This may be trivial, but I noticed that the CC BY-SA 3.0 licence on creativecommons.org is old and they recommend the 4.0 licence.
The AT licence that shows up underneath tracks is being linked to the 3.0 versions. Would it make sense for the licence to be changed to the 4.0 version?
Comments (8)
i think that's sensible, i'd also prolly add Royalty Free or smthn (albeit that might be dangerous cuz people could publish other people's work as royalty free but- yeah...
Not sure whether that could work similarly to the all rights reserved licence though in that case.
I feel Royalty-Free would allow people to use your sound freely rather than having it all to themselves, albeit I'm not sure if you can distribute the song independently BECAUSE it's All Rights Reserved. 🤔
What could be a problem is the sample clearance overall. The all rights licence works on the blue, safe samples. You can otherwise not publish a track under that license. So, theoretically, you could use those samples for royalty-free music. That's what I meant. The licence would likely have to work under similar conditions. That speculation is not mine to decide or know enough about though. I think it could be a rather strange situation. The tracks could be posted by anyone on this site without consequences.
Besides, royalty-free basically just means you don't have to pay any licence to use the work. As long as the content is freely downloadable and under cc licence, isn't it technically royalty free?
https://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/18061/differences-between-royalty-free-public-domain-creative-commons-etc
dunno lol i don't know much about copyright stuff. would love more options tho!! ✊✊✊
@jtgrtrainfan8282 @audiotool
That programming one is not an official account 🙂