Forums

    8 posts

  • avatar
    60 sounds
    690 posts
    Reasoning behind non-commercial attribution


    I would like people who upload samples as non-commercial attribution (absolutely nothing wrong with that) shed a bit of light on why you go for/ prefer non-commercial as opposed to regular attribution?

  • avatar
    1922 sounds
    1756 posts


    afleetingspeck wrote:
    I would like people who upload samples as non-commercial attribution (absolutely nothing wrong with that) shed a bit of light on why you go for/ prefer non-commercial as opposed to regular attribution?

    1. if my freesound contribution includes other freesounds one of them could have a non-commercial license. If so the remix which includes it can only be licensed as non-commercial. ( Non-commercial license = me non-sued ).

    2. If someone really wants to use my Freesound with a non-commercial license commercially , they can make me an offer $$$ for a commercial* licence, i.e. the Freesound non-commercial license does not necessarily mean no commercial use whatsoever, it could mean no free commercial use.

    If someone is making cash from a sound I have created then it's only fair that I receive some remuneration.

    [ * If I am legally in a position to do so ]

  • avatar
    235 sounds
    427 posts


    Some sounds have a particular religious connection and uploaders would prefer that they be kept away from the 'taint' of commercialism / consumerism.

  • avatar
    60 sounds
    690 posts


    Timbre wrote:
    1. if my freesound contribution includes other freesounds one of them could have a non-commercial license. If so the remix which includes it can only be licensed as non-commercial. ( Non-commercial license = me non-sued ).

    Yes, but I think I've seen you label your remixes that are derivatives of attribution commercial licenses as attribution non-commercial as well. Any thoughts on that?

    2. If someone really wants to use my Freesound with a non-commercial license commercially , they can make me an offer $$$ for a commercial* licence, i.e. the Freesound non-commercial license does not necessarily mean no commercial use whatsoever, it could mean no free commercial use.

    I did not properly understand non-commercial licensing, then. I thought if you put it up as a non-commercial, no one could ever use that sample again for any commercial purposes (now that I think of if, I was rather stupid in thinking as such). So if someone gets your permission and works out a deal even for a sample that's uploaded as Att. NC, they can use it commercially, right?

    thatjeffcarter wrote:
    Some sounds have a particular religious connection and uploaders would prefer that they be kept away from the 'taint' of commercialism / consumerism.

    That definitely makes sense.

    Thank you both!

  • avatar
    1922 sounds
    1756 posts


    afleetingspeck wrote:
    ... I've seen you label your remixes that are derivatives of attribution commercial licenses as attribution non-commercial as well. Any thoughts on that?

    I'm erring on the side of caution : if I label all my Freesound contributions non-commercial I'm always in the clear no matter what Freesounds the remix includes. If I applied a less restrictive attribution-only licence by mistake theoretically I'm risking being sued by Freesound contributors who put a non-commercial licence on their work.
    Why should I take any risk in order that someone can make commercial use of Freesounds I've remixed without them making any payments to any of the Freesound contributors involved in its creation ?.

  • avatar
    60 sounds
    690 posts



    I'm erring on the side of caution : if I label all my Freesound contributions non-commercial I'm always in the clear no matter what Freesounds the remix includes. If I applied a less restrictive attribution-only licence by mistake theoretically I'm risking being sued by Freesound contributors who put a non-commercial licence on their work.
    Why should I take any risk in order that someone can make commercial use of Freesounds I've remixed without them making any payments to any of the Freesound contributors involved in its creation ?.

    With the number of sounds you upload, it makes sense that you'd be cautious about your attributions in terms of being in the clear by default. smile
    Thanks again!

  • avatar
    1118 sounds
    397 posts


    I quite disapprove of the noncommercial license and would prefer to have the option removed or replaced with an Attribution-ShareAlike (copyleft) option.

    Timbre wrote:
    2. If someone really wants to use my Freesound with a non-commercial license commercially , they can make me an offer $$$ for a commercial* licence, i.e. the Freesound non-commercial license does not necessarily mean no commercial use whatsoever, it could mean no free commercial use.

    If someone is making cash from a sound I have created then it's only fair that I receive some remuneration.


    I actually had the impression that you might be aiming for people that want to use your sounds for-profit are supposed to contact you.
    When this is done using a noncommercial license, I personally disapprove of it, because the uploading, hosting and tagging of that file seems to be an act of advertising rather than sharing to me. If the advertisement would be free as in free-for-commercial-use, it would seem to me more balanced. smile

    Noncommercial-unrelated: Freesound's remix-indicator is very hidden and I prefer using links and names in sound description, rather than it, to give proper attribution, when required by CC-BY (same with CC-BY-NC too).

    Click here to lend your support to: Freesound 2011 donations and make a donation at www.pledgie.com !
    Donate to Freesound.org
    so it can serve even more and better sounds to you in the future!
  • avatar
    1922 sounds
    1756 posts


    qubodup wrote:
    I quite disapprove of the noncommercial license and would prefer to have the option removed or replaced with an Attribution-ShareAlike (copyleft) option.

    Possible translations of the above quote :-
    #1. I disapprove of commerce generally: everything should be like-free, man. ,
    #2.
    I would like to make money from other people's creations without giving them a penny.

    #1 is naive, #2 is unfair.

    My concern is that creators should receive some cash if their work is being used commercially. For creators on a different plane (no doubt flying first class :¬) they have the option to make their work freely available to everyone for any purpose if they like, (i.e. attribution-only, or public-domain).

    qubodup wrote:
    ... uploading, hosting and tagging of that file seems to be an act of advertising rather than sharing to me.

    It is free sharing for anyone creating a non-commercial project.

    8 posts