The OGA git repos are located here if anyone wants to fork & add changes directly. Then you can submit your changes in pull requests. I think the OGA3-Theme repo is for future site. OGA2-Theme is for current. Botanic heads development & knows the details.
"Note that some especially egregious content (highly illegal imagery, pornography, repeated and malicious rule-breaking, etc.) as well as obvious spam may be removed without warning."
Of course. This is to be expected with material that is obviously offensive or copyright infringing. It needs to be cleared up & removed as soon as possible. And I am sure the "authors" get just as upset when the legitamacey of the material is questioned.
"Did the freesound moderators give an explanation for the removal, then?"
This is the message that was left on each ticket of each deletion:
"Hey there. Thanks for contributing to Freesound. Unfortunately we've had to delete this sound."
"Freesound only hosts files that are not copyright infringing. We reject audio taken from copyright protected media without permission. Please do not upload other people's works. Only sounds that you have made yourself or own the copyrights."
Half of the second paragraph is inaccurate in regards to the site rules.
"Please do not upload other people's works. Only sounds that you have made yourself or own the copyrights."
The majority of Freesound's content is licensed as Creative Commons. This statement is in contrast with CC philosophy & that particular moderator doesn't seem to understand the acceptable licensing of materials on the site. The rest didn't apply to my uploads.
"Freesound only hosts files that are not copyright infringing. We reject audio taken from copyright protected media without permission."
The moderator either didn't read the FAQs that he/she linked to or didn't understand them. Yes, it clearly states that copyright infringing material is not allowed. And it also states, in regards to submitted materials not created by the uploader:
"One exception to this are sounds that are already licenses under a clear license that is compatible with the licenses we use, for example a creative commons one."
After a couple back & forth emails, the moderator that replied to my complaints stated that what happened was not the norm. He/She also complimented my understanding of the CC licensing. Not that I pretent to have a perfect understanding or to never make mistakes, but it felt good to hear that & feel validated.
What I think happened was the original moderator that deleted my sounds saw the word "YouTube" in one of the descriptions & a red flag went off. So he/she just assumed the upload, & 10 or 11 others, were invalid. Even though I left a clear description of the Creative Commons source. And I do understand the risk when getting material from YouTube. I have seen many videos where I questioned whether or not the uploader understood the CC licensing that they used with materials that appeared to be from other sources. I skipped many until I found ones that I felt confident that the uploader was the original author. What was funny was that some of the sounds that I had uploaded were remixes/edits from CC0 licensed sources I had found on Freesound.
I explained that I wasn't upset that my uploads were called into question. I was upset with the quick assumptions & immediate deletions without being given a chance to explain. And it upset me even more when they explained there was no file history that could be examined after the deletion.
But the second moderator has assured me that I won't have the same problem with future uploads. I apologized for not being more patient, as this moderator showed patience & a better understanding of the rules of the site & helped me to feel heard.
Anyways, I didn't mean for this response to be so long. I really am over it now. lol
Interesting. I had never heard of Apple Loops. I was confused at first too. Kind of poor choice of software name for their product. 1) Sounds like it's affiliated with Apple. 2) An audio "loop" is a file that transisions from beginning to end seamlessly, so as not to detect when the sound restarts. "I made a looping loop with Apple Loop". ;)
Seems to be nice software though. Since you know how to use it & can create some nice works, keep using it. :)
I think MedicineStorm thought that your intention was to make a looping music file, so the recommendation was based on that.
Because the submission contains media licensed under CC BY-SA, the entire submission must use that license. E.g., you need to remove the CC BY, OGA BY, & CC0 licenses. The individual works can retain their original licenses. So the attribution section is fine. But I believe the licenses listed under the "License(s)" section must be reduced to CC BY-SA 3.0 only to protect the more strictly licensed items.
I'll double-check with a site admin to make sure I am correct.
Thank you. Using your snowballs in Stendhal.
The OGA git repos are located here if anyone wants to fork & add changes directly. Then you can submit your changes in pull requests. I think the OGA3-Theme repo is for future site. OGA2-Theme is for current. Botanic heads development & knows the details.
Of course. This is to be expected with material that is obviously offensive or copyright infringing. It needs to be cleared up & removed as soon as possible. And I am sure the "authors" get just as upset when the legitamacey of the material is questioned.
This is the message that was left on each ticket of each deletion:
Half of the second paragraph is inaccurate in regards to the site rules.
The majority of Freesound's content is licensed as Creative Commons. This statement is in contrast with CC philosophy & that particular moderator doesn't seem to understand the acceptable licensing of materials on the site. The rest didn't apply to my uploads.
The moderator either didn't read the FAQs that he/she linked to or didn't understand them. Yes, it clearly states that copyright infringing material is not allowed. And it also states, in regards to submitted materials not created by the uploader:
After a couple back & forth emails, the moderator that replied to my complaints stated that what happened was not the norm. He/She also complimented my understanding of the CC licensing. Not that I pretent to have a perfect understanding or to never make mistakes, but it felt good to hear that & feel validated.
What I think happened was the original moderator that deleted my sounds saw the word "YouTube" in one of the descriptions & a red flag went off. So he/she just assumed the upload, & 10 or 11 others, were invalid. Even though I left a clear description of the Creative Commons source. And I do understand the risk when getting material from YouTube. I have seen many videos where I questioned whether or not the uploader understood the CC licensing that they used with materials that appeared to be from other sources. I skipped many until I found ones that I felt confident that the uploader was the original author. What was funny was that some of the sounds that I had uploaded were remixes/edits from CC0 licensed sources I had found on Freesound.
I explained that I wasn't upset that my uploads were called into question. I was upset with the quick assumptions & immediate deletions without being given a chance to explain. And it upset me even more when they explained there was no file history that could be examined after the deletion.
But the second moderator has assured me that I won't have the same problem with future uploads. I apologized for not being more patient, as this moderator showed patience & a better understanding of the rules of the site & helped me to feel heard.
Anyways, I didn't mean for this response to be so long. I really am over it now. lol
Nice pixel work.
Interesting. I had never heard of Apple Loops. I was confused at first too. Kind of poor choice of software name for their product. 1) Sounds like it's affiliated with Apple. 2) An audio "loop" is a file that transisions from beginning to end seamlessly, so as not to detect when the sound restarts. "I made a looping loop with Apple Loop". ;)
Seems to be nice software though. Since you know how to use it & can create some nice works, keep using it. :)
I think MedicineStorm thought that your intention was to make a looping music file, so the recommendation was based on that.
Not me. poots recorded these sounds. I just uploaded them to OGA.
Keep up the good work. :)
Because the submission contains media licensed under CC BY-SA, the entire submission must use that license. E.g., you need to remove the CC BY, OGA BY, & CC0 licenses. The individual works can retain their original licenses. So the attribution section is fine. But I believe the licenses listed under the "License(s)" section must be reduced to CC BY-SA 3.0 only to protect the more strictly licensed items.I'll double-check with a site admin to make sure I am correct.Nice re-works.
No. Minetest is a free & open source engine inspired by Infiniminer & Minecraft that has been around since 2010: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minetest
Takes me back to 1988.
Pages