CC0 Violations

[tresf]

@HDDigitizerMusic, as per our previous discussions there are some licensing clarifications that need to be made in order for this sample library to survive its first release.

Last this was discussed, there were several samples that were promised attribution however they are listed on this repository as CC0.

We need to know which samples are in violation of this license and mark them for removal, or alternately have written permission from the authors which illustrates resolve to this licensing conflict.

Please advise.

-Tres

[Umcaruje]

I have moved samples that are not still properly licensed into a Not legaly cleared samples. I will contact their authors as soon as I get some free time, so we finally clean this mess :)

[tresf]

👍

[Umcaruje]

I actually haven't ever gotten around contacting the authors to clear up the licenses, due to lack of time. If there are any volunteers that would help out about this issue, it would be really appreciated.

[SirBothersome]

@Umcaruje There's a bigger problem here, in the form of a logical paradox. Markus Hakala's Kicks are available for legal download elsewhere with a royalty-free, but not cc0 license... SubAqeous SELLS his drum samples. How in the world can a sample be public domain, yet at the same time not be? Also, Deficio's risers are no longer on his soundcloud. This is why I advocate for made-by-us, samples

[tresf]

How in the world can a sample be public domain, yet at the same time not be?

I've already linked that this is both possible and legal. You're beating a dead horse.

The way this works is 1. I create art. Here's it's mine, I made it but I release it to you CC0. Take it, it's here.

Now 2. @SirBothersome takes my CC0 work and re-licenses it as his own (he can, that's what CC0 allows). Next, 3. @Umcaruje gets my work and re-licenses it as his own CC-BY (he can, CC allows it).

1. Next, I get the original copy and claim it's all rights reserved and sue.
2. Next, someone else takes @Umcaruje and violates his CC-BY license by not offering attribution. They ARE in violation, they took @Umcaruje's copy.
3. Someone finds a copy of the original CC0 version and I try to go after them. I can't if they obtained the copy which was explicitly licenced CC0. I can if they obtained the copy that was all rights reserved.

Perhaps a bad example as I put CC0 inside the art itself, but you get the point... It's not always the content, sometimes it all comes down to how you obtained it. Companies dual-license software for this same reason, it allows them to break the rules whenever they see fit. Oracle does this quite a bit and many other companies do too.

If you can prove the original was legally obtained CC0, you and @Umcaruje are fine. If you can't, then I can attempt to come after you. So any samples you find online claiming to be owned by someone can fall into this same paradox.

This is why we contact artists and ask permission (or make them ourselves). That's it. Just a simple trail. If an artist lies, then we at least have a good excuse when we get a cease and desist letter but we cannot and will not make decisions based on paranoia and speculation. We do our best to make things right. Courts sympathize with that, especially when it's done for educational purposes.

The greatest liability isn't LMMS getting in trouble, but rather a successful musician, because when people sue for damages, they tend to go against those who can pay the settlement.

There are plenty of exceptions to this (Microsoft suing Wine) but AFAIK, Wine won anyway. http://techrights.org/category/wine/

[tresf]

And now you've brought me off topic. The purpose of this thread was to get in writing something that was done incorrectly. When @HDDigitizerMusic asked for the samples CC0 he told the artists we'd give credit.

Since forced attribution breaks CC0, he obtained these under a bad contract, and that was the SOLE purpose of this thread.

Although we could TRY to promise them attribution for the long haul, there's no contract binding us to do so if they truly are CC0. e.g. there'd be no violation if we removed credit because CC0 says we don't need to. I obtained copies of all emails and this was not clearly explained. It was not explained that to wave all rights is to WAIVE ALL RIGHTS. No exceptions. CC0 simply prevents us from making a promise like this and furthermore we certainly can't burden our musicians make such a promise either.

[SirBothersome]

WAVE ALL RIGHTS

@tresf, I hate to be a parsimonious, nitpicking, butthead, but you do realize it's spelled waive, right? If mistakes like this are made in legally binding text, the only thing waved at us could be a hand: "Goodbye, noobs!"
Now, since you appear to be the resident guru of all things cc0, could you provide a contact template for us, so there is no doubt as to whether third party samples are collected/licensed correctly?
@Spekular has floated around the idea of third party sourcing again, and I'm sure we'd all like to avoid the mess the previous attempt made.

[tresf]

could you provide a contact template for us, so there is no doubt as to whether third party samples are collected/licensed correctly?

The person running with this can provide a template. Clear explanation of CC0 and author approval is needed. We also need an archive of requests and responses.

[Spekular]

@SirBothersome we aren't writing the license, so a typo isn't a big deal. If we say that they'll "wave" their rights by licensing as CC0, and they then license as CC0, we're still free to use it. All we have to do is make them understand what they're agreeing to, not write a contract. Here's an example email since no-one has written one:

Hi!

We would like to add your samples (Sample Pack XYX) to the default sample library in LMMS. LMMS is a free, open source DAW, and to avoid any legal troubles we would need you to license the aforementioned samples as CC0. This would put them in the public domain, allowing anyone to use them for anything they want. You can tead more about CC0 here.

We appreciate your response,

-LMMS Developers

I'll accept any feedback on this. I'm uncertain about the closing line and signature. Once the email is finalized I can send it if I recieve a list of the emails and sample packs we were looking at. We might want a more "official" email to send from if we're using the "LMMS Developers" signature, otherwise I can sign it from me.

[SirBothersome]

Here's an example email since no-one has written one:

@Spekular, this has been attempted previously with less-than-ideal results, which is why I am twitchy about the whole prospect of third-party sourcing.

Once the email is finalized I can send it if I recieve a list of the emails and sample packs we were looking at.

Markus Hakala's 500 Kicks, some risers by Deficio and some samples by SubAqueous were the prime targets, according to the threads, but I think you should consider:
a) Hakala's kicks and the risers were removed from the repo. I think we need to move on from those.
b) Your email could definitely be considered legally binding, as it/it's responses would be our proof that the samples are cc0 and not "royalty free" or copyrighted.
and c) it would probably be best to have them send us archives of the samples with the cc0 license included to provide proof, and to explain the essential terms in the email.

[tresf]

a) Hakala's kicks and the risers were removed from the repo. I think we need to move on from those.

Wrong topic.

b) Your email could definitely be considered legally binding, as it/it's responses would be our proof that the samples are cc0 and not "royalty free" or copyrighted.

Correct.

and c) it would probably be best to have them send us archives of the samples with the cc0 license included to provide proof, and to explain the essential terms in the email.

However one wants to cross his/her T's (and dot his/her I's so to speak) is up to him/her. Permission in writing is permission in writing. What is probably more important than the format of the samples is that the person either puts in writing they made the sample or they put in writing that they have the right to release under a CC0 license and provide proof of that. A link to the sample pack and to really be diligent, a list of the samples would be nice, however if the collector prefers them to be in archive format with embedded COPYING.TXT, so be it. 👍

[tresf]

this has been attempted previously with less-than-ideal results, which is why I am twitchy about the whole prospect of third-party sourcing.

Because the collector promised attribution, which is in direct conflict with CC0.

[Spekular]

b) Your email could definitely be considered legally binding

Yes, but the important part is what they say. It shouldn't be a big deal if we make a typo, as long as we're not misleading.

So, how about I amend the following to the email:

If you would like to contribute your samples, please reply with:

1. Proof that you are the creator of the samples and have the right to release them as CC0
2. A statement about where the samples can be found
3. A list of the samples

Your response will be shown publically for documentation purposes.

Next question is what the best way is to archive the emails. I'd go for including several people in the conversation via cc (unsure about this one), archiving the email, and screenshots.

[SirBothersome]

1. Proof that you are the creator of the samples and have the right to release them as CC0
2. A statement about where the samples can be found
3. A list of the samples

@Spekular, we're going to be the ones curating the samples. not them.

1. It would be quite the non-sequitor to email, say, Markus Hakala, then ask for proof that he authored his kick library. How can he prove it?
2. If we know where to find a sample contributor, chances are, we know where to find their samples
3. I highly doubt they will personally curate a sample collection for us. That's the collector(s)'s job

[SirBothersome]

Once the email is finalized I can send it if I recieve a list of the emails and sample packs we were looking at

Afaik, there was no general consensus as to what we should add. @unfa and @StakeoutPunch previously volunteered to provide content, but besides that, I can't think of a unanimously sanctioned collection

[tresf]

1. It would be quite the non-sequitor to email, say, Markus Hakala, then ask for proof that he authored his kick library. How can he prove it?

Agreed. Just a statement is fine.

1. If we know where to find a sample contributor, chances are, we know where to find their samples

We still owe LMMS the question. Simply because someone put their name on a sample doesn't mean they own rights to release it CC0. They may have used a 3rd party sample or plugin with incompatible licensing. It's worth asking.

1. I highly doubt they will personally curate a sample collection for us. That's the collector(s)'s job

Probably, yes unless they don't all fall into a CC0 compatible availability. For example, as an artist, there's tracks I'm happy releasing CC0 and some that I'm not. That's up to the artist, so it could go either way. i.e. an artist may grant CC0 to a few samples and not an entire collection. Sometimes curation from the artist is faster.

[SirBothersome]

For example, as an artist, there's tracks I'm happy releasing CC0 and some that I'm not. That's up to the artist, so it could go either way.

@tresf But a sample isn't so much as a labour of love as an entire song. Plus, if the artist curates, we might lose the ability to pick core-functional samples and just end up picking through garbage

[Spekular]

I simply added the things tresf mentioned in his comment. The idea is not for the artists to curate the samples, it's for them to list the samples that are in the pack. That way if they for example remove samples from the pack at a later time we're still in the clear.

[SirBothersome]

That way if they for example remove samples from the pack at a later time we're still in the clear.

@Spekular, Unless there is a copyright conflict, (in which case, we shouldn't touch the samples), I doubt an artist would alter a sample pack they have already released. Most artists do not host their own samples, but rather on sites like MediaFire etc. By changing the pack, they change the link, and all the sites that pick up their samples now have a dead link. If we list the samples we would like them to cc0 license, i think that would simplify matters and would still provide proof that they are public domain

[SirBothersome]

@Spekular, I'm not going to sit here all day and try to bulletproof your email, so if you're dedicating your effort to third-party sourcing, I vote you open up a new issue for:
a) proofing the email,
b) deciding which samples to add to our repo.
c) re-settling ticky-tacky details like whether or not to add risers or ad-libs.
I have a buttload of acoustic samples from @unfa that I'm planning on processing, add the claps and snaps I've recorded/plan to, I think we have a comprehensive acoustic library, so that should narrow your search field. Good luck on your search, sir.

[SirBothersome]

Clear explanation of CC0 and author approval is needed. We also need an archive of requests and responses.

@tresf, ah, about that. I'm beta testing some samples I've made with a focus group of five or so LMMS users. Do want an archive of those conversations? This is the approach message I sent

Me
Hello, as you may know, I'm working to make new samples for LMMS's native library... However, I would like some Beta testers to let me know what they think of these samples so I can improve them, or be sure of their general functionality. If you're interested please contact me. You will be sent Google Drive links containing 10-20 samples for review. They will be cc0(essentially public domain) so PLEASE do not redistribute them and please be hush about this. I may not get the pull request, so I don't want to disappoint anybody. Thank you! God Bless and good day
-Mayo Staccato

Should I have clarified cc0 more clearly? For my first pack of 11 samples, I forgot to include a license with the first link I posted, but I voided the link within 20 minutes and uploaded a link with the cc0 full legal text included (which I "borrowed" from the sample repo). Is that an issue?

[SirBothersome]

readme.txt
Also, @unfa sent me two links. The first had a text file with a complicated description of the samples, stating in the beginning that they were released under a cc0 license, in the second instance, he said "i release these under cc0". This was a pack he sent me a link for, but had never previously released. Is this sufficient for the licensing, or should I have him re-send me the links with the cc0 license attatched?

[SirBothersome]

@tresf, Unless I hear otherwise, I will continue beta testing and treating Unfa's samples as cc0.