Hi Guys,

First of all, I'm Anton. I was invited to the site by Tasos on a site I am moderator of: the freesound project (http://freesound.iua.upf.edu) which features more then 40000 royalty free samples.

Congratulations on the start of soundsnap. A great start too with so many sounds online already. Lovely layout too.

An interesting discussion started on our board about the different licensing models used on soundsnap & the fcp. However since it seems to me to be more relevant to this forum I thought I would move the discussion here.

Besides my work for freesound (I am not the main man behind it, just a hand in the sound and board moderation process) I am a sound designer and an avid field recordist.
I love sites like this and freesound because it gives me a platform to share my work with those who really appreciate it. The thousands of downloads of my work from fcp i think is awesome. Also, I very regularly get emails from people who've used my sounds for their projects. A little college movie or a flash game. Not usually huge projects but still it's always very rewarding to hear what people have been working on with your sounds.
One of the reasons for this is that FCP uses a creative commons license that requires attribution. Meaning, if you decide to use a sound in a project that is publicly released, somewhere in that project should be a reference to where the sound was obtained and from how (the user). One of the most eye catching credits was in Children of Men. A great movie that used freesound and upheld the license.
For me the part of the soundsnap license that I don't like is that there doesn't seem to be any balance between the give and the take.
I work hard as a fieldrecordist, sometimes spending days to get a specific sound. Not only in the recording process but also in editing. The attribution is what the user then gives back to me. of course that doesn't pay my bills or my expensive gear/time but its a form of advertising and perhaps will lead to future work. At the very least its a token of appreciation for the work done by me. Which is, imo, the minimum to give in return.
Some say the license doesn't work because a lot of people don't attribute. Well, im not sure we can quantify that. How many of the downloads actually get used in a (commercial) project? Judging by the amount of people sharing their projects with me and others on the boards it seems to me that there is a lot of people.
To me in the end it comes down to a balance between give and take and what that means to me as an artist/craftsmen.

Sure the same goes for what i share on freesound. If people dont want to attribute they can contact the owner of the sound and arrange a different licence. For example some funds.
However I dont see why a movie couldnt credit a couple sounds. Surely a good sound designer has her own library and wouldnt need to use dozens of other peoples sounds. And why sound a sound recordist or designer be treated differently from anybody who produces music? Sometimes there are dozens of soundtracks credited (and they get paid too usually).
Again, im not asking for fame. I am asking for a balance between give and take. If somebody doesnt want to do that at least make a (legal) boundry to that abuse.
Again you say most people wont attribute, how did you come to that conclusion?
Btw, the only place where i see attribution is sometimes an issue is in commercial productions. If somebody is going to make money using my sounds why shouldnt they at least credit or buy me out?
We've always paid for the big sound ideas libraries, whats changed in the commercial world that they can't pay anymore?
Why should we help those that are unwilling to properly credit us for our work by making it legal for them to do that? I believe thats the other way around from the only way we can cahnge that situation. The only way we are going to ever get proper credit for our work (and proper credit is proper respect, not only for our specific sound but for the art) is by demanding it. If we dont respect it ourselves then when is anybody else going to give that to us?

Im glad its working for you :)
Btw, i don't see how your licence protects a user from commercial redistrobution anymore then the creative commons licence makes sure somebody attributes when using a work created under that licence.

I'm not sure demanding credits (written, bespoken or anything likewise) in the resulting product, for which someone used parts of my work to create, is the one, sole definition of a balanced 'give and take' situation. But. I feel inclined to agree, in one way or another, with Anton's thoughts.

Here's what I think.

Granted, harsh truth has it that, in a lot of situations there is hardly any way for us creativists to recieve credits for all and everything we do. Especially, in the commercial field, there is often such a narrow and limited space, that you'd have to struggle just trying to squeeze your own little name in there, somewhere; on a splash screen of a game, documentary ending text, or what have you. As far as film goes, I'm not precisely experienced in the line of trade, but as far as I dare to guess, common praxis appears to be, mostly giving credit to the 'entity' who made the 'final touches' or, you know, had the final say in the creative "decisions", of the production as a whole.

But on the other side of the coin. What I am mostly concerned about, or curious to know, is where do my contributed works go, where will it be used? I think, at least, it would be a fair deal to give the original creators a legal right to know. The obvious benefit of such a clause, would be for the original creator to be able to say, "listen up, that's me (or part of me) you're hearing" for self-marketing purposes.