Forums

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    5 posts


    CC licenses/DMCA are just an excuse for youtubers/youtube generation to do whatever they want with CC material at this point.

  • avatar
    606 sounds
    276 posts


    AlienXXX wroteweirdorry to hear you won't be posting sounds (for whatever reason).
    In the case of people like SEF, it does not matter what license you slap on a sound, since he has complete disregard for copyright anyway.

    I did

    http://www.freesound.org/forum/legal-help-and-attribution-questions/33432/

    no response.

  • avatar
    606 sounds
    276 posts


    He's back.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/SoundEffectsFactory

    https://www.facebook.com/SoundEffectsFactory

  • avatar
    224 sounds
    90 posts


    I think he probably learned how to avoid violations (and being shut down), based on his explanation, which is worth listening to if you're interested in this thread. I don't know who the "big company" was. I don't see any of my sounds there (unlike some *wap* domains all over the world that seem to have copies of anything and everything imaginable -- gross violations). The channel states:


    If you use any of the content I have uploaded on this channel all I ask is that you credit the original sound artist that can be found in most descriptions of my videos. If there is no attribution, the sound either is Creative Commons 0 or is from an unknown source.

    I just did a quick search for freesound.org and got many hits. A quick sampling suggested to me that attribution was being given, with appropriate links. They look good. Not all sounds have attributions, but those might be from other sources, provided from scratch, or CC0. I don't think this is worth any trouble unless you find something you own there without attribution, which I'm doubting will happen.


    Are you aware of any actual violations with the new channel?


    -- Keith W. Blackwell
  • avatar
    1118 sounds
    398 posts


    zimbot wrote:

    I think he probably learned how to avoid violations (and being shut down), based on his explanation, which is worth listening to if you're interested in this thread.


    In the beginning, the speaker respectively apologizes.

    Quite soon in the video, the speaker starts saying "they" to speak about copyright holders and copyright infringement reporters. This seems to mean all Freesound users and whoever else is opposed the channel's copyright infringing activities.

    The guest of the speaker calls "them" arrogant ("high horse"). I might be misinterpreting that.

    The end statement incudes the term "copyright bullshit".

    zimbot wrote:

    Are you aware of any actual violations with the new channel?


    I see some sampling+ licensed sounds using channel search. That license clearly prohibits use related to advertising, which I assume includes this kind of use. The same way I found some sampling+ licensed sounds being incorrectly marked as being cc-by 3.0 licensed.

    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
    1439 sounds
    1569 posts


    This is one to watch. He seems to have made great improvements - thanks to the efforts of the people here and surely others: it became obvious that SEF had upset and large number of people and build quite a crowd of 'fans'.

    He is far from perfect, but has gone from absolute-trample-everyone-and-laugh behaviour to at least trying to make some efforts to be compliant.

    This user still uses some difamatory language against the people who are rightly trying to enforce their copyrights and attribution. - Of course, trying to get the viewers of his channel on his side.

    He still states


    If you use any of the content I have uploaded on this channel all I ask is that you credit the original sound artist that can be found in most descriptions of my videos. If there is no attribution, the sound either is Creative Commons 0 or is from an unknown source.

    Note: if the sound is from an 'unknown source' then you have no idea of the copyright status and you should not distribute the sound.
    He is still obviously taking the view of "It is OK if no one complains" - So still a long way to go. But massive improvement from where we started off.

    I make no secret of the fact that I will watch his channels every now and then with the deliberate intention of finding any copyright infringements and will immediately notify any Freesounders affected.

    So yeah, SEF... "them" are still watching...

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


    Nothing has changed here.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C81ZDRbvbV4

  • avatar
    956 sounds
    858 posts


    This night the company's automated system gave an alarm on abuse of SEF on my sound ' photo press Conference.WAV'. He knows he is followed by my.

    SEF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Famp42xT8
    http://www.freesound.org/people/klankbeeld/sounds/179209/#description

    1] I have forbidden him to use any of my sounds for his channels anymore a few month ago!
    2] Its a cc3.0 sound with no credits etc.
    3] He ignores my extra terms of use; no indirect link!

    What I do on him is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifdy8x7QCMk (MY SOUND TOO: http://www.freesound.org/people/klankbeeld/sounds/140886/ )

    Guys nothing is changed. He'll better delete all my sounds ASAP

    To hear, you first have to listen
  • avatar
    368 sounds
    255 posts


    My two cents on this.....

    IMO we are near to an outcome regarding SEF and the attribution license as it currently stands.He is now attributing the sounds as he is required to do.
    For example..
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifdy8x7QCMk (click on the "show more" tab and there's a link to Klanbeeld and freesound.
    Or..
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtznKECjoN4 (my sound with attribution)

    Klankbeeld...It's true that he has neglected to attribute here...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Famp42xT8 (you can send copyright infringement notice and i'm sure he will then attribute because then his youtube file of your sound will be legal and most importantly for him he'll continue to make his money....business as usual.

    So if i want to stop this i have to change the license on my sounds to non-commercial(he respects this) but,for me,the whole point of sharing my sounds is that people can make CREATIVE use of them in their work AND without the possibility of making money being denied to them.SEF may have a smart number up and running here but it's not creative use in the way i intended it.I had hoped that choosing the attribution license would stop him and anyone else lifting sounds directly and selling them unaltered somewhere else....i can see now that i was wrong.
    The only answer,IMO,is changing the attribution license so that it contains a clause something like digifishmusic wrote:
    "4. Not allowed: You may not re-sell the sound singularly or as part of a sample library, in a similar/competing product or re-host them on another web-site with the aim of serving them for use by others or sale to others. In other words, I expect you will be using digifish music sounds creatively in (but not limited to): multimedia works, film, tv, video, music compositions, radio, live performances, art installations, in computer software, in product firmware, on web pages as embellishment of content. Not just re-selling/re-serving them."
    I have understood that the licenses on freesound are not going to be altered anytime soon but when that time does come i really hope that this issue can be resolved.

  • avatar
    261 sounds
    177 posts


    I am amazed by persistence and enterprising skills of this young fellow (too bad he had chosen dark side of business)

    never mind the bollocks zagi2
  • avatar
    1439 sounds
    1569 posts


    @SEF
    Glad to have you back and I really prefer that people talk to the community here and do try to make amends - which you clearly have.

    We may have our views on whether what you do is 'moral' or not but you certainly don't seem to be doing things illegally anymore.
    I believe that if attribution is still missing on some of the files on your channel this has been an oversight and hopefully can be corrected with a notice to you rather than an official complaint.

    Most importantly, I expect you will also respect user's 'additional terms' where specifically stated that they do not want their sounds reproduced unchanged somewhere else and that they are meant for creative use only (or words to that effect). And, of course, to act on any direct requests to you from Fresound users to have their sounds removed from your channel.

    I think if you can agree to do that there is a good chance Freesounders will let you be and run your channels in peace.
    We will keep watching just to make sure everything is still OK.
    I feel this gives you more than enough space to run your business and make money. Plenty of sounds to choose from.
    If you choose to overstep these boundaries it must be becasue you intentionally want to upset people or prove a point - so you must be ready to deal any reaction that comes with it. I think your recent experiences have proved that if you upset enough people they can eventually make life difficult to you. So better not.

    @Everyone Else
    If you want your sounds removed from SEFs channel please contact him directly.
    Same if you find any of your material where attribution should have been given but is missing.
    Ultimately, if that fails to bring in the desired result, voice your concerns on this thread to engage the rest of the Freesound community.

    We should accept that when we put our material on the web (Freesound or otherwise) it becomes open to abuse. If you absolutely can't live with that, don't post material on the web.
    I personally take the view that if you post 100 sounds and one of them is used creatively, then it is worth it. That is what we should cultivate and encourage, more than the negative aspects.
    Having said that, we have proven that we can take action against persistent infractors and hopefully will continue to do so.

    hmmmm..... erm..... I forgot...
  • avatar
    1118 sounds
    398 posts


    FunSoundTube can be discussed here.

    AlienXXX wrote:
    Most importantly, I expect you will also respect user's 'additional terms' where specifically stated that they do not want their sounds reproduced unchanged somewhere else and that they are meant for creative use only (or words to that effect). And, of course, to act on any direct requests to you from Fresound users to have their sounds removed from your channel.

    Adding terms to any CC licenses is not possible, see for example 8(e) of the CC-BY 3.0 license text.

    There is one way users can force YouTube channels to take down adaptations of their CC-BY 3.0 sounds, if not enough credit is being given: 4(b) of the license states that credits are required "reasonable to the medium". To have the credits in the video is reasonable, when one looks at video and movie productions. 4(b) also states what needs to be part of the attribution: name, title and URL.

    (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g., a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution ("Attribution Parties") in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; (ii) the title of the Work if supplied; (iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work

    and 4(a) states that license needs to be included as well.

    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
    224 sounds
    90 posts


    I would recommend that everyone try to keep things in perspective. SEF has taken corrective action and will likely continue to correct problems in the future when notified of any remaining omissions. But lots of other sites out there duplicate freesound content without proper attribution at all.

    Try a google search for freesound, your username, and the term "wap". You may or may not find anything, but I certainly find a lot. There are many domains/hosts out there with "wap" in their name that reflect a lot of content without proper attribution. I don't know what that's all about.

    But even for artistic and creative uses, I've found many uses of my sounds in various places where people did not go quite far enough in providing attribution, but it is an understandable mistake. I could find them using a search because they at least mention my user name on freesound. But I want to know which sound is used, specifically, and sometimes people just don't bother. The license does say a URL should be included, and sometimes people provide a link to my user profile, which is nice, but again, I wish folks would take an extra minute to see how to do it. I believe most folks just look at freesound's quick summary and think they're OK, and they don't really bother to read the license (most folks have learned to skip over digital license language as gibberish).

    My own motives for being involved in sharing sounds on freesound are not purely altruistic, in that I do enjoy getting some praise and credit for creative work (as much as I would like to say I can rise above that, I'm just being honest -- if it weren't for that, I probably wouldn't be motivated to do much on freesound). So losing out on that is a bummer. I also understand people getting angry about even the implication from someone else that they are somehow responsible for our own works.

    Different things push different buttons for different people. It seems SEF pushed some buttons previously that are proving hard to "reset".

    -- Keith W. Blackwell
  • avatar
    1439 sounds
    1569 posts


    Sure, getting credit is nice.
    Getting 'thank you' is probably even nicer.

    Many people will completely skip licenses, etc. Which is generally ok if you are downloading something for private use.

    If you think your work is good enough to charge people for (e.g. Commercial music) then you must be sure to understand and comply with the licenses for sounds you use. You can be sued otherwise.

    If you are simply copying contents and posting elswhere for profit (direct charge, donations or via site advertising) - which is the case with SEF - then you must be really carefull that you obey license terms and that you do not missrepresent any contents as being made by yourself.
    If he does that, even if we don't like what he is doing, it is legal and he should be left in peace.

    hmmmm..... erm..... I forgot...
  • avatar
    368 sounds
    255 posts


    Keeping things in perspective??
    ...while showing endless goodwill??

    Seriously guys,you amaze me....just what will it take before you suss this guys' gameplan out?

    Earlier in this thread my military exercise file...http://www.freesound.org/people/juskiddink/sounds/64647/.... was mentioned in several posts,(Timbre posted a photo of the waveform etc,etc)..it was the basis for my copyright infringement notice to youtube....SEF was obviously made fully aware of this...

    ....now it is back with no attribution and changed to a creative commons 0 license.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xxlL9UBXoE

  • avatar
    224 sounds
    90 posts


    justkiddink, The link you provided to the SEF video of your sound on YouTube does provide attribution via URL to your home page (albeit not to the individual sound), and it says CC BY 3 is the license, which matches the freesound page.

    -- Keith W. Blackwell
  • avatar
    1118 sounds
    398 posts


    It might have been changed since juskiddink complained.

    It currently looks like this:


    DOWNLOAD LINK!
    http://bit.ly/V02PjA

    Attribution:
    www.freesound.org/people/juskiddink/
    Licence Terms: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/b...

    The source link is obfuscated. The attribution misses the original file name and author name. The website link is not clickable, which would be not an effort to enable (by adding http :// before it). There is no attribution in the video itself.

    All this can be interpreted as either a honest mistake or intentional avoidance of letting viewers learn about the source. In either case, it infringes upon the license.

    http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/copyright-complaint.html seems to be the most efficient way to get channels to comply.

    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
    956 sounds
    858 posts


    Hi guys,

    I am very sorry to come back on his theme. But SEF is still making 'mistakes'.
    I did a system check from the last 14 days and this is the result.

    And as always he will say that he is doing the best he can do be proper......

    No proper credits
    http://freesound.org/people/jobro/sounds/87136/
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c95gCOSbR_U&feature;=c4-overview&list;=UUYIxR_86Ck0sCL26eVuumvQ

    non-commercial sound without credits
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSh37Mgezlw
    http://freesound.org/people/oniwe/sounds/32862/

    and;
    IMPORTANT FOR Everyone

    SEF writes on his channel
    'If your copyright is being violated and/or you don't want your sounds displayed on this channel, please send me a Personal Message and I will happily delete the video(s)! ',

    he should delete these video's asap. I do not want any of my sound on that channel and he knows by PM correspondence;
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_RVI1Ug--I&feature;=c4-overview&list;=UUYIxR_86Ck0sCL26eVuumvQ
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BwcVNNFVM0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhd8V9cDUsA
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Famp42xT8
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifdy8x7QCMk

    He doesn't want to be found by tricks
    He is editing some silence or cut out a part of a sound.

    Here is an 'extra silence' example without credits and it is NON-commercial;
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3frQdGaJiY
    http://freesound.org/people/boziav/sounds/73147/

    To hear, you first have to listen
  • avatar
    1439 sounds
    1569 posts


    Well, we all know that SEF has posted on this thread a few times.
    I am sure he is on automatic email alert on new posts.
    WE are done talking. We have covered this subject numerous times with SEF.
    So, there is no point posting new infractions here and alert SEF (who can then go and clean it up). It is more useful to alert the Freesounders who's sounds are being used illegaly and ask them to complain to Youtube.

    We also know what happens there: enought people complain... the channel is taken down.
    Then SEF has to cancel his sky holiday and spend a lot of time on the phone and email sorting out his money making scheme with youtube again. - Even if the channel is brought up again, every day it is down he loses $$$.

    hmmmm..... erm..... I forgot...
  • avatar
    1118 sounds
    398 posts


    Regarding copyright claims on YouTube: When you write a legitimate copyright complaint, the video will be taken down.

    If the video uploader objects to this, it will be made available again. However, this action will reveal the uploader's personal information to the copyright complainer, so that they can take legal actions against the infringing uploader.

    This piece of information was provided to clarify that situations in which uploaders disrespect CC licenses and reject copyright claims are not hopeless but rather might require (legal) action outside of YouTube's moderation system.

    My recommendation for copyright holders of CC-BY sounds is to message YouTube uploaders and tell them that a copyright complaint will be filled, unless they delete the video that does not fulfill their requirements and clarify to them what the requirements are.

    I recommend to CC-BY sound copyright holders to require that full credits (sound artist's name, sound title, full URL, license information [license name and full license url]) is given inside the video images themselves, either during the entire duration of the video or during the credits, at least 8 seconds in length, as well as in the video description (with clickable links) This is in accordance with 4.b. of CC-BY 3.0 license text: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode

    If You Distribute, or Publicly Perform the Work or any Adaptations or Collections, You must [...] keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing [...]

    To provide full text credits is currently reasonable (and has a long tradition). To provide direct clickable links in YouTube video description is also currently reasonable.

    (I highly recommend reading that full section of the license.)

    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!