5 ms·

All music on the site are licensed under CC-BY 3.0, please go to the profil artist to Check this!

callahad 6y ago
Both tracks by Atch (https://soundcloud.com/atch-music/overyou https://soundcloud.com/atch-music/overyou and https://soundcloud.com/atch-music/freedom https://soundcloud.com/atch-music/freedom) state: > "My music is free to use on social media AS LONG AS credit/attribution is given. To credit me correctly and avoid a copyright claim, you must copy and paste the below text into the description of your videos [...] If you wish to use my music for commercial purposes (online advertisements, podcasts etc), you will need to purchase a license. Please contact me at ..." Edit: The SoundCloud metadata for all listed tracks does claim CC-BY 3.0. But in the case above it's clear that the artist does not actually intend for their tracks to be subject to the terms of that license. So what takes precedence: the copyright holder's statement, or the machine-readable metadata?
- qguiller 6y ago
  The most important is to see the license CC under the title. The artist find a way to earn money.
- qguiller 6y ago
  And yes, it’s CC-BY 3.0
  - dylz 6y ago
    > If you wish to use my music for commercial purposes (online advertisements, podcasts etc), you will need to purchase a license This clearly makes it not CC-BY. Maybe CC BY NC?
    - thesuitonym 6y ago
      IANAL but I think legally, if you put CC-BY on it, then just write in the comments that you can't use it commercially, that wouldn't stand. CC-BY-NC is available, and the author did not have to upload it as CC-BY in the first place. To be clear, I still think this site has some problems, and author's wishes should be respected, but I think if the author wants you to not use it commercially, they should put the correct license on their work.
  - robjan 6y ago
    It's neither. You can't just match up the terms of Creative Commons licenses then assume because they are similar that you can say it's Creative Commons licensed.
    - qguiller 6y ago
      Go Check the soundcloud link of the title and tell me what licence CC you see!
      - madeofpalk 6y ago
        It is unclear what the actual license for the track is when the author says very clearly states that commercial use is restricted, but the author also selected CC BY 3.0. These two things are in conflict with each other, so it probably makes sense to chose the most restrictive option.
- literallycancer 6y ago
  If I publish two otherwise identical repos, one with MIT license and one with copyright, there's no doubt as to what you are allowed to do with it. Why is this different?
  - callahad 6y ago
    It's more akin to one repo, where your package.json says "MIT" but your LICENSE.MD says "commercial use prohibited."

Both tracks by Atch (https://soundcloud.com/atch-music/overyou https://soundcloud.com/atch-music/overyou and https://soundcloud.com/atch-music/freedom https://soundcloud.com/atch-music/freedom) state: > "My music is free to use on social media AS LONG AS credit/attribution is given. To credit me correctly and avoid a copyright claim, you must copy and paste the below text into the description of your videos [...] If you wish to use my music for commercial purposes (online advertisements, podcasts etc), you will need to purchase a license. Please contact me at ..." Edit: The SoundCloud metadata for all listed tracks does claim CC-BY 3.0. But in the case above it's clear that the artist does not actually intend for their tracks to be subject to the terms of that license. So what takes precedence: the copyright holder's statement, or the machine-readable metadata?

qguiller 6y ago
The most important is to see the license CC under the title. The artist find a way to earn money.
qguiller 6y ago
And yes, it’s CC-BY 3.0
- dylz 6y ago
  > If you wish to use my music for commercial purposes (online advertisements, podcasts etc), you will need to purchase a license This clearly makes it not CC-BY. Maybe CC BY NC?
  - thesuitonym 6y ago
    IANAL but I think legally, if you put CC-BY on it, then just write in the comments that you can't use it commercially, that wouldn't stand. CC-BY-NC is available, and the author did not have to upload it as CC-BY in the first place. To be clear, I still think this site has some problems, and author's wishes should be respected, but I think if the author wants you to not use it commercially, they should put the correct license on their work.
- robjan 6y ago
  It's neither. You can't just match up the terms of Creative Commons licenses then assume because they are similar that you can say it's Creative Commons licensed.
  - qguiller 6y ago
    Go Check the soundcloud link of the title and tell me what licence CC you see!
    - madeofpalk 6y ago
      It is unclear what the actual license for the track is when the author says very clearly states that commercial use is restricted, but the author also selected CC BY 3.0. These two things are in conflict with each other, so it probably makes sense to chose the most restrictive option.
literallycancer 6y ago
If I publish two otherwise identical repos, one with MIT license and one with copyright, there's no doubt as to what you are allowed to do with it. Why is this different?
- callahad 6y ago
  It's more akin to one repo, where your package.json says "MIT" but your LICENSE.MD says "commercial use prohibited."