Forums

    13 posts

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    2 posts
    License Copyright Reality


    Hello Freesounders!

    I have been using audio from Freesound in my independent and commercial projects for years. I LOVE IT! The search tool is fantastic and it's great to discover those unique sounds you just wouldn't find in a commercial library.

    My only gripe, is the licensing. If you want to contribute to a "free" sound library, that is fantastic, but to limit it's use in any shape or form just seems silly to me. There are plenty of other libraries out there where you can monetize and/or restrict usage on your work. But to say we can't use a sound commercially? That doesn't sound like a "free" sound library to me. And to request that you receive a credit in the finished piece? I'm a big proponent of giving credit to the creators of all art, but the reality of giving a credit to someone who contributed a single sound used in a 1-2 hour film or tv show seems unrealistic. This is especially difficult, when we're talking about branded content, youtube, music videos or commercials that don't have credits.

    Maybe I'm missing something here or misinterpreted the different licenses, but if we're going to have an open source, free sound library, just donate to the cause and let everyone use it as they wish. You're art is still out there, which is wonderful!

    Just my two cents...

    SS

  • avatar
    482 sounds
    69 posts


    When I started uploading sounds here, I was completely comfortable uploading in CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0)
    Public Domain Dedication

    Until I realized people were literally taking my sounds and selling them on other websites and claiming it as their own sound.
    So I had issues with many users asking me why they couldn't use my sound on Youtube due to copyright claims.
    Having my license set to at least Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) gave me some control.
    Although I understand that I could still have the same problems irregardless of the license change.

    I have not had any problems since changing licenses on my sounds.
    I am not greedy for being credited for the sounds I make or even if other people steal my sounds and sell them unedited elsewhere. Its when I get messages every other week telling me my sound is unusable. That's what frustrated me the most about CC0.

    So that is my opinion on the matter.

    Cheers!
    Jordan

  • avatar
    117 sounds
    10 posts


    I always use CC0, I want people use my sound/loops every where. If people can sell them, very good, I help people buy food, water, and other things they need. I also save time and resource because people not need recreate stuff because restriction. Fun see how people use stuff.

    Copyright become too corrupt from corporations, too long, and owners have no responsibilities for balance. I want help break monopoly for freedom.

  • avatar
    717 sounds
    168 posts


    Erokia wrote:
    Until I realized people were literally taking my sounds and selling them on other websites and claiming it as their own sound.
    So I had issues with many users asking me why they couldn't use my sound on Youtube due to copyright claims.

    That is the worst part about it.

    I've found several of my sounds being used raw as "calming ambience" music tracks, which are then published through a label or provider. They then submit the music to the YouTube Content ID scanner to make sure no one else can use it commercially and any upload using the sound is instantly copyright/monetization-claimed.

    For us, there isn't really any way we can stop that from happening. We just have to hope that the people that use these sounds have the decency to let others continue using them as well. And if not, well, eternal shame on the person that claimed it.

  • avatar
    482 sounds
    69 posts


    It doesn't really bother me that people manage to take my sounds and sell em somewhere else.
    But copyrighting the sound as their own musical work is defeating the purpose of me uploading here.
    It is indeed a damn shame.

    That is the risk of Creative Commons but it is what it is I suppose.
    I'd really like to hear other peoples thoughts.

  • avatar
    8 sounds
    1 post


    I completely understand where everyone is coming from. I totally agree that credit should be given when credit is due/asked for.

    But what is a realistic and agreeable way to do that?

    There is no way in the world a director/producer is going to be receptive to "Hey you gotta put this guys screen-name and Freesound page in the credit roll because I used his ambience track"

    Any thoughts? Solutions?

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    1 post


    The people that use sounds for sale or to claim their own have no creativity, those bastards won't get far hopefully. Thanks for the sounds I use them in sets as samples.

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    2 posts


    Erokia wrote:

    Until I realized people were literally taking my sounds and selling them on other websites and claiming it as their own sound.
    So I had issues with many users asking me why they couldn't use my sound on Youtube due to copyright claims.
    Having my license set to at least Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) gave me some control.
    Although I understand that I could still have the same problems irregardless of the license change.

    Well that just plain sucks. I didn't realize people had the nerve to do such things. So sad. In this case, I do agree that some type of copyright should be applied to all the sounds uploaded. I just wonder if it can be worded better as to not scare off someone who might want to use them as part of a commercial project, but has no intention of selling the sound itself as their own? That way you still retain the legal right to at least deter such behavior?

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    1 post


    La verdad que es increible que la gente haga cosas así.

  • avatar
    2 sounds
    47 posts


    Erokia wrote:

    Until I realized people were literally taking my sounds and selling them on other websites and claiming it as their own sound. So I had issues with many users asking me why they couldn't use my sound on Youtube due to copyright claims. Having my license set to at least Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) gave me some control. Although I understand that I could still have the same problems irregardless of the license change.

    Erokia, your sounds are magnificent, so I can see why you'd want attribution. You deserve it.

    (To the person who said they wouldn't be able to attribute a two second sound effect in a two hour movie, well, that's what the end credits are for.)

    swingsound wrote:

    Well that just plain sucks. I didn't realize people had the nerve to do such things. So sad. In this case, I do agree that some type of copyright should be applied to all the sounds uploaded. I just wonder if it can be worded better as to not scare off someone who might want to use them as part of a commercial project, but has no intention of selling the sound itself as their own? That way you still retain the legal right to at least deter such behavior?

    Probably the best for that is "attribution" as it's a small barrier, but one that people who are trying to make a quick buck might not be able to hurdle. I think it's a good license for many folks here. However, I personally feel like attribution is not strong enough. For example, Microsoft uses community created software in its products; you can see the attributions in tiny print hidden inside an addendum to the End User License Agreement that nobody reads. Legally, they're fine, but ethically...

    That's one of the reasons I use reciprocal licensing for works that I've put a lot of time into. Reciprocal licenses — also called "copyleft" — like CC-sharealike and the GNU General Public License are great for people in the community and terrible for people who want to take other people's works without giving anything back.



    Unlike CC-Non-Commercial, reciprocal licenses do allow commercial uses, but the end product has to have the same license. That means, any film maker who is releasing their movies under a sharealike license, for example Sita Sings the Blues, can freely use sharealike sounds and sell the final product commercially.

    Copyleft isn't perfect; it's still relying on our broken copyright law, but I do enjoy that it turns copyright on its head. The person who receives the sound explicitly has the right to do anything they want with it, except take those rights away from anybody else.

  • avatar
    22 sounds
    1 post


    I love to license my work CC0,but what if I use in my music a sample downloaded from Freesound which is licensed CC-BY-attribution-is this alright legally-I mean that my track would be licensed CC0 and so it could be used in several ways without giving anybody any credit..is it enough that I give credit to the person who has uploaded the sample and put for instance a link to my track in Soundcloud account, where it is possible to download it as wav-file for maybe further production etc etc..if it contains a CC-BY-sample..?

    Mugwumb
  • avatar
    496 sounds
    196 posts


    I can understand where you're coming from. Keep in mind that if a credit listing would be out of place for your project, or if it's technically commercial but on a small scale (like an album you are selling to a small audience), there is always the option to contact the creator and ask for an exception. Granted, if you are using many sounds from Freesound, it's a burden to send off and coordinate that many private messages and wait for responses, but that's how it is if you don't want to pay for a pro sound library.

    Filtering by licence type is also available. There are plenty of CC0 sounds here.

  • avatar
    2287 sounds
    2008 posts


    Mugwumb wrote:
    I love to license my work CC0,but what if I use in my music a sample downloaded from Freesound which is licensed CC-BY-attribution-is this alright legally ...

    Can't use a CC0 license on your work if it includes CC-BY, see ...
    https://freesound.org/help/faq/#license-restrictions-when-publishing-new-sounds-that-includemodifyremix-other-sounds

    13 posts