/people/Your-Name-Here/ , and another URL to the license you have selected , e.g. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
[ * http://www.freesound.org/home/upload/ ]
Like ANY metadata it won't stop a diligent thief , but using the existing metadata formats ( like ID3 ) there's a chance an unwitting customer will see the data and consequently be made aware of the author and the requirement to attribute them.
If Klankbleed reached an accord with sef, then it's ok. I surely didn't.
Silly question: who's Bram? Is he someone prepared to represent and defend our rights? Just asking, I'm new in the forums.
toiletrolltube wrote:bulbastre wrote:
If Klankbleed reached an accord with sef, then it's ok. I surely didn't.Silly question: who's Bram? Is he someone prepared to represent and defend our rights? Just asking, I'm new in the forums.
Hi bulbastre, Bram is the original creator of freesound, now moderator as I understand. I don't know if he can represent you, but he can offer some sanity.
Indeed. Bram runs the site. More than a moderator, he leads the admin team.
His godlike powers are far above those of a mere moderator: he can access and change all files and all code on the site
He is also very sensible and patient.
As far as I know, Freesound has never gone to court. In theory, that is possible.
Freesound is a sort of a repository which houses user uploaded contents (sounds, obviously). I think Freesound itself does not and could not have a copyright claim against SEF, as Freesound owns no copyright to the sounds hosted here.
However, a few posts above from this one there is a post by CassieTee that says about the whole SEF discussion thing "This makes me really nervous about uploading any more sounds to freesound.", so I would say it is begining to have an impact on the site itself and on the actions of uploaders.
Having said that, I think SEF is developing a genuine interest in recording and uploading sounds. I think that is important, not because of the sounds themselves (in terms of quantity or quality) but because by becoming a recorder and uploader himself he will see how it feels when the shoe is on the other foot. Possibly making him more respectful of the work of others.
Your last point is quite valid, but I'm afraid SEF is validating his behaviour by doing this. I don't know much about about him, but this sounds like 'I can kill children because I donate to Greenpeace'. It's a falacy he seems likely to incur in, and I don't really want to emphatize it. Actually, Timbre just made me aware of another bad reasoning SEF is using to justify himself. I hope he shares it with us.
On another forum, full of internet savvy people, I'm being told uploading things on freesound or licensing them under CC doesn't prove the authory, meaning CC is a mere declaration of principles, but under any circumstances not a registry. That means the rights of my works can be violated just like that, until I register them properly, which is a pain in the ass.
And that also would mean freesound serves one single purpose, not two. It serves to share works to people willing to abide by the law and ethics, which is loable and whatnot. However, it doesn't serve the purpose of defending the authors rights when people not so willing to go by the book violates them.
If that's the case, this is a serious situation we all probably have a saying in.
CC is a valid copyright status.
Should a "cash-generating" violation ocurr, you would find lawyers very willing to defend your case.
What I mean by "cash-generating"? - for example, a song featuring your CC-Attribution sound reaching the UK top 10.
If you would win or not depends on the case. But assuming the straightforward scenario where an unaltered sound is used, It should be fairly easy to prove and win the case.
If the sound had been modified, or if it is in the middle of a busy mix, might be more difficult to establish that it is your sound. Then a win would be more difficult.
Timbre wrote:http://www.freesound.org/forum/legal-help-and-attribution-questions/33381/73363Creative Commons Attribution Licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
4. Restrictions
b "... reasonable to the medium ..."If the medium is video then shouldn't the credit be on-screen, like a movie or TV show ?
I've recently discovered it's very easy to add captions to a YouTube video and cause them to be displayed by default, see ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SfFD6C9Xbw :¬)
So SEF, and other YouTube re-hosters, wouldn't have to go to the trouble of remaking their monotonous video visuals , just add captions to the existing videos via YouTube's captioning service, which then would provide on-screen credit for the creators, which IMO is "... reasonable to the medium ..." , ( the medium being video ).
Good point! It didn't occur to me!
Surely lots of minds think more than one! In a few posts we could have the formula to Freesound 3.0 already 
edit: come to think about it, rehosters usually aren't compatible with closed captions. So it could be a good method to quick edit videos done so far, but not very optimized for the new to come.
AlienXXX wrote:
CC is a valid copyright status.
Should a "cash-generating" violation ocurr, you would find lawyers very willing to defend your case.What I mean by "cash-generating"? - for example, a song featuring your CC-Attribution sound reaching the UK top 10.
How does cash-generating harm an Attribution license? I could understand a Non Commercial...
To proof authorship (or to at least strongly deter false authorship claims)
1. Generate digital fingerprint of your recording.
2. Submit this fingerprint with timestamp and your data to digital
secure timestamping service ("digital notary").
Possible implementation:
For step 1, Picard: musicbrainz.org/doc/MusicBrainz_Picard
For step 2, Stamper: www.itconsult.co.uk/stamper.htm
Commercial fingerprinting/timestamping solutions are
listed in articles linked below.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_fingerprint
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_timestamping