All our freebies are now CC-0 instead of some being CC-BY and some CC-0 depending on when they were made, and one that was GPL for some reason inbetween. No new content, but a more permissive license.
https://shop.karoryfer.com/pages/free-samples
Karoryfer free sample libraries are now all CC-0
-
- KVRAF
- 2211 posts since 20 Sep, 2013 from Poland
-
- KVRAF
- 3360 posts since 19 Mar, 2008 from germany
Hmmm ... do you know what that means?
Everyone can take your multisamples and put together their own
sample set - and offer it again. He could even sell this - his sample set.
What I always like is the CC-suffix "nc". It says "non-commercial". That
would then mean that everyone can use the samples, even for their
commercial songs, but not to sell the samples themselves as their "own".
Anyway, that's very generous of you. And it will definitely spread your
name around the world.
Everyone can take your multisamples and put together their own
sample set - and offer it again. He could even sell this - his sample set.
What I always like is the CC-suffix "nc". It says "non-commercial". That
would then mean that everyone can use the samples, even for their
commercial songs, but not to sell the samples themselves as their "own".
Anyway, that's very generous of you. And it will definitely spread your
name around the world.
free mp3s + info: andy-enroe.de songs + weird stuff: enroe.de
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2211 posts since 20 Sep, 2013 from Poland
Yes. And if somebody takes these free samples, sells them and makes serious money out of them... I think that would be good. It would be very valuable information for me to see how they do it.
And in any case it was already allowable earlier, though with attribution. Attribution licenses complicate things for musicians who want to use these samples and need to make sure they or their clients aren't exposed to legal problems. Hence going to CC0.
And in any case it was already allowable earlier, though with attribution. Attribution licenses complicate things for musicians who want to use these samples and need to make sure they or their clients aren't exposed to legal problems. Hence going to CC0.
-
- KVRist
- 247 posts since 5 May, 2020
> It would be very valuable information for me to see how they do it.
-
- KVRAF
- 2315 posts since 11 Mar, 2003
For the Boomers and thickos, what is CC-0, CC-BY and GPL?
-
- KVRist
- 247 posts since 5 May, 2020
CC stands for Creative Commons, which is a project put together by lawyers to make it easier for folks to handle lots of common copyright cases without needing a lawyer! CC-0 is the lowest (least protection) level, which basically puts the material in the public domain (or as close as possible in most countries.)
BY means "with attribution" -- your stuff can be used but anyone using it needs to credit you for your contribution. E.g., "jRhodes samples by Jeff Learman."
NC mans "Noncommercial" -- you can include it if you're not charging (and possibly if you are charging but you're a nonprofit -- not sure about that but I bet it's OK.)
SA means "Share Alike" -- anyone including your stuff has to have a license that is no more restrictive than yours.
Then there's also usually a number from (IIRC) 1 to 4 which is just the legal version of the license, and rarely matters to anyone but lawyers or people thinking in excruciating detail about lawsuits, especially between different countries or in specific countries. The number is often omitted. If omitted, it's legally ambiguous which version is implied, but again, that rarely matters except in the case of big lawsuits.
See https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/ for more info. The site is really quite good at making it easy to select a license based on layman's terms.
From our perspective as sound designers, the biggest issue (other than, what rights are reserved) is that we usually pick our CC version with a particular audience in mind: anyone including our samples in their samplesets or instruments or products. We do NOT intend this copyright to be applied to users of the instrument, who are simply making music! We are just like keyboard manufacturers like Roland and Yamaha in this respect. If you peer at the fine print in their documentation, they make it clear that they own any samples and you don't have the right to copy their instrument and make your own instrument and distribute it. (Actually, they don't have to state this in most countries, since copyrights are implicit.) But they don't need to say YOU CAN USE THIS KEYBOARD IN YOUR RECORDINGS WITHOUT PAYING US ROYALTIES!
That's the (rather silly but understandable) ambiguity that led DSmolken to change his licenses. He was tired of people seeing the license terms and thinking it applied to musicians using his stuff to make music. Silly because the whole PURPOSE of making an instrument (software or hardware) is so that people can make music with it. But extra-cautious people see the license and wonder if it applies to making music. IT DOESN'T, but ... well, I make that explicit in my license files (when I remember to.) And the doubt is understandable.
BY means "with attribution" -- your stuff can be used but anyone using it needs to credit you for your contribution. E.g., "jRhodes samples by Jeff Learman."
NC mans "Noncommercial" -- you can include it if you're not charging (and possibly if you are charging but you're a nonprofit -- not sure about that but I bet it's OK.)
SA means "Share Alike" -- anyone including your stuff has to have a license that is no more restrictive than yours.
Then there's also usually a number from (IIRC) 1 to 4 which is just the legal version of the license, and rarely matters to anyone but lawyers or people thinking in excruciating detail about lawsuits, especially between different countries or in specific countries. The number is often omitted. If omitted, it's legally ambiguous which version is implied, but again, that rarely matters except in the case of big lawsuits.
See https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/ for more info. The site is really quite good at making it easy to select a license based on layman's terms.
From our perspective as sound designers, the biggest issue (other than, what rights are reserved) is that we usually pick our CC version with a particular audience in mind: anyone including our samples in their samplesets or instruments or products. We do NOT intend this copyright to be applied to users of the instrument, who are simply making music! We are just like keyboard manufacturers like Roland and Yamaha in this respect. If you peer at the fine print in their documentation, they make it clear that they own any samples and you don't have the right to copy their instrument and make your own instrument and distribute it. (Actually, they don't have to state this in most countries, since copyrights are implicit.) But they don't need to say YOU CAN USE THIS KEYBOARD IN YOUR RECORDINGS WITHOUT PAYING US ROYALTIES!
That's the (rather silly but understandable) ambiguity that led DSmolken to change his licenses. He was tired of people seeing the license terms and thinking it applied to musicians using his stuff to make music. Silly because the whole PURPOSE of making an instrument (software or hardware) is so that people can make music with it. But extra-cautious people see the license and wonder if it applies to making music. IT DOESN'T, but ... well, I make that explicit in my license files (when I remember to.) And the doubt is understandable.
-
- KVRAF
- 7412 posts since 8 Feb, 2003 from London, UK
"CC" - "Creative Commons". They're an organisation who have created a number of different licences.
A "licence" is a set of rights that you, as a creator, grant others. "Copyright" is the legal basis under which you have the right to grant licences to others.
"CC-BY" is a licence that requires others to acknowledge you as the creator of a work licenced under that licence. ("BY" as in "it's by") That requirement to acknowledge is a restriction on what others can do with your work.
"CC-0" has no restrictions, to the greatest extent permitted by law.
"GPL" - "General Public Licence", often synonymous with "GNU GPL 2.0" (or similar). "GNU" is... well, try this: https://www.gnu.org/ ... different things to different people. They also have a bunch of different licences, mostly used for computer software specifically. For "what is the GPL?" it's probably easiest to start here...
There are good reasons to stick to CC licences for creative content other than software (or even software). CC-0 is "do what you want", which - if you want to call something free - is about as free as it gets.
A "licence" is a set of rights that you, as a creator, grant others. "Copyright" is the legal basis under which you have the right to grant licences to others.
"CC-BY" is a licence that requires others to acknowledge you as the creator of a work licenced under that licence. ("BY" as in "it's by") That requirement to acknowledge is a restriction on what others can do with your work.
"CC-0" has no restrictions, to the greatest extent permitted by law.
"GPL" - "General Public Licence", often synonymous with "GNU GPL 2.0" (or similar). "GNU" is... well, try this: https://www.gnu.org/ ... different things to different people. They also have a bunch of different licences, mostly used for computer software specifically. For "what is the GPL?" it's probably easiest to start here...
There are good reasons to stick to CC licences for creative content other than software (or even software). CC-0 is "do what you want", which - if you want to call something free - is about as free as it gets.
-
- KVRAF
- 3360 posts since 19 Mar, 2008 from germany
Making a work or a software "free" available to all people -JeffLearman wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 8:02 pm > It would be very valuable information for me to see how they do it.
that has also a completely different aspect:
To be part of the "free-culture"
---> What's the idea?
All creative works are built on the shoulders of others, and no
person can claim to have created anything without having been
inspired, influenced, or taught by the work of those before them.
The "free-culture movement" is based on the idea, that every
human work is derived from the cultural merits of all our ancestors
and all cultural contributors at all. Everyone has learned in school,
in the internet and everywhere else all his skills. This is why
every work and every software also should be free for any other
human being.
It should be free for everybody so that everybody can benefit from
it and also create his own works and software. That should be
independent of your own financial situation. All the people who can
afford nothing or little should still be able to participate and be
creative.
In the scientic world of the universities and in the open source
software world we already have realized this philosophy.
Creative Commons is an organization started by Lawrence Lessig
and it aims to advance that very philosophy. Creative Commons
provides licenses that permit sharing and remixing under various
conditions, and also offers an online search of various Creative
Commons-licensed works.
More infos:
Free Cultural Movement.
Free and Open-source Software.
Creative Commons.
free mp3s + info: andy-enroe.de songs + weird stuff: enroe.de
-
Danilo Villanova Danilo Villanova https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=418331
- KVRian
- 1197 posts since 30 Apr, 2018
GREATLY appreciated!