Freesound Forums

Hi,

We are working on a commercial software sampler and would like to include samples with it. I have read the Create Commons Sampling Plus 1.0 license and there are a number of questions that arise which haven't been covered by the licensing text. Honestly, the license text is quite generic and doesn't deal with much detail.

So now back to my question. What happens when/if the following is carried out:

(1)
We create a piece of commercial software and include samples with it, and the samples are attributed according to the Create Commons Sampling Plus 1.0 license.

(2)
Our users buy the software and use the samples in recordings. The software might change the sounds completely, of course. Or they might be replayed more or less as is.

Do our users have to attribute the original creators of the samples in their works? Even if we have already done that in our manual for the software? But what about "transitive attribution"? I mean, for how long does this attribution need to go on? Once or forever as it's being distributed? And what happens if the sound's changed a little bit (or much) each time it's redistributed? Does that affect the transitive license rights?

I'm not an expert, but I don't think using CC samples in a commercial sampler (thus using these samples to make money) is permitted.

i would think other wise simone. that you should ASK the user if its okay to make money of them. i'm sure most would't mind just as long as they get a little love in terms of notice.

I think this has been covered before. There was a person who wrote some software that would select samples and play them at random or in various ways. The samples were to have been freesound samples, unaltered. This turned out to be an improper use. The act of downloading and then selling samples you find here is a no-no. One must create a NEW work out of the existing samples first. THEN one might be able to sell the resulting new work, again, with attribution or approval from the original sample uploader.

andrew1280
I think this has been covered before. There was a person who wrote some software that would select samples and play them at random or in various ways. The samples were to have been freesound samples, unaltered. This turned out to be an improper use. The act of downloading and then selling samples you find here is a no-no. One must create a NEW work out of the existing samples first. THEN one might be able to sell the resulting new work, again, with attribution or approval from the original sample uploader.

So if each sample is edited a lot, then a new work is created and everything's OK...!?!?
Provided that an attribution etc. is carried out, of course.

I think the license text should be improved. It's far to vague in its current state.

It says:

"You are free: To sample, mash-up, or otherwise creatively transform this work for commercial or noncommercial purposes."

Note the words "sample", "creatively transform" and "commercial".

What a "creative transformation" constitutes is totally subjective. A license should not be possible to interpret in any number of ways. Right now it can and that's not too good.

Worth noticing is that with the current license text, anyone may distribute copies of the samples for commercial purposes. If the purpose with the license is to prohibit commercial distribution of the samples, then the text must be changed.

Right now it does not prohibit commercial distribution. It allows distribution for non commercial purposes but it does NOT disallow distribution for commercial purposes.

The only thing the license says is that you:

May change the work for commercial or non commercial purposes (that's fine).

And you may distribute it for non commercial purposes (that's also fine).

But it doesn't say anything about distribution for commercial purposes and since it doesn't say anything about that it doesn't prohibit it. If the purpose is to prohibit commercial distribution of the samples, then please change the second clause in the license so it says something like:

You are free to perform, display, and distribute copies of this whole work provided that it is being distributed for noncommercial purposes only (e.g., file-sharing or noncommercial webcasting) and not commercial purposes.

Right now it doesn't regulate distribution for commercial purposes.

So, what's the purpose of the license? To prohibit commercial use? If it is, then which kinds of commercial use?

Added some text to my post, above this one. Would be interesting to hear what you say about the license and its text etc.

as andrew1280 said this was already covered: http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2451
I don't like to dig into licenses text, 1 because I am stupid and lazy, 2 because playing with words always brings to confusion, not to the truth - lawyers know it well, they always use "details" to reach their goals.
let's make it simpler:
will your software worth some money WITHOUT samples protected by a non-commercial-use license?
if the answer is NO, in my opinion you would earn money from samples by a university free project.
this is uncorrect, imho, licenses or not licenses.

cajo
as andrew1280 said this was already covered: http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2451
I don't like to dig into licenses text, 1 because I am stupid and lazy, 2 because playing with words always brings to confusion, not to the truth - lawyers know it well, they always use "details" to reach their goals.
let's make it simpler:
will your software worth some money WITHOUT samples protected by a non-commercial-use license?
if the answer is NO, in my opinion you would earn money from samples by a university free project.
this is uncorrect, imho, licenses or not licenses.

We'll develop our own library, as we have done before. What I'm trying to say is that the license text does NOT match the purpose of the free sound project. They clearly don't want commercial companies and/or individuals to distribute the samples, for profit. However, the license does NOT provide any protection against such a scenario. So I'd really suggest to change the license text to cover that too.

Saying that it's alright to distribute the samples for non profit purposes is NOT the same as protecting against distribution for commercial purposes. One doesn't have to be a lawyer to understand that. An elementary university course in logic would be enough