Freesound Forums
"SoundEffectsFactory" youtube channel
Started February 1st, 2013 · 426 replies · Latest reply by Timbre 9 years, 2 months ago
If you see your sound on his channel and don't want it, just file a copyright dispute here...
http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/copyright-complaint.html
klankbeeld: very nice, this is something to consider integrating into the user interface of Freesound, if a Freesound django developer happens to start working on such things, but the donation link will not be actual in a few months 
Freesound could use a dedicated http://www.freesound.org/donation page
As for sharing code, you can use the <code> tag or upload a .txt file with the code to http://ompldr.org/ and/or http://pastie.org/ and other "pastebin" sites.
qubodup wrote:
klankbeeld: very nice, this is something to consider integrating into the user interface of Freesound, if a Freesound django developer happens to start working on such things, but the donation link will not be actual in a few monthsAs for sharing code, you can use the
tag or upload a .txt file with the code to http://ompldr.org/ and/or http://pastie.org/ and other "pastebin" sites.
Thanks qudobup for your reminder but I have the code in the document, so the it will be accurate.
I wish freesound to generate more necessary money. Ant the idea ti integrate i agree. Till then I do it this way.
I don't have the time to read through all the replies, but I read your first reply very closely. I think it's obvious that you don't tend to hide from anyone, which says a lot, imo. 
SoundEffectsFactory wrote:
With the exception of 2 sounds (Mournful Trumpet Tune and F-18 Superhornet Flyby) that I personally contacted the member through freesound and asked for commercial use permission.
You did contact me about the F-18 recording and I did give permission to use it commercially and although I asked for attribution, I didn't specify *how* to attribute me. That's the main thing that bothered me about how you used the sound. Tons of people have asked me to use tons of my sounds posted here and all of them have attributed me by name in the projects they used my sound with. Most of them mention freesound in that attribution too. So you can see how I made the assumption that when you said you would attribute me, that you would do it by saying my name (at the very least).
I have been very careful to not claim the sounds as my own because as I have been accused in the forum post many times that would be not right. Many of the false quotations from myself on the forum state that I have claimed the sounds as my own but that is simply incorrect. About the donation thing, this idea came from one of my subscribers actually who asked if where he could send money to me cause I had helped him find sounds for a project of his (not just from freesound). So I gave him the link to my paypal and then made the option available for other users. (If this is a problem I can remove it.)
The reason that people are accusing you of "claiming the sounds as your own" is because (in most cases) you are explicitly *not* attributing the original creator of the sound. People don't like that, so they're reaction is understandably hyperbolic. They want to let you know that the methods you're using aren't the methods they intended when putting the sounds up on freesound.
No about the main problem supposedly here which is my attribution. From my perspective when it says in the attribution license: give "credit in the way the author specifies" I took it as if it didn't say in the artist's profile a way to give credit that I didn't have to. Some artists on freesound have been very clear in the way they would like to be attributed and I have respectively credited them. But now I realize that assumption that I had before may be incorrect.
I made an assumption there too. I've learned from it.
Like I have stated above I am not purposely "stealing" and am willing to work with you and the freesound community. I would like to give credit where credit is due and if needed I am willing to go through all my videos and credit and fix if any freesound artists were involved (excluding CC0).
I know you're not trying to flat out steal anything. that's obvious. But here's another thing that I think should be rather obvious: An artist that puts content on freesound under the attribution license expects to be attributed *by name*, at the *very least*. Like the dictionary says, the word "attribute" literally means: "to consider as made by the one indicated". So, the way I see it, my name being on the page that you got the sound from is equivalent to me specifying how I would like to be attributed.
So I don't think you should "be willing" to "perhaps" go through your sounds and attribute them to the original freesound users. It's safe to assume that all of those users want you to to that and continue doing that for sounds obtained here under the attribution license.
Even if he is attributing correctly, I still do not agree with the conduct, simply because it's in no way creative. It is leeching off others' creativity which I personally feel that it is immoral.
I am the thing that goes bump in the night...
Freesound Housekeeper
digifishmusic wrote:
BTW: Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensorSo even by attributing these files, until you have contacted the authors of each and every one to ask for how they would like to be attributed you are still breaking the terms of the license.
The license summary page is not the actual legal document. The actual attribution requirements are in the license text, section 4. I was surprised that contrary to what the summary page says, the only additional specification that the author can make (the license already takes care of the name of the work, name of the author, name of the license, link to the license and link to origin of the art) and is "to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work" and demand removal of the attribution.
No about the main problem supposedly here which is my attribution. From my perspective when it says in the attribution license: give "credit in the way the author specifies" I took it as if it didn't say in the artist's profile a way to give credit that I didn't have to. Some artists on freesound have been very clear in the way they would like to be attributed and I have respectively credited them. But now I realize that assumption that I had before may be incorrect.
I made an assumption there too. I've learned from it.
Just in case this is unknown: The CC-BY and CC-BY-NC licenses (the license texts, not the summary pages) do contain specific attribution requirements in section 4.
Timbre wrote:
In this case the "DOWNLOAD LINK!" is to mediafire (rather than paywithatweet.com ).
The downloaded file is called "dramatic bass dun dun dun SoundEffectsFactory.wav"
The wav file does not have any metadata indicating the sound requires attribution.
http://support.mediafire.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/56/1/what-if-i-find-my-copyrighted-material-on-mediafire
Good that you point this out! The downloadable files are re-distributions of cc-by 3 licensed works in their own and require to contain the attribution requirements, which probably would be easiest achieved by creating zip files of the files and a text file with the required information.
qubodup wrote:
Just in case this is unknown: The CC-BY and CC-BY-NC licenses (the license texts, not the summary pages) do contain specific attribution requirements in section 4.
Thank you for pointing that out. This bit:
If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must, unless a request has been made pursuant to Section 4(a), keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied...
Seems to be stating what I mentioned regarding the meaning of the term "attribute". A freesound username is the pseudonym in this case, so I understand this part of the license text to be clearly stating that the freesound username must be included with any redistribution. Even in the case where the author gives express permission for commercial use of a work released under CC-BY-NC, the author isn't required to explicitly request that his/her name or pseudonym be used as the means for credit; Because the license language specifically states this as a requirement.
Off-topic again -- some of you have mentioned changing your license to be non-commercial. How can you change a license to be more restrictive, when you have already released it with a less-restrictive license? Anyone who took a sound with the old license, referring back to the same URL, could find themselves in a bad situation because you have apparently taken away permission that you already granted to them. I would expect that the freesound interface would not even allow this. If it does, it seems a very bad idea, one that could potential cause a lot of confusion and/or trouble for people who are trying to do the right thing.
zimbot wrote:
Off-topic again -- some of you have mentioned changing your license to be non-commercial. How can you change a license to be more restrictive, when you have already released it with a less-restrictive license? Anyone who took a sound with the old license, referring back to the same URL, could find themselves in a bad situation because you have apparently taken away permission that you already granted to them. I would expect that the freesound interface would not even allow this. If it does, it seems a very bad idea, one that could potential cause a lot of confusion and/or trouble for people who are trying to do the right thing.
I had the same thought.
Can you log a request to the support desk about this?
The Freesound interface should either not allow this OR it should keep a record of the change.
Since Freesound already keeps a record of all download dates and times for a file and who downloaded them. It should be possible to confirm if someone downloaded the file at a date before the change.
Still, since the list of downloaders is publicly visible, maybe the best is to not allow changes of license to a more restrictive license...
zimbot wrote:
How can you change a license to be more restrictive, when you have already released it with a less-restrictive license? Anyone who took a sound with the old license, referring back to the same URL, could find themselves in a bad situation because you have apparently taken away permission that you already granted to them. I would expect that the freesound interface would not even allow this. If it does, it seems a very bad idea, one that could potential cause a lot of confusion and/or trouble for people who are trying to do the right thing.
Theft is a serious matter, but this I find pure academic, sorry. See how many downloads there are of my sound CinematicBoom. How many people you think do actually get in touch with me about a proper attribution? A measly handful. I doubt there are commercial users amongst them. The pros use big sound libraries, which they buy or obtain in other ways. Or they simply go out to record stuff themselves.
If I can't change the sounds' 'legal' status at Freesound, the next step for me would be to remove them completely. What kind of license would that be? Nothing changed: the license at the point of downloading is valid. By clicking a user endorses the conditions of its use. What happens with the source material after that is not of concern to the user.
Maybe Freesound should keep track of changes in a license, to avoid confusion. But I doubt that it will solve anything.
What ever hapened,
I have a good and human correspondention with the SoundEfeectFactory.
He realy did try what ever he could.
Here is the last mail
Yes made a mistake, now he is realy good-willing....
......
Yes I am in the process of correctly attributing all of the videos where I have used freesound content. Since you sent me a personal message I put your request at my top priority.
Thanks
> --- klankbeeld wrote:
>
> He guy,
>
> You did (or still busy) what you have promised. I like that
> very much.
>
> The google search 'SoundEffectsFactory klankbeeld' gives me
> a lot of correct hits now on your video.
>
> well done man..
>
> respect man!!
>
> klankbeeld
AlienXXX wrote:zimbot wrote:
Off-topic again -- some of you have mentioned changing your license to be non-commercial. How can you change a license to be more restrictive ...The Freesound interface should either not allow this OR it should keep a record of the change.
You can relax the CC license you give, but not tighten it : relaxing a CC license is an irreversible step, ( bear in mind all the CC licenses allow redistribution, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ , so once material is released under a CC license it can spread like a chain-letter). The only time limit on a CC license would be when copyright has lapsed*, (typically several decades after the creators demise), then the work becomes public domain (CC0).
[* Duration of copyright depends on country ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_length ]
.
.
(klankbeeld wrote that) SoundEffectsFactory. wrote:
... Since you sent me a personal message I put your request at my top priority.
I bet he says that to everyone.
klankbeeld wrote:
> respect man!!
He doesn't deserve any respect, not even as a scam-artist: he got caught.
He only eventually gave some Freesounder's proper attribution because YouTube could shut down his lucrative channel if they receive repeated complaints about his infringement of copyright. Even then he tried to squirm out of his responsibilities by using those "bit.ly" short URLs , which Setuniman still has to suffer, see ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXGgEtW3ijI
He doesn't deserve any respect, not even as a scam-artist: he got caught.He only eventually gave some Freesounder's proper attribution because YouTube could shut down his lucrative channel if they receive repeated complaints about his infringement of copyright. Even then he tried to squirm out of his responsibilities by using those "bit.ly" short URLs , which Setuniman still has to suffer, see ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXGgEtW3ijI
Exactly. His apparent contrition is not genuine but borne from fear of the financial loss if the channel were to be closed.
He got away with this for over a year and so has put every one at risk who downloaded and used a sample found on his channel. Indeed he is now open to legal action since anyone who suffers financial or other loss after having their work claimed for infringement can come after him for damages (Canada is subject to Fraud and Copyright laws).
If you check his Facebook page he is even asking the audience what samples they would like to see uploaded reinforcing the illusion he was the author.
There is no way he did not know what he was doing was wrong since in order to get the YouTube partner channel certification he has mislead YouTube as to the Copyright on the samples he had uploaded to that point and would in future.
...
When I find people have used my samples without permission or attribution I generally don't make a big fuss. In this case the scale and nature of the abuse is brazen and breathtaking to say the least. It's calculated. It was , financially motivated and is not creative nor (or at least was not) adding anything to the Freesound community.
In this case, I am torn between anger and eagerness to see the sounds properly attributed - finally. I don't know how much time is needed for SEF to complete the requirements of the CC-BY 3 license for affected sounds. It all depends on how they organized their collection and how much time they are investing of the time that is available to them.
SEF promised to correct the attribution requirements, unfortunately they weren't completely specific though (how long, what exactly will be changed). Yet, I'm looking forward to this being corrected.
SEF offered compensation - now this - considering that money is central in this issue - sounds of goodwill. I encourage every affected user to consider making use this offer. If you are affected, you can ask SEF how much they earned on your sound(s) and ask for all or part of it for yourself or as donations to Freesound, if you don't want to handle the money for example. Alternatively you could also say "Insert 'This sound is from http://freesound.org ' at the beginning of every description of my sounds in your channel.".
When the licensing requirements become adopted and compensation - if required - is taken care of, then SEF will continue making revenue from ads on sound effects from Freesound, but by attributing them correctly, they will finally do the service they are required to do for CC-BY 3 sounds: advertising the source. YouTube users who are interested enough to press "more", because they want to get to the download link, will see the source and will learn that they can avoid advertisement and comparably worse navigation by going straight to the source.
A hopefully constructive idea: if doing nothing makes you restless (it made me in the beginning of this!), you can make affected Freesound users aware of the situation and help them understand their rights (wait and watch SEF's reactions, fill out copyright notice, request compensation, talk to a lawyer).
I also recommend viewing SEF as a business and stick to legal issues, rather than moral questions. When talking with a business about morality, one can usually only end up disappointed.
Another thing I want to recommend to you is to experiment with making ad-based revenue on YouTube using cc0 or ccby3 works in a legal and moral manner yourself. You can promote free culture and at the same time earn a few bucks if you pick the right sound and title and also draw attention away from other users on YouTube, who do the same but without following licenses as required.
AlienXXX wrote:
http://youtube.com/lonesoldierfilms
ironic...
LoneSoldier Films wrote:
All of the sound effects in both sound packs are just taken from an assortment of games and packs from all over the place. For convenience, of course!
digifishmusic wrote:
… Indeed he is now open to legal action since anyone who suffers financial or other loss after having their work claimed for infringement can come after him for damages (Canada is subject to Fraud and Copyright laws).
He does appear to be in Canada as the currency on his PayPal donation webpage is Canadian dollars, you know the PayPal request for donations which he said three days ago that he's going to close* down, but which is currently still running ...
http://www31.zippyshare.com/scaled/694882/file.html
The email associated with that PayPal donation thing is kyle.innes1@gmail.com which will come in handy if anyone wants to get in touch with him.
* I never asked him to close the PayPal donation thing, that was his idea, (apparently not worth the bother) …
SoundEffectsFactory wrote [3 days ago] :http://www.freesound.org/forum/legal-help-and-attribution-questions/33381/65524
... I am also deleting the donation option while im at it ... And to be completely honest I have only received one donation and which was a sum of $5. I'm going to take that $5 and donate it to the freesound website.
Apparently there are other YouTube Channels created by Canadian Kyle ...
this one of his http://www.youtube.com/user/100dollarbillls has a link to HQSFX ... http://www.youtube.com/user/HQSFX , (which he’s has described as either another of his YouTube channels or his “Friend”) .
HQSFX is billed as “#1 Source For HD Sound Effects”, which is a lie, as, for example SoundEffectsFactory has many more views and subscribers, (partially due to to high quality content lifted from Freesound.org).
HQSFX is billed as being in the United States, rather than Canada.
however “HQSFX'S Back up account” is listed as Canada .. http://www.youtube.com/user/hqsfx2
[ Why do you need a “backup account” ? , expecting to have HQSFX shut down ? ]
HQSFX, like Kyle, also uses mediafire to redistribute sounds: I just downloded HQSFX’s “1k Sound Pack.rar ”, from ... http://www.mediafire.com/?eegj1y14qlew5yn , (after being forced to watch an advert), the compressed (rar) file is 140Mb, which expands to 272Mb : there's not a thousand "1k" sounds in it, (the "sound pack" been padded with large high-resolution images from http://digitalblasphemy.com , which are more copyright breaches ), but nevertheless it will take me some time to listen to them all.
UPDATE (Freesounds in the HQSFX http://www.youtube.com/user/HQSFX "1k" pack without attribution) :-
analogchill's scream.wav [Freesound #35716] is in HQSFX's "1k" pack, without attribution under the name "Female Scream.wav".
“swosh.aif” [Freesound #14609] is in the “1k" pack under the name “Whoosh (x3).aif” without attribution to “man” ... http://www.freesound.org/people/man/
and of course Herbert’s Heart "HeartbeatEnhanced.wav" [Freesound # 32731] is in the HQSFX “1k” pack , under the name “Heartbeat ENHANCED EDITION.wav”
And one of digifishmusic’s recordings of Katy [Freesound #39914] is in the HQSFX “1k” pack as “Female Solo Warm Up.wav” without attribution ...
http://www43.zippyshare.com/scaled/69766546/file.html
“grenade.wav” http://www.freesound.org/people/ljudman/sounds/33245/
is included in the “1k” pack as “Grenade Explosion.wav” , without attribution.
I think we are clearly in the presence of a serious, calous and systematic infractor here.
And I believe we should push to have these channels closed.
Regardless of how nice this guy seems to be when nicely approached, he is a leech and we should not refrain from make adequate complaints.
As we can now see, he exists under various aliases and in all of those he has been blatantly and repeatedly violating copyright. Adding no creative value, simply distributing unchanged CC material- with no attribution and for direct financial profit.
Now that the picture begins to emerge, we can imagine how much profit this scoundrel was (and is) making out of several channels all dedicated to sound effects - which he simply ripped off from Freesound and other sources.
Makes my stomach turn.
Maybe he mistook CC for Common Copy instead of Creative Commons.
Hi guys,
I alway believe in the goodness of people, but a day later it seems that you are right. Your investigation is clear.
In the HQSFX i read;
===================
Official Youtube Partner as 19 / 01 / 2012
*-READ-*
If you use any of my sound effects all I ask is you give me credit and my channel link in the description 
=============================
Give me the credit. NO Give the real owner the credit!!
He should be stopped indeed.
yes, I was naive