[cc-community] freesound > questions from the creator(s)

Mike Linksvayer ml at creativecommons.org
Wed Apr 6 16:26:59 EDT 2005

Bram de Jong - MTG wrote:
> 1. how does one show a website which uses two different licenses? I used 
> the <License rdf...> tags to show the *website* as certain content, but 
> the audio files have a different license. How can I -easily- reflect 
> this using the RFD tags?

The easiest thing to do would be to publish RDF that corresponds the the 
license used for the sound files (instead of the web pages) and add a 
type=Audio assertion (from http://creativecommons.org/license/ set 
format to Audio to get that metadata).  Presumably the audio content is 
what will be of primary interest to searchers.

Or, as someone else has mentioned, publish metadata for each audio file 
per http://creativecommons.org/technology/non-web

> 2. for attribution; how do I supply the users with a way to attribute. A 
> user might download 200 samples from 200 users. Does he then have to 
> attribube the online 200 "persona's" (there's no 'actual' names on 
> freesound)? How should this be done? Should I supply the user with 
> auto-generated forms or something which 'attribute'? How do others solve 
> this problem with mixed content (wav/mp3/ogg/aiff => adding 'metadata' 
> to these 4 file-types is hard)?

Attribution should probably go on the web page for a track, not embedded 
metadata.  The embedded metadata should simply contain a reference to 
this web page.  If you follow the non-web guidelines above this will be 
the effect.

For attribution on the track web page see for example 

If users are going to use samples from lots of songs you might consider 
a shopping cart/bookmark type interface where users can build up a list 
of stuff they're interested in sampling then checkoff the ones they used 
when submitting a track.  I'm sure there are many other approaches you 
could take, it's a UI issue.

> 3. What about the sampling-clause in sampling+? The clause makes sense 
> for sites that supply songs, but... The problem with a site with samples 
> is that "the work" *is* the sample. I.e. you use the work in a whole and 
> then reuse it in another work (CC or not) mixed with other works... A 
> bit confusing if you look at the 'sampling+' license. Can someone 
> elaborate.

IANAL, can't give legal advice, etc., but my personal thought is that 
the sampling license perhaps doesn't make much sense for licensing 
samples, as presumably the intention is that people can take the whole 
sample and use it in a new work without further cutting the sample up or 
otherwise transforming it.

> 4. about the double-C logo. I've been told I can't use it w/out consent 
> from CreativeCommons. I tried contacting the email addresses on the site 
> 3 times - with no result what so ever. I'm a bit annoyed by this but 
> perhaps someone can help me here?

http://creativecommons.org/policies isn't clear about (cc) as opposed to 
the full "(cc) creative commons" logo, but to be safe you should only 
use (cc) to link to creativecommons.org, not as part of another logo.

   Mike Linksvayer

More information about the cc-community mailing list