Thanks! I'm being told this model is being used in a media computer science AI course at HTW uni in Berlin, Germany. There's a licenses.txt file in the exercise which contains attribution.
I removed a few sounds on my freesound military sfx pack after a comment - probably by leilei (undesired) - claimed they were protected. (this was probably in 2012) I had to agree that they sounded a bit too good to be self made by us military and remembered that the video from which they were taken seemed very edited sound-wise, when I ripped them from us military video material back in 2009, naively thinking "they probably made sure they have the rights to publish the result as public domain material".
It would be really helpful if the filename was pointed out (I assumed you mean the ExplosionMetal*wav files) and if there was a way to prove that the sound actually was originally from a sound library (not easy if the libraries aren't online available legally in the case of soundideas of course). If you could have been able to point out the exact soundideas sound pack, it would have been helpful.
So I couldn't confirm that the sound was taken from a protected library but figured better safe than sorry and that leilei is more experienced at tracking down protected game assets, so now this submission contains a different explosion, which is taken from a military video recording, which did not make the impression of being edited - http://www.freesound.org/people/qubodup/sounds/67474/
An addition: When you have published a work under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and Person J requests alternative terms of use, you can agree to that. Be it for free or for pay. These new terms mean that Person J will have to adhere to these terms when using your work or Person J can still use your work under CC-BY-SA 3.0. These alternative terms can apply only to Person J, if worded correctly.
"Would it be possible to just tolerate the use in iOS software as long as the terms of CC-BY-SA are followed?"
Okay, I unflagged the submission since you confirm that authorship and licensing is now clarified. Note that the archive apparently is double-gzip-ed (aunpack CLI tool failes to un pack it. I have to gzip -d twice before I get a tar).
Thanks! I'm being told this model is being used in a media computer science AI course at HTW uni in Berlin, Germany. There's a licenses.txt file in the exercise which contains attribution.
I removed a few sounds on my freesound military sfx pack after a comment - probably by leilei (undesired) - claimed they were protected. (this was probably in 2012) I had to agree that they sounded a bit too good to be self made by us military and remembered that the video from which they were taken seemed very edited sound-wise, when I ripped them from us military video material back in 2009, naively thinking "they probably made sure they have the rights to publish the result as public domain material".
It would be really helpful if the filename was pointed out (I assumed you mean the ExplosionMetal*wav files) and if there was a way to prove that the sound actually was originally from a sound library (not easy if the libraries aren't online available legally in the case of soundideas of course). If you could have been able to point out the exact soundideas sound pack, it would have been helpful.
So I couldn't confirm that the sound was taken from a protected library but figured better safe than sorry and that leilei is more experienced at tracking down protected game assets, so now this submission contains a different explosion, which is taken from a military video recording, which did not make the impression of being edited - http://www.freesound.org/people/qubodup/sounds/67474/
Cheers
Very cool! If this was made made in LMMS: some OGA musicians actually upload the project files (inside zips usually).
swlu, thanks for releasing and sharing the tracks under cc-by3!
andrelopes1993 freesound.org has the sounds you're asking for. Remember to give attribution to the authors! :)
Pretty cool stuff! I added a complete preview.
Cool! How was this made?
There appears to be some controversy around the copyright status of this music:
http://forum.jamendo.com/index.php?p=/discussion/comment/3036672#Comment_3036672
I wonder if STK team is aware.
An addition: When you have published a work under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and Person J requests alternative terms of use, you can agree to that. Be it for free or for pay. These new terms mean that Person J will have to adhere to these terms when using your work or Person J can still use your work under CC-BY-SA 3.0. These alternative terms can apply only to Person J, if worded correctly.
"Would it be possible to just tolerate the use in iOS software as long as the terms of CC-BY-SA are followed?"
There is a little bit of information in the CC FAQ on this: #Can_I_change_the_license_terms_or_conditions
Okay, I unflagged the submission since you confirm that authorship and licensing is now clarified. Note that the archive apparently is double-gzip-ed (aunpack CLI tool failes to un pack it. I have to gzip -d twice before I get a tar).
Thanks!
My understanding is that we're waiting for AT to reply. If that's not correct and the submission is ready to be published again, please let us know.
Thanks for the patience!
Pages