Freesound Forums

Here's the link to the sound I uploaded in 2006:
http://www.freesound.org/samplesViewSingle.php?id=22349

here's a link to the 3rd & 4th party who are selling it:
http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/display/sounds.cfm/sound_group_iid.3783

It's the one called "Ghost Twins singing"

So, it's obviously the same sound, they just put some reverb on it.

What kind of recourse do I have?

bigfataudio.com was notified by me, and they quickly removed the file. I highly suggest that you uys check their library... They admitted to not giving credit (as required by the CC agreement), and tout their sound files as being produced by them in their UK studio... basically stealing intellectual property as selling it as their own, and NOT in good faith...

You may want to contact audiosparx.com also and let them know that they should be paying more attention. At least bigfataudio knows someone is watching now (hopefully).

Audiosparx took the file down, and he's fully aware of the situation.

Just figured out that the perp's name is Leigh Haggerwood. He has Big Fat Audio, as well as this site: http://www.halloween-horror-sounds.com

I bet that a few more Freesounders can spot their sounds on his record. He's got it on iTunes, and Amazon. I've got a lawyer lined up (who I happen to work for, and used to specialize in litigation). I think I'll go after him.... if I have a solid enough case to stand on, I'll bring some of you along as well if you'd like!
Just like the Lost Boys and the Royal Navy - we kill pirates....

To clear this up guys - I have spoken to studiorat several times since these posts, and I am in the process of attributing every creative commons sound used in my horror productions at the official website as he suggested. I had already made attributions in the liner notes of the albums but unfortunately, none of the stores can display them. The webites will be updated in the next 24 hours and I will be happy to include real names and links to anyone that wants one. I create the vast majority of the sounds I use and I have found freesound a great resource for adding elements to my sound designs. It has just proved very difficult to attribute people when artwork is removed and text space is limited. But as I say, I am doing my best to put this right and it was never my intention to upset anyone.

Regarding Big Fat Audio, this is my own website where I only sell spot sound effects that I have recorded. I have never intentionally tried to pass anyone else's work off as my own, and the inclusion of two of studiorat's sounds there was a genuine mistake. One was mixed in a collection of similar sounds, and the other was an edit from one of my horror albums. I apologised for this and removed them straight away. I hope that this will put an end to this once and for all.

Best wishes

Leigh

Big Fat Audio
...I use and I have found freesound a great resource for adding elements to my sound designs. It has just proved very difficult to attribute people when artwork is removed and text space is limited....

In your case simple attribution isn't really enough. The reason being, you are attempting to (re-distribute) sell other people's work under a new license, when it already has a license which directly conflicts with yours.

From the Sampling Plus License:

For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page.

So this means for the specific sounds you used from here, whether or not it be a remix, you must make clear on your site and whatever site you sell these sounds on that those certain sounds (from here) do not fall under your normal license agreement and are in fact under the CC Sampling Plus License Agreement. Otherwise, yours and freesounds conflict with each other.

Hi there - thanks for your input but I think there has been a misunderstanding here. I am not trying to just re-sell sounds, I have used some sounds from freesound in my horror albums and they are embedded with my own material and have been heavily edited and often completely changed. Please take a listen here; www.halloween-horror-sounds.com. I'm making sure that every sound I have used from this website is attributed, and I will be updating the attributions page with links to the original source files in the next few days. The mix-up that happened with the couple of sounds at www.bigfataudio.com were entirely unintentional. I record sound effects myself and distribute them to third parties, and this has nothing to do with creative commons recordings. Believe me, I know what it's like to have your work stolen - virtually everything I've done is available as a torrent or on p2p sites.

I am a conscientious person and I'm trying to do the right thing here. My sound design projects are a bit of fun as a sideline really. But now I find myself caught up in a vindictive witch hunt, with anonymous hate mail being sent to me and threats of legal action? Surely this defeats the point of creative commons - a website where people willingly place their sounds in the public domain for others to use creatively? I have been using sounds that I have downloaded from here very creatively, in a new context. I can't force the various online stores to display the liner notes I had made for my albums, and I appreciate that I should have checked this before they went on sale. At the moment they will only display the covers which is really annoying, and the only way to replace them is to withdraw the albums from sale and start again. If my efforts at my website aren't enough then I'm happy to do that. Now I see why every producer I've worked with is so hot on avoiding using anything from the public domain - and that's a really sad thing because there is some great stuff here.

Leigh

To Leigh,

Hi, I'm the creator and webmaster of this site and a firm believer in Creative Commons.

Please notice you are making a great mistake in calling the audio on this site "public domain". Each and every sample on Freesound uses the Creative Commons Sampling+ License, this is a type of copyright license which has clearly established rules. Actually, you ARE allowed to resell sounds found on freesound as long as you either use PARTS of the sounds, or really creatively mash them up (i.e. not being able to recognize the original anymore, or if the original forms a non-substantial part of the resulting work, like one sample in a song). Additionally you then need to Attribute (credit) the original author. These are the rules of the Sampling+ license:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/legalcode
and
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/

Now, if you have a problem with these rules, then my advice to you is: stay away from Sampling+ (or any form of "attribution" license by creative commons) licensed material. It's either follow the rules, or don't use the content (or alternatively ask the creator of the original content for a special, personal deal). Remember that Sampling+ stands a great distance from "full copyright" as it reserves SOME rights and not ALL rights. I.e. Creative Commons licenses give you an easy way to "follow the rules" while letting you do certain things with the content. Copyright licenses like "All rights reserved" give you no way at all to use the content.

So, please, pay attention to the license schemes you use. If you do not take good care of making sure that the things you do with sounds "found online" are well within the boundary of the license the material is under, you might get yourself in more difficult situations than the people of freesound writing angry emails to you.

To the Freesounders,

Guys, we all know people make mistakes when using creative commons licenses. This has happened in the past, it has happened again now, and it will undoubtedly happen in the future.
Try not to overreact immediately. People tend to misunderstand the Sampling+ license (I still get confused once in a while). The rule of conduct should be: explain to the copyright-infringer he is infringing your copyright, ask them nicely to remove the content, sit back and relax. If they don't heed your warnings, THEN get angry, but please, not before. This is the internet, people are making money doing illegal things all the time, why would your content be treated any differently!

kindest,

- Bram

PS: there is the moral issue of re-selling these samples, but that is an other issue I don't want to discuss.

Bram
....Actually, you ARE allowed to resell sounds found on freesound as long as you either use PARTS of the sounds, or really creatively mash them up (i.e. not being able to recognize the original anymore.....

Leigh aside, this is quite interesting.

Was I right in my statement about the conflicting license agreements (above)? I always thought that re-distributing the sounds is fine as long as they 1)contain the same original license agreement as originally (CC Sampling +), which seems to be the hardest hurdle for resellers to accomplish, being as 99% of all sfx libraries contain a whole entirely separate a more constrictive license agreement (making it legally, very difficult to resell stuff on this site...legally) and 2) attribute the author.

Does reselling under a new license agreement just plainly conflict with the CC Sampling +?

PS: there is the moral issue of re-selling these samples, but that is an other issue I don't want to discuss.

Another time maybe; should make for an interesting conversation.

JustinBW
Does reselling under a new license agreement just plainly conflict with the CC Sampling +?

You may reproduce the Work (...)

You may not [reproduce the Work] in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage (...)

So the purpose of the license is clear. It allows noncommerical sample repositories such as Freesound to redistribute samples which are to be used as part of a greater work, such as songs, movies, tv or radio broadcasts, etc. The samples certainly can not be sold verbatim in any way. Although maybe an exception would be if you'd charge a few cents to cover the cost of the CD-R on which the samples are burnt.
The Greater Work in which the samples are used may then be sold, as long as there's attribution for the creators and the terms are made clear. Just so that no third or fourth party can take a song, for example, and use it in a car commercial, they too need to know that is not allowed.

nemoDaedalus

JustinBW
Does reselling under a new license agreement just plainly conflict with the CC Sampling +?

The whole idea of the Sampling+ license is that the licensed samples are to be used as part of a greater work. It's called Sampling for a reason, the sounds ideally are sampled in a song, a video, anything.
It is definately not meant to simply resell the original samples.
The license is also quite clear on this:

That's not what I asked, though, I appreciate the response.

The Sampling + license does state that users can:

....sample, mash-up, or otherwise creatively transform this work for commercial or noncommercial purposes.....

Which is what the above user is claiming (whether or not we agree on it morally or aurally). He took freesounds sounds, edited them, added effects and basically remixed, but not beyond recognition.

But my question/issue was that since he has created new license terms for those creative mashups/remixes of the originally freesound, sounds; that is conflicting with the original license agreement where it states:

For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page.

So at that point not only is it an issue of attribution but also of conflicting license terms, if my above statements hold true.

JustinBW
That's not what I asked, though, I appreciate the response.

Yeah, Sampling+ samples can not be used in, for example, a CC-BY Work, because the Sampling+ samples cannot be used in adverts. In the new license there should indeed be a line saying the Sampling+ license also applies to (parts of) the work.
I personally always do it in the credits list, simply like "Sample x used, by this author, released under CC Sampling+ license at freesound.org/url_to_the_sound". It's simple, attribution is done and other license terms are made clear and a link to the original is given.

nemoDaedalus

JustinBW
That's not what I asked, though, I appreciate the response.

Sorry, it's just tough matter

Yeah, Sampling+ samples can not be used in, for example, a CC-BY Work, because the Sampling+ samples cannot be used in adverts. In the new license there should indeed be a line saying the Sampling+ license also applies to (parts of) the work.
I personally always do it in the credits list, simply like "Sample x used, by this author, released under CC Sampling+ license at freesound.org/url_to_the_sound". It's simple, attribution is done and other license terms are made clear and a link to the original is given.

Thanks, that's what I figured; annotations or whatever you want to call it, to specify sample <x,y or z>'s specific and different licensing terms.

btw, freesound2 will no longer offer sampling+ as a license choice.
only cczero, by and by-nc will be options.
AND a mailing will be sent to all authors to convert their samples to one of those 3 licenses.
hopefully we'll get everyone to convert

- bram

Hello Bram,

First of all - my congratulations and thanks for the creation of Freesound.org !
You mentioned a change in the avaialble copyright options when Freesound2 comes online:

btw, freesound2 will no longer offer sampling+ as a license choice.
only cczero, by and by-nc will be options.
AND a mailing will be sent to all authors to convert their samples to one of those 3 licenses.
hopefully we'll get everyone to convert
- bram

I will need to read the "cczero" adn "by-nc" terms, but I personally don't have a copyright issue whatever the terms are.
What about the users which do not want to convert their samples to the new license OR users who have uploaded samples but are no longer active and will therefore not take any action.
I take it since no-one but the creator of the samples can change the copyright terms these samples would have to remain on the old terms or.... (gulp!)...be removed.