Forums

    12 posts

  • avatar
    76 sounds
    32 posts
    Sampling Plus License and Wikipedia


    Hi all,

    Recently my brother did some editing to a wikipedia page and added one of my recordings on there (it was an edit to a bird page in which I have recorded and uploaded here).

    Anyway instead of just saying the file was his, which he could of, he said he got it from here when he uploaded it to wiki.

    Soon after editing the page the audio file was removed by a user stating that the Sampling Plus License prohibits posting on wikipedia, even if the proper 'author' and site are named.

    Is this true? I am not the best with these CC licenses, but it would seem liek uploading Freesound sounds to Wikipedia would be a use that a lot of material on this site would be good for.

    Here is the user's argument
    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_17#Sampling_plus_license

    Now I am just plain curious if they are correct and if so, is there some clause we can add so that users can freely upload our stuff to wiki?

    Cheers.

  • avatar
    18 sounds
    456 posts


    Hmm well yes, the Sampling+ license is meant for audio samples, so they are to be used in some other work, a film, a song, anything. Simply taking the entire sample (or possibly even just a fragment of it) and putting it on an other site is not why it's there.
    Also, the license is more strict than, say, the CC-Attribution license, like you can't simply sync a sample to a video and you cannot use the samples in advertisements. So I see how they can deny the license on Wikimedia Commons, saying the files have to be free so they can be used for anything.
    However, you, as creator of the sample, are free to publish the sample under a different license on there. It may be Sampling+ on here, you can release it under Attribution on there. It's your work so you decide what should happen with it.
    Freesound will in the future support other licenses (even up to "public domain"wink, so whenever the site is updated to this new way, people can upload their samples here under a Wikimedia-compatible license smile

  • avatar
    76 sounds
    32 posts


    Many thanks for the reply! Quite informativegrin

    So you are suggesting that in the future FS users can dictate which license goes with which sample? That would be great!

    Really right now I have no issue with someone taking an uploaded sound of mine and putting it on another site (in its original form) as long as they credit FS and myself.

    Thanks again.

  • avatar
    18 sounds
    456 posts


    Yes indeed, people will be able to choose which license goes with which sample.

  • avatar
    432 sounds
    344 posts


    nemoDaedalus
    Yes indeed, people will be able to choose which license goes with which sample.

    Interesting!

    But what about the samples we've already posted. Can we change the license on those too? I would think it's important to give as many options as possible, to the sounds uploaded here (i can of course only speak for my self),

  • avatar
    18 sounds
    456 posts


    Afaik, it will be possible to change the license on already uploaded sounds.

  • avatar
    432 sounds
    344 posts


    nemoDaedalus
    Afaik, it will be possible to change the license on already uploaded sounds.

    Sounds great smile

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    6 posts


    I agree this is going to be better for those gracious people who take their time and energy to contribute. But me, as a person who wishes he had half the skill and creativity as people who upload (that is to say I’m a moocher), I am worried.

    I really like that all the samples here are conveniently the same license type. At other places that I used to look, I would find something really great, only to find out that the license was not what I was looking for.

    I’m sure that there will be a great search option that will let me choose samples by licensing, but I’m still nervous. I have always thought it was of the utmost importance for me, even as someone who only wishes to be good enough one day to actually make money doing music and sound, to be sure to have credits and licenses properly done.

    But then again, I’m only a “taker” at this site, not a “giver.” sad And the people who upload should upload should have the utmost control over receiving credit for their work. Also, I’m aware that many uploaders are wanting to change their licensing to an even less restrictive one.

    Wow. I’m babbling and hijacked a thread or something. Oops. Sorry.

    Anyway, this site is great and change to something so great scares me… but I also think it is a good idea and gives more power to the creative minds who give so much to the rest of us.

    I’m going to go back to my corner now…

    the alley cat via the 2nd.wav

  • avatar
    76 sounds
    32 posts


    The idea of freesound giving uploaders more freedom to dictate the use of their material shouldn't scare you. You mentioned many times that the idea of more license types scaring you but you never detailed what, specifcally scares about that.

    If you are nervous you won't be able to decipher which sample has which license, i am sure FS will have a convenient way to figured which is which and will also thoroughly and easily explain what rights eAch license gives the downloader.

    Or are you more worried about restricted use of the downloaded material?

    Those who want to contribute will contribute, those who don't, won't.

    And in my particular case here I wanted a license that gave people who donwloaded my specifc file in question, more freedom to use it as they wish.

  • avatar
    121 sounds
    1545 posts


    Freesound2 will have 3 licenses:

    - cc-zero (a public-domain-like license). One-liner: you can do whatever you want, no need for credits
    - attribution. one-liner: you can do whatever you want, but you need to credit me.
    - attribution-non-commercial. one-liner: you can't make money with whatever you make from this sample, and you need to credit me.

    In the search the license will be selectable + in the atrtibution form it should be easier...

    - Bram

    Warning: if you break the rules, see my avatar. Freesound Admin, Moderator, Ex-Freesound-Coder & Benevolent Dictator For Life.
  • avatar
    76 sounds
    32 posts


    Bram
    Freesound2 will have 3 licenses:

    - cc-zero (a public-domain-like license). One-liner: you can do whatever you want, no need for credits
    - attribution. one-liner: you can do whatever you want, but you need to credit me.
    - attribution-non-commercial. one-liner: you can't make money with whatever you make from this sample, and you need to credit me.

    In the search the license will be selectable + in the atrtibution form it should be easier...

    - Bram

    Very cool. Has there been a date set for FS2's release?

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    6 posts


    JustinBW

    If you are nervous you won't be able to decipher which sample has which license, i am sure FS will have a convenient way to figured which is which and will also thoroughly and easily explain what rights eAch license gives the downloader.

    That is my main worry.

    WOW. So only three different types. I think even I can decipher between three. I have been to some sites and it is almost like there are as many licenses as samples. Trying to figure out when I can use a sample commercially and when the same sample cannot, many different ways of crediting, etc.

    When someone takes the time to contribute I just want to be certain that I am giving them the credit they deserve, and how they want that credit. But since there will be only three different licenses... I think I can figure that out, so it seems my worries are over.

    thanks for the responses. (and sorry about hijacking the thread again)

    12 posts