Freesound Forums

Hello everyone -

I have a quick question on burden of proof of ownership of sound samples used this site.

Aside from following the proper attribution guidelines as mandated by freesound.org, what happens if a user intentionally posts a sound sample that is not his/hers and I use it, and attribute it on my project (not knowing it is NOT the property of the person who placed it on freesound.org) and I end up getting accused of using the sound piece without permission?

Has there been a case like this before?

Thanks in advance!
-- Hawk

I don't know of that happening before, not to my knowledge.

It's a difficult question really, because it wouldn't be your fault (however much the initiator of the claim may insist) - it would virtually be the fault of the uploader, however, because all of the sounds coming into the Freesound database are moderated before being publicised, then technically that makes FS liable for this case scenario.

That is exactly why there was talk of switching to an "approve now - moderate later" scheme to repeal any liability for sounds in the database that may be subject to problems like you described.

Right now, there's no guarantee that the sounds you have downloaded are truly original and copyright free - but, the moderators do their very best in seizing potential copyrighted material (it's easy to spot in most cases).

Ideally I would have liked to reassure you that 100% of sounds are safe to use on this site, yet I cannot guarantee that. You should still be weary and cautious of what you are using, just like if you take an image from Flickr under Creative Commons, there's a very slight chance that won't be safe to use also.

In the unlikely event this does happen to you, I urge you to contact site admin straight away.

Thanks for your reply. I hail from the States (USA) which is a society that is litigiously entitled; where getting sued simply for existing as a Human being is a way of life here. So I want to do everything possible to avoid having lawyers crawling up my backside. But I suppose it's about $$$$$ and if these sounds are used on gratis presentations then that's a different matter. It's good to know that so far there has been no such precedent.

That's a theme that is spreading like a disease in western society unfortunately.

As I said in my previous reply, to the best of my knowledge it hasn't happened. But then again I'm not omnipresent.

This question was asked before, and — in my non-lawyer opinion at least — in English law the uploader would be guilty of fraud by false representation if they presented a sound copyrighted by someone else as their own property (i.e. theirs to license as they see fit). I can’t speak for other juristictions, of course, but there might be similar legal concepts elsewhere.

Of course, there is also the issue of ‘due diligence’ in that a complainant might claim that Freesound mods hadn’t shown enough thereof in checking the copyright status — no doubt the reason for the suggested change in the moderation strategy that Headphaze mentioned.

If you buy a car from a dealership which turns out to be stolen, you couldn’t reasonably be accused of handling stolen goods if you bought it in good faith.

I'm not sure what you're trying to add here. Other than rehashing what I explained.

You said:

If you buy a car from a dealership which turns out to be stolen, you couldn’t reasonably be accused of handling stolen goods if you bought it in good faith.

Which is correct, the dealership would be held liable because it was their duty to background-check the vehicle prior to acquisition and subsequent sale. And that is the fundamental similarity between both contexts. With moderation prior to publication on the user's behalf, the site is liable if the publication turns out to be breaching copyrights.