Freesound Forums

EDIT 15.4.2013: This issue has been finally solved. Thanks to everyone who has helped me with this!

Hello.

I have had a fight over a video's copyrights on youtube for several days now. The video in question consists of royalty free music by Kevin MacLeod, sound effects from freesound.org and everything else by me. I have gotten several messages demanding more info on the soundtrack of the video and I have finally (or at least I'm pretty sure of it) got the royalty free music dispute solved.

However just today I got a message on my e-mail from google that says:

------------------------

Hi,

You have indicated that you are using royalty free music (from freesound.org) in your video. Please provide the following information:

Name of the track:
Artist of the track:
Direct URL of the track:
Link to the license terms:

Thank you for your cooperation!

If you would like to monetize videos that contain royalty free music, please refer to our Monetization FAQs at http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=2490089.

Sincerely,
The YouTube Team

------------------------

The problem is that I am NOT using any music from freesound.org, because obviously there aren't even any music tracks (as far as I know at least) here.

The only material taken from here are the sound effects and there are literally HUNDREDS of them in the video. Does this mean that I have to find the links to ALL of the sound effects or what am I supposed to do?

I also have gotten a message which says the deadline for the info is 14 days and I have no hope of ever finding all those hundreds of sound effects' URLs out in that time since it has been years since I downloaded the first of them and I have used multiple accounts during that time.

So please, if anyone can give me any help on this subject and/or has had similiar problems, it would be much appreciated.

Check your download history. Everything is in there http://freesound.org/people/minapamina/downloaded_sounds/

To help you next time:

Make a word document during the editing proces of you video;

put in all the links of used sounds like this:
http://www.freesound.org/people/klankbeeld/sound/184349/
http://www.freesound.org/people/jobro/sounds/184509/

when the film is ready you can comment the youtube-film as follows;

Thanks freesound.org and all the users in this list for the following sounds I have used;
http://www.freesound.org/people/klankbeeld/sound/184349/
http://www.freesound.org/people/jobro/sounds/184509/

hope it helps for the future

Another useful download history list (only viewable by yourself: http://freesound.org/home/attribution/ ).

You need to read and follow the licenses. There are four different licenses being used for different files. Most require attribution.

You can find more useful legal information in the FAQ:
http://freesound.org/help/faq/#licenses

klankbeeld wrote:
Thanks freesound.org and all the users in this list for the following sounds I have used;
http://www.freesound.org/people/klankbeeld/sound/184349/
http://www.freesound.org/people/jobro/sounds/184509/

PS: please note that you can't use cc-by-nc sounds in commercial works. This most likely means that videos that use them cannot be used for monetization on YouTueb. Note that cc-sampling+ sounds can't be used in advertisements. Read the full license texts to be safe & sure.

I agree that hundreds of attributions in a video is ridiculous. That's just getting out of hand for Gods sake. Music, yes for sure, but every tiny effect?
If they persist I would delete it and post it on vimeo or somewhere else.

TheRimRider wrote:
I agree that hundreds of attributions in a video is ridiculous. That's just getting out of hand for Gods sake. Music, yes for sure, but every tiny effect?

The numbers don't matter : whether you use one or a hundred Freesounds with an attribution licence they should all be attributed.

That's the Freesound deal : people get to use sound samples for free provided they give the creator credit, (if the creator uses an attribution licence).

http://www.freesound.org/help/faq/#licenses

If you don't like that deal , buy the sound samples from a reputable sound library which allows you to use the sounds without giving credit.

This "I can't be bothered to give credit" attitude is unreasonable: if a composer took the bother to include "hundreds" of Freesounds on an album they should credit all which have an attribution licence.

If anyone uses that music made with "hundreds" of Freesounds on YouTube they just need to link to the composer's webpage where they got the music, where the Freesound creators should have the attribution they are entitled to.

From my experience: youtube sends automated messages according to what their software recognizes, it's nothing personal. If you get an information, that tells you, that your piece belongs to someone else (happens to me everytime, no matter whether I created my work and sounds from scratch or not) - first you need to do - is to react with a "request of withdrawal" (something like that) to these claims. In e-mail from youtube - you should get some link to a webform on your account, where to proceed. You can just write then there "it's my piece, not yours" (if it's yours, then they should not ask questions about licences), and in most cases it should do. Youtube sends these notes to people, who are indexed as possible owners, and these people should "unmark" your tracks; otherwise they would also stuck in bureaucracy too. Maybe some other automations from youtube are involved too.

So don't be afraid of youtube, have no fear to act (it's not personal, it's just formal procedure that follows an algorithms based on what you told), and knowing you did all right - ignore everything that does not makes a harm for your works. Only real situation you should worry about is, when youtube wants to remove your clips from channel or wants to block/limit your account. Regarding everything else, just put a note under your clip, like "if you see an advertisement or claims that your piece is not yours - it is the youtube who is responsible for buggy recognition and illegal claims of ownership". As an example - people who come to visit your clip, may see that youtube adds a shop links for something else, but they also will see your note about youtube bugs; the more people start act like that, the better education on quality of youtube will be. Regarding advertisements - if you don't know how to earn on them, then if someone else earns - it does not makes any real harm to you; you would not earn anyway.

p.s.: if someone asks you for details, I would give them general: "freesound.org" and link to fs licences. Why should you bother? It's their job to know/find other details and check if they fit their claims.

ayamahambho wrote:
if someone asks you for details, I would give them general: "freesound.org" and link to fs licences. Why should you bother?

As an example, some of the requirements set in 4.b of CC-BY 3.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode ):

If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform [...] Adaptations [...], You must [...] provide [...] the name of the Original Author, [...], the title of the Work, [...] the URI, [...] the use of the Work in the Adaptation, [...]

ayamahambho wrote:
It's their job to know/find other details and check if they fit their claims.

Consider following. Depending on your responses - system will use this or other type of algorithms to judge you. Everywhere, where claims of ownership are semi-automated - I would recommend to learn to recognize mechanisms, instead of arguing with robots and making yourself a target.

Example A)
BOT: "Your tracks uses copyrighted materials of XXX".
YOU: "But I use licenced tracks of YYY...".
BOT: "Give us licence number, names..." (and your birthdate, and your grand grand mother's name...)

Example B)
BOT: "Your tracks uses copyrighted materials of XXX".
YOU: "Withdraw your request, these are mine tracks, produced by me".
BOT's response: after a while, sometimes with cooperation of copyright owner (who may not be interested in being sued by you, for taking something that's not their) - claims are withdrawed.

If nothing suspicious is going on, and nothing sounds too familiar to ear, then even if a living person is connected to such automation system - they rather will not try to convince you, that you use someone's else work. Is by default everyone a thief? If so, then system is not able to handle it. Imagine a situation, when system recognizes 1 million tracks as "borrowed". How many people would need to handle it? What kind of procedures they will follow, to simplify the process?

It's not a matter of licences or copyrights itself. It's a matter of what words and procedures you exchange with services like youtube. In many legal cases - it is you, who makes you an easy target, not works you create. And by the way, if youtube is a part of your "cloud network", then info can be on your website, where you redirect people via link.

ayamahambho wrote:
I would recommend to learn to recognize mechanisms, instead of arguing with robots and making yourself a target.

We speak about two different things. You don't need to lie to youtube. You need to communicate with their automated procedures in a certain way (hierarchy of information). Otherwise you spend a lot of your time, trying to figure out, why they want something from you. This is the same mechanism like with any other marketing.

On the other hand: YT talks alot, because it is obligated to talk that way; but as you know projects invented by google (approach to ebooks, maps)- they are rather on side of internet users. One thing is law, and another - execution of that law, and another - abuse of law. YT is rather user friendly, i.e. in general "first talk then warn then shoot", and not otherwise.

ayamahambho wrote:
We speak about two different things. You don't need to lie to youtube. You need to communicate with their automated procedures in a certain way (hierarchy of information). Otherwise you spend a lot of your time, trying to figure out, why they want something from you. This is the same mechanism like with any other marketing.

On the other hand: YT talks alot, because it is obligated to talk that way; but as you know projects invented by google (approach to ebooks, maps)- they are rather on side of internet users. One thing is law, and another - execution of that law, and another - abuse of law. YT is rather user friendly, i.e. in general "first talk then warn then shoot", and not otherwise.

Yes and no.

Track has been made by Youtuve user. Correct.
And stating so does not constitute lying.

However, stating or implying that this is the end oof the matter is not correct.
Sounds downloaded from Freesound and used in released productions must be attributed (unless those with CC0 license).
Will we come down your house in the middle of the night, kick the door down and arrest you if you don't attribute? - Probably not.

However, persistent offenders and especially those making use of Freesounds for profit should be aware.
Freesound users have taken action in some instances and have forced at least one Youtube channel to close.
http://www.freesound.org/forum/legal-help-and-attribution-questions/33381/

AlienXXX wrote:
Freesound users have taken action in some instances and have forced at least one Youtube channel to close.
http://www.freesound.org/forum/legal-help-and-attribution-questions/33381/

Which was pretty spectacular if I may say so...

We still are talking about two different issues.

To clarify. I'm not encouraging to lie, mis-use, steal, nothing like that. What I'm saying here is: there are automatical scripts/protocols/formulas and virtual robots (AI systems) that gather information on you (your profile) or that react with you respectively to your responses. Keywords, phrases, maybe expressions, activity, history of files and so on. Welcome in XXI century by Google and Co.

I myself - practically always must react to YT's claims for works I created from scratch. But I understand that these claims are "automated" and not "against", and recognition system is far from perfect. (I also understand that a lot of people don't realize that or don't know what it means in practice).

So, instead of falling into emotions - I just calmly ask the sources (pointed by youtube) to withdraw their requests, because "this is not theirs" on first place. I don't threat them with suing, I'm not asking "why they did so", I don't go into discussions on licencing nor on "to what it is (maybe) similar". "Don't provoke questions you don't want to give an answer" - as someone said recently. If you start your talk with "royalty free" or "licences", then you end up with searching for filenames and other data. Again - I'm talking about hierarchy and structure of information that is exchanged (what goes first, what next), not about hiding something in wrong way.

I saw people, who's YT problems (magnitude and delays) were proportional to expressed emotions and/or complexity of defensive explanations. Strange correlation isn't it?

But there is a good side of YT. If you have a sound and you don't know what it is - YT will probably help you (to some degree) to find - who created it.

ayamahambho wrote:
We still are talking about two different issues.

Yes, to an extent.
But I fear that reading your reply the user who initiated the thread will simply answer "this is my work. I created it."
He will avoid to mention Freesound at all as then YT would possibly ask him for source files / attribution details. Which is what the user is trying to avoid, because there are too many "little sounds" and he can't be bothered.

So, although you are answering a different question (how to deal with YT), you have perhaps innadvertedly provided him an easy way out to get rid of his problem and do no attribution on the sounds he used.
My reply is not an attack to you. I think you have answered this post in good faith trying to help. I also do not think you are encouraging anyone to lie to YT or about attribution.

Freesounders are not the police and we do not chase after the users of our sounds (except in very exceptional circumstances as the SoundEffects Factory channel on YT which I mentioned earlier).
But we do want to educate people about CC licenses and the use of CC material. That is a big aspect and component of Freesound.

Basically the CC licenses are a 'contract'. You do not PAY for the samples, but you take them on the promise that you will ATTRIBUTE (if required by the license).
If people don't want to attribute, there are plenty of paid-for sample libraries out there with every sound you can imagine. They should use those instead.

Maybe you right. I'm just tired of being continuously "profiled" by robots and all kind of "magical formulas" of techno-marketing, so I'm ironically exposing these mechanisms from time to time. But I think what good might be (in regards to education) - are the templates of acceptable uses of CC licences in real-life conditions; to transform the theory into a healthy practice - starting from defining the "environment" (i.e. individual and their coherent workspace, where the attribution must take place and be interconnected with data), and ending on "communication tips" when dealing with services like YT (and other, less friendly/understandable law jabber).

From my point of view, I think producers should be proud, that when using works available here - they can attribute freesounders. In other words - it is my true honor, that I can add a footnote to my album, on a person or a group, who contributed to the work I have created. It makes bonds between people and ideas, makes the whole co-creation concept less isolated, and... makes me feel just better.

Some folks probably believe, that if they don't attribute, and if they pretend, that all they have made is "only theirs" - then they will earn more money, respect, recognition, and so on. Nothing more wrong. We live in "social media" age, and showing (emphasizing) what you are a part of - brings more good and value.

So I think - the education should include also this aspect, change of thinking from "must" into "want".

Well you are very right: attributing is not only the moraly 'right thing to do', it is also a legal requirement of the CC licenses (other than CC0).

We do live in a 'global village'. The CC licenses make it very easy for people to share all sorts of artistic contents and intellectual property. If this works, i.e., if people follow the CC license requirements in relation to attribution, then more and more people will release their contents under these licenses.
This has enormous benefits. Especially for those people who need some help with contents, but cannot pay for it. For example, Freesound is a resource used by many students for school projects of all sorts. These people NEED the sounds for their creative work, but obviously cannot spend a lot of money on sound libraries, etc. Freesound and the CC licenses give them a LEGAL means to obtain those sounds to use in their projects. - I cannot over-stress how important this is. This is not just 'kids play', these are the artists of tomorrow!

Of course, the reverse is also true.
If people post contents online under CC license only to find that these are constantly violated and their work is simply pillaged and used with no attribution... they will stop posting. In furstration and discust, they may even remove contents they have already posted and close their accounts on Freesound and similar CC based websites.
The artistic world as a whole would become much poorer if they did so.

So, everytime anyone uses stuff and does not attribute, they are adding a little bit of weight pushing the balance in the wrong way.

Many people do not mean to infringe the CC licenses. They simply download 100 sounds and use them in a project, and then realize what a massive job it would be to attribute all these sounds and they don't bother.
We try to educate these people so that they are more organized next time. There are tools within Freesound to help you find out what sounds you have downloaded.
If you compile a list of the sounds you use as you build the project, then the only thing you need to do is to post that list along with the project.

We live in human world, so there are always two sides of the mirror, I agree on that. But the quality of this world is defined not only by these sides of the mirror, but also - by the ways of approaching them. As an example. If someone who is right - "attacks" (metaphor) me on first place, then what will I do on first place? The most obvious answer is - instinctively "defend". The attitudes. One of the vital aspects of education is the way how it's being expressed. I know people who don't bother on "who is right" - not because they are wrong or they don't care, but because they just want to avoid emotional swamp. And we probably speak about pretty wide size of population here. If you try to educate anyone from frustration based point of view - good luck. But if you are able to evoke good emotion (trust) - others will follow.

Hi everyone and thanks a lot for your answers! They have been really helpful.

Here is an update to my situation:

I have finally solved the dispute by simply sending links to all the downloaded sounds from all of my accounts I have used during the past 2 years. This was no easy task and I had to use a lot of forgotten password recovery, dig an email from my old computer and use a lot of other black magic and prayers but I finally found out all of my old accounts' passwords (there were 6 accounts!).

Then I sent the list of all the sound effects downloaded (there were over 200 total) and also links to the terms of use of freesound.org and all the licences used in the sounds and finally the claim was dropped from the video!

So huge thanks to klankbeeld, qubodup, ayamahambho and everyone else for their help. The text version of the list of the downloaded sounds was really helpful and also ayamahambho's explanation of the bot algorithm was useful (I accidentally responded exactly like on your example A, which gave me more trouble than necessary)

I just read the answers a little more and I saw a lot of suspicious comments on if I'd give credit to the sound effect uploaders so I'll make it clear: I did post the list of 200 sound effects on the video description too and also I didn't insist to youtube that the sounds were mine at any point.

Also even though this has been a lot of work at least I have learned to be more careful next time. This wasn't "that" important video anyways so had I lost it, it wouldn't have been a huge problem, but I'm making an even bigger project atm and if that got copyright claims it might be a different story.

So once more: thanks for everyone who helped me with my situation!