Forums

  • avatar
    1884 sounds
    1714 posts


    Currently “SoundEffectsFactory” has still got some of some of Setuniman’s top-notch, (and no doubt very lucrative), music on their YouTube channel with the “bit.ly” obfuscated attribution links ...

    SoundEffectsFactory wrote:
    To check out his other work, and obtain licencing info, click here:
    http://bit.ly/VPGKQq
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXGgEtW3ijI

    By using a “bit.ly” link you’ve accidentally done Setuniman the favour of obtaining some market research ...


  • avatar
    771 sounds
    815 posts


    “SoundEffectsFactory” You'll better check my licenses and the way you attribute. See the text under my sounds....

    I will follow you in your dreams by abuse. My horror sounds are more powerful than you think.

    wwwhhhaaaaa!!!

    To hear, you first have to listen
  • avatar
    1310 sounds
    1390 posts


    Here is another sound, this one by HerbertBoland
    http://www.freesound.org/people/HerbertBoland/sounds/33637/
    License is: attribution non-commercial

    Well...
    so far for attribution... and non-commercial...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvwpTtxrtbg

    Courtesy of the SoudEffectsCopyMachine !

    hmmmm..... erm..... I forgot...
  • avatar
    306 sounds
    74 posts


    @AlienXXX and others: Today I changed the license of this sound and some other popular ones I have to: "attribution non-commercial".

    @SoundEffectsFactory: Be so kind and remove http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvwpTtxrtbg.

    Thanks.

  • avatar
    1884 sounds
    1714 posts


    AlienXXX wrote:
    Here is another sound, this one by HerbertBoland
    http://www.freesound.org/people/HerbertBoland/sounds/33637/
    License is: attribution non-commercial ...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvwpTtxrtbg

    I missed that one. Over 900 pay-with-a-tweet's on that in seven months ...

    plus advertising revenue proportional to its 25 thousand YouTube views, kerching.
    But no credit for the creator , (nor do those who bought it with-a-tweet know it has to be attributed in their project). Maybe SoundEffectsFactory can tweet them back to let them know.

  • avatar
    1310 sounds
    1390 posts


    HerbertBoland wrote:
    @AlienXXX and others: Today I changed the license of this sound and some other popular ones I have to: "attribution non-commercial".

    @SoundEffectsFactory: Be so kind and remove http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvwpTtxrtbg.

    Thanks.

    As per his last post SoundEffectsFactory is no longer active on this thread.
    (he may still be there... lurking in the shadows.... watching)
    But to be sure he received this message, you may want to contact him by a more direct means.

    hmmmm..... erm..... I forgot...
  • avatar
    306 sounds
    74 posts


    Good idea.

  • avatar
    1884 sounds
    1714 posts


    Rock Savage’s blood splatter which I mentioned on page 1 of this thread
    http://www.freesound.org/forum/legal-help-and-attribution-questions/33381/65445

    hasn’t been properly attributed yet ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XKg_o1YfTg

    [ nor has Setuniman’s ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXGgEtW3ijI ]

    SoundEffectsFactory wrote: [20 hours ago]
    ... only a few remain from freesound ... Any other remaining freesounds under the attribution licence will be correctly attributed right away ...
    http://www.freesound.org/forum/legal-help-and-attribution-questions/33381/65564

    In reality it looks like he's only going to correct the infringements which are brought to his attention, as each correction will lose him income. IMO all future complaints about their infringement of the attribution license should go directly to YouTube ... http://www.freesound.org/forum/legal-help-and-attribution-questions/33381/65551

  • avatar
    1310 sounds
    1390 posts


    Interestingly, SoundEffectsFactory has had no trouble in attributing sounds from other sources:

    A lot of military sounds on his channel have credits.
    For example:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_QKiIab_qg
    "Thanks for viewing! Make sure to check out my channel for more HD sounds effects uploaded frequently! If you like what you see, Subscribe! Request a Sound Effect/Ambience on my channel!

    Special thanks to LoneSoldierFilms:
    http://youtube.com/lonesoldierfilms
    "

    When there is attribution on these sounds there is a direct link. No shitty bit.ly links.
    So why the issue with Freesound????
    Ahhh... I know! He just doesn't like the word "Free" !

    hmmmm..... erm..... I forgot...
  • avatar
    606 sounds
    276 posts


    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

  • avatar
    1086 sounds
    395 posts


    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 neutral 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.

    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
    771 sounds
    815 posts


    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 months neutral Freesound could use a dedicated http://www.freesound.org/donation page

    As 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.

    To hear, you first have to listen
  • avatar
    253 sounds
    86 posts


    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. smile

    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.

    Nic Stage - Field recorder organism
  • avatar
    153 sounds
    1285 posts


    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...

    ╭─────────╮
    PLEASE VISIT
    ➤ Phazebook
    ➤ HeadCloud
    ╰─────────╯
  • avatar
    1086 sounds
    395 posts


    digifishmusic wrote:
    BTW: Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor

    So 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.

    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
    253 sounds
    86 posts


    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.

    Nic Stage - Field recorder organism
  • avatar
    1086 sounds
    395 posts


    nicStage: absolutely! I just re-read my post and fixed it to make clear what attribution is required by default.

    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
    203 sounds
    70 posts


    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.

    -- Keith W. Blackwell
  • avatar
    1310 sounds
    1390 posts


    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...

    hmmmm..... erm..... I forgot...
  • avatar
    306 sounds
    74 posts


    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.