in order to fully understand the differences between all these license would it be possible to describe shortly all these options with there special features?
and before proceeding to voting, would it be possible to exchange point of views on the licenses so that the many of us that are not familiar with the subject can know more prior to voting...
but, "attribution - non-commercial" is stricter than "attribution"...
I prefer 'attribution - non-commercial' as this is the most unambiguous one and still leaves room for specific agreements between author and user. The other licenses are either too strict (e.g. attribution) or too ambiguous (e.g. public). Well, just my 2 cents.
And, if your afraid you might not appreciate the sounds in 20 years or so, get an alias!
feel the freedom of your own avatar!
Beatbed. (<< see?)
Oh, yeah I started writing that on my sound posts, as I realized it sounds really "crappy" when you have highly produced sounds going through the sites player. I guess when dealing with blips and roaring dirty sounds it might be harder to hear a difference.
But I clearly hear it on all my sounds. But then again, it is a preview of the sound, not the sound itself
How to create that sound:
Soundforge> pitch shift> drag line down at end>make sure "keep original length" is not marked, repeat until it sounds as you wish, then:
make a copy of the sound(ctrl+A,ctrl+C, ctrl+N, ctrl+V)>open a EQ>drag down the bass frequencies pretty much>select all (ctrl+A)> fade in.
go back to original track>fade out>mix (ctrl+M) mix at normal levels.
Now you have a nice "melt" and the bass that grows in the end wont kill the sub
It's from memory, but should work for you if you fiddle about a bit.
that's pretty neat! perhaps I should have a long look at the XML search page to make sure the returned things are *exactly* the same as in the regular search page
As many of you know, the Sampling+ license has sadly been a bad choice for freesound in the past. It's a confusing license, especially for sound effects (as compared to songs) as it has confusing legal talk about using the "whole work".
So, we would like to switch to another license, or a set of licenses to make everyone happy.
However, choosing this license isn't easy. In the poll above I suggest a combination of 3 licenses, please select the combination you like best. The problem of using VARIOUS licenses is that it becomes harder for the end-user to understand. My personal choice goes towards using both attribution and attribution-noncommercial.
Here are the URL's for all licensing options I propose:
1. "attribution": http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
2. "attribution-non-commercial": http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/
3. "public domain": http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
4. "sampling+": http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/
I did *not* choose the "share-alike" licenses (which forces the author of the derived work use the sample license) as it's even more confusing and in my opinion doesn't make any sense for samples/sounds/sfx.
this is a really important poll, so please, everyone, vote and comment.
as far as I see it we will switch to a dual licensing scheme: attribution and attribution-non-commercial.
I'm going to run a poll on the various options.
Applet has been improved, looks a bit more like an application
features different search-types, like on this site. Properties window for each sample, with the previewimage (these wonderful coloured pictures spread on this site), play the preview file, cache of searches samples and previews and possiblity to download the sample.
I happen to be reasonably happy with the license freesound uses, from a contributors point of view. I'm not sure I want to see it opened up, particularly to commercial usage. A lot of the grousing about the license seems to be from folks who want to use sounds in a commercial projects. Well, shoot, if you make money from sounds you should pay your way. If you like a freesound sound then ask the originator and offer to pay. You get a right-for-you commercial license and probably won't have to put the freesound on your credits roll either which seemed to be another sticking point.
What's nice about the sampling license is it draws that line. If you don't want to pay and make no money, you show some respect in the credits somewhere and draw from a wider pool than you can afford to shoot. If I record sounds on my dime I don't want people using it to make their fx budgets cheaper. I want people who otherwise wouldn't have a wide range of sounds to have a better choice without the fear of the big bad copyright stick. Commercial users go around the world sueing other people for copying their stuff, so they can show some respect here - with their wallets! That's presumably what commercial sound libraries sort out, so pay up
The mere synchronization ("synching" of the Work with a moving image shall not be considered a transformation of the Work into something substantially different, but it may be considered as an insubstantial portion of Your Derivative Work(s).
All depends on what is considered "insubstantial portion"
Freesound masterminds are aware of the problems related to this license and, as Bram mentioned before, Freesound will eventually switch to another license if a better solution is not found.
But, please, keep coming with this kind of talking, it helps us all.
Thank you very much.
I have to agree there are misconceptions with the current license available.
The 1.0 legal code states:
"...if You choose to use the original Work as a whole, You must either use the Work as an insubstantial portion of Your Derivative Work(s) or transform it into something substantially different from the original Work. In the case of a musical Work and/or audio recording, the mere synchronization ("synching" of the Work with a moving image shall not be considered a transformation of the Work into something substantially different."
People who are using these sounds in video/image based projects and not musical ones are technically violating the actual license. The Attribution 2.5 license didn't seem to have this same problem.(but I'd double check reading through it because I was tired when I read it the first time)
But irregardless of the license if your going to use any sounds on here commercially you really need to check with the user to see how they were made. And you might as well get a back up of permission to use.
I've got the Microtrack and i'm loving it. Alongside with the standard Mic i've got an OKM in ear set and an Audio Tehnika ATR97 - it's a very well working combination for recording fields as well as closeup sounds. Successfully used it for making game sound design and whatnot.
Best price / value spread i could imagine.
I'm looking for a good quality sound of those new kind of car remote noises, when you press the button to unlock or lock your car... you know, it's like 'chee chee'. I haven't been able to find anything like that, but then again I'm not sure exactly what to search for. Anyway, thanks in advance if you can help me out with that.
Hahaha!! They have a real passion for recording!
You could always fabricate the sounds of explosive diahhrea.
There's an old story among the tour guides at a certain haunted house / bed-and-breakfast which tells of a tour given, and in one public room which shares a bathroom with the rented room, interrupted by the sounds of a guest having... violent bowel movements.
No one took the tour seriously after that, and no ghost sightings were reported. Fun story, though.
Caution!! Sound recording can be not healthy
does this use freesound samples?
if so, the license demands you put a list of those samples on the page...
going to listen now.
Posted; A morning drifter and a demented wiggler.
A re-edit of and more fleshed out earlier posted track I now call Lakota and a new one which bends and folds and drops you off a cliff and then gets you caught in an updraft called Stir in Friqwasi.
Both made with Reason.
Give em a listen.