Where To Get Good Sound Effects?

Here's the sites I've bookmarked for Trek FX and samples.

http://www.lcarscom.net/
http://www.starbase51.co.uk/starbase51/wav/wav.asp
http://www.jestertrek.com/coro2400/bodies/siminfo/support.html
http://www.star-trek-voyager.net/sounds1.htm
http://members.tripod.com/wardenII/index.html

Oh.. how about some Space 1999?
http://www.joelowens.org/space1999/sfx.htm

And more Sound Effects sites, Recommended by our friends over at Indymogul.com
http://www.fpsbanana.com/sounds
http://www.flashkit.com/soundfx/
http://www.deusx.com/freesoundeffects.html
http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/index.php
http://fxhome.com/sounds/
http://www.spinxpress.com/getmedia
http://simplythebest.net/sounds/index.html

I contend (with the support of US Copyright Law, as linked and quoted) that you are wrong.



First fallacy: That one sound from a collection represents only a fraction of a copyright. The Facts Are: EACH and EVERY sound on that disk is a singularly-protected work, AS WELL AS the compilation. Thus, the "1/109th defense" doesn't work. Use one sound, you are infringing on the copyright for that one sound. Just as the "1/12th defense" has never worked for Audio CD copiers. Each song is copyrighted independently of the compilation.

Second fallacy: Superficial changes to a work make it mine. The Facts Are: Unless you radically changed the sound to something completely distinguishable from the original work, it still qualifies as a "derivative work", and you still are infringing the original copyright.



I find it particularly amazing that you claim "Fair Use", then go on to mount a defense for infringement. If it is truly "Fair Use", that is all the defense you need.

Regardless of whether or not the Copyright owner discovers your infringing use of his/her work, and regardless of whether or not he/she decides to pursue you over it is immaterial to the fact that it is still infringement. You are probably pretty safe to do whatever you want, infringing on anyone's work. Just don't yell "Fair Use!" when it isn't, and someone ganks you for it. All it takes is one DMCA notice, and your infringing choo-choo goes away.



By all means, please quote it from the linked Copyright Law. Quote the part that says it is "Fair Use" to make COMPLETE COPIES of library books for any reason.



What can I say? Ignorance appears to be bliss.

Can you trolls quit derailing this thread? I'm done taking the bait.

I'm not just talking about me, and my opinion. All the film makers, editors, and sound guys I know wouldn't give a hoot if someone ripped our, say, 'broken glass' sound. Hell, why would we care? Why would we notice? And how would we notice? Translating to: who gives a shit? Not us, that's for sure. Foley is hard work...but the end product is what it is...a mesh of natural sounds anyone can do, and no one can distinguish.

Which leads me to your last bit of the quote: you wouldn't even know, so don't worry about it.

You and I agree on what's right and wrong...clearly, you can't argue that. But in the case of generic foley...who gives a shit.

I don't think it is silly at all. It's a moral and ethical choice as a content creator to do the right thing and either make sure all the pieces and the whole are your creation, or properly licensed, or obtained from public domain sources. Would you like me infringing your movies? Then don't infringe my stuff, as trivial as you may think it was to create.

I think you will find that a majority of content creators DO give a shit. Go over to DeviantArt sometime and read the profiles of the artists. More often than not, you will find something to the effect of "dislikes art thieves", "don't copy/reproduce my stuff without permission", etc.



Umm.. the people who spent thousands of dollars on professional audio equipment and many hours of location, setup, and sampling time gathering those samples. You make it sound like someone bought a pocket digital recorder at Walmart for $19.95, went out and found the first example of the sound they were trying to capture, took one capture, and called it golden after 5 minutes' work. Yeah, you can find lots of those on the net; they sound like utter crap and are useless for anything other than gestures, and are pretty lousy even for those. REAL sampling/foley is done via taking multiple samples in as controlled an environment as possible with the best equipment available, picking the best ones, and postprocessing them for best fidelity. It's neither cheap NOR easy, NOR trivial.

Same thing goes for photography, too. GOOD pictures aren't taken on a lark with a disposable.

It is rather easy with a sound comparison program to get a match with a high confidence interval, even with superficial changes (like speed, tempo, filtering, etc). Just like with phtographs, there are tools to easily compare two sound clips and determine if one is a derivative of another.



They may be silly to you, but for those people who try to make a living creating good sound effects for others, they are no less artists than you or me or anyone else, and they deserve the same level of protection for their creations as you do for yours, or I do for mine.

http://www.findsounds.com/
http://soundfx.com/
http://www.webplaces.com/html/sounds.htm
http://www.pachd.com/sounds.html
http://frogstar.com/wav/effects.asp

http://www.wavsource.com/ Seems to be good for a LOT of things.... from movie quotes to sound effects, a really nice collection here.

Battlestar Galactica
http://www.sciflicks.com/battlestar_galactica/sounds.html
http://www.moviesoundclips.net/sound.php?id=75

Babylon 5
http://drgnslyr2.tripod.com/b5wavs/b5wavs.htm

Look, dude. Yes, I understand. I really do. You can go off on a year long trip about how content theft of *any* kind is bad, awful, unlawful, in bad taste, or whatever.

I know what is not only legal and illegal, but also what's right and wrong. I said that over and over.

I'm just telling you from the perspective of someone who WORKS ON MOVIES AND SOUND...we don't give a shit if you rip the sound of our creaky door. It's not the same thing as stealing a piece of art, a song, a painting, a model, a sculpture...don't insult my opinion by making it seem like I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to time, equipment, editing, and mixing...

Yes, technically it isn't legal or right to use foley FX without permission. But take it from someone who knows...not only do we not listen for our own foley work, we don't give a flying fuck in a rolling donut whether a dog bark is our work or not. If *you* care...good for you...have a cookie and rest easy knowing you've foiled the criminal...but for those of us who recorded that sound...we don't give a shit. We couldn't prove it even if we did give a shit...so why bother...which is my point.

And don't give me this bullshit about sound people sampling other works they think are theirs and being able to prove it's their work by matching frequency and tempo. One, that's ludicrous, and two, nobody is going to do that for a stupid generic bit of foley work. That's just plain silly Sherlock.

Don't relate foley work to art work...we don't.

Can you swallow that?

Ok, so stop being a principle Nazi.

Ok, I'm sorry that was abrasive...but I'm a little tired of principle Nazis looking for any excuse to call someone out or make someone else's principles seem less than their own. It gets tiring...I understand the concept, it's not hard. But I also understand that some of you are so freakin insecure, you have to focus on minute issues just to feel better about yourself.

I know you did, Michael. Like Chosen, I am not so much intending to put you on the spot so much as point out that not everyone shares your "charitable" view on the matter.



..and I am telling you from a similar perspective that there are those who DO give a shit, and, to them, it is the SAME as infringing on any other kind of medium or work.

I mean, it is GREAT that you are willing to be charitable with what you consider are your more trivial works. If you get the opportunity, please do upload them to the web or SL with a Public Domain or Royalty-Free license, and I will be glad to peruse them. Might even use a couple here and there if they work for me.



Again, that is good for you (and the rest of us who might want to use your work). However, it still is not a carte blanche for anyone to infringe on someone else's work. That's the only problem that I have with making these kinds of statements. They appear to be blanket statements covering anyone who makes sounds. They aren't. That's all.



*shrug* I am simply stating it can be done. The tools and methods exist to perform the analysis. Whether they are used or not is completely up to the content creator. If he/she thinks it important enough to pursue, then the avenue is there.



Other foley artists *do*, so the relation is valid whether you agree with it or not. It is commonly considered an art, and is professionally recognized as one as well.



Can you?



$Invoke("Godwin's Law";



..and I am tired of people expressing their own views over others as "the way it is" for everyone. I'm not calling you out on anything more than that. YOU don't think it is a big deal DOES NOT EQUATE that no one thinks it is a big deal. Suffice it to say that your arguments are as tiring to me as mine apparently are to you.

In actuality, I have APPLAUDED your principles already. I understand that you understand a majority of the moral and ethical points surrounding the issue. I understand that you are very open and egalitarian with your "more trivial" works, and I think that is great; I really do. I am simply pointing out that not everyone SHARES them, nor is there any requirement for them to do so, simply because you do or anyone else does.

In the end, even though you don't care, wouldn't you LIKE someone who wanted to use some of your more trivial works to at least have the courtesy to ask permission first, if it wasn't already explicitly granted?

I think I would.

Whatever our personal differences of opinion may be, can we at least agree to discontinue the use of that phrase? People who stand on principle should be applauded, not ridiculed. I find it incredibly insulting, and I don't mind saying more than a little stupid, that anyone would seek to imply otherwise.

Look, if you yourself do not have the fortitude, the self discipline, or even the basic sense of right and wrong, necessary to live your life in accordance with principle, that is your own shortcoming. Don't make yourself look even more foolish by trying to put down those who can do what you cannot. Such immaturity is the stuff of schoolyard bullies, not of free thinking adults. Which would you rather be?

Talarus: I was harsh, and I'm sorry for that. That wasn't even really geared towards you...it should have been more generalized.

I'm just telling you how me and my film maker friends feel about the issue. I'm sure there are people out there who feel differently...so be it.

Chosen: there is a *huge* difference between someone who stands for principles, and a principle Nazi. This case is particularly perfect for emphasising the concept. I'm explaining to you guys--whether you want to accept it out not--that my colleagues and I who work in film, sound, foley, and mixing don't really care, can't really prove, and even if you thought a sound was ours, we'd laugh about it. So, a principle Nazi is someone who jumps at the opportunity to make other people feel less principled, when the truth is...those who actually *work* in the field...don't care. Can you understand the differences in terms and concepts?

Of course, my experiences and opinions are not gospel...so, you can argue with me till the cows come home, and I will be the technically 'wrong' one.

That's fine. Regardless of technicalities, a bell can not be un-rung...so whether you want to admit it or not, you know first hand how [we] feel about it (or at least, most of us). I hope you understand that.

Is OK. My scales are thick, and my tongue is often as sharp as my teeth.



Sure, I understand that and, like I said, I think that it is great that you guys (and gals) are so open with your works. Seriously, if you want to share some of it, I would love to see/hear it.

I also speak from my circle of friends who are also amateur filmmakers (some of them I have known since my college days.. half a lifetime ago.. oy), and I know a few of them are pretty anal about their work and people infringing it, because they have already been burned a few times. I don't doubt that they are going to ignore someone absconding with a clip or a sound, unless it happened to be someone large-scale who ends up making a mint off of using it. Not likely to happen, but I sure can understand and support them doing so, if they chose.



Well, I am not a "Principle Nazi". My goal isn't to make you feel less principled, unless you ARE being less principled (like another person here). The Law is the Law. Some people DO care, even over otherwise minuscule things, and are willing to do whatever is necessary to protect their works, no matter how trivial. I protect my scripts and completed works, and I have no qualms filing a DMCA takedown against anyone whom I know is infringing my works, even some of the more "trivial" ones. However, I reserve the right to choose, just as you and your friends do, for any reason(s).

All that said, and what is so funny is that I have my own issues with what has become of Copyright, Trademark, and Patent Law. I am often an outspoken critic of it, and I think it needs to be changed to better maintain the balance between creators and consumers. I get tired of all the MAFIAA (RIAA/MPAA) crap, too.

Gotcha.

Just to be clear on something:



Some of the films and friends I'm speaking about, aren't considered 'amateur.' That word has a specific connotation which would offend many legit film makers. Our films have budgets, producers, crews, distribution...it's all legit.

I just want you to be aware that you sorta' eluded to 'me and my amateur film maker friends' being a bunch of dudes that get together and shoot on their Canon XL1...not quite. You used the word 'also'...which is what ties the accusation of amateur to me and my friends. You can understand where we might take offense right? You wouldn't call Tarantino's earlier works 'amateur' would you?

It's cool. My point being--pro or not...generic foley work isn't art work for us, and no one cares about this kind of 'content theft.'

There is a difference between ripping the sound of...say, the computer noise when the camera goes down Neo's throat...and say, a dog bark. We would care about the first...the second one...who gives a shit?



Akuna Matada.

I understand. However, EVERYone was an amateur at some point. Just like everyone is a N00b at some point.

Even Dark Star was considered "Amateur" at the time, and they still did what I consider to be one of the funniest movies ever. Is still my fave after all these years. John Carpenter and Dan O'Bannon don't get insulted when people call it "amateur", because they do, and it was. It was a college project!

Amateur films can also have budgets, producers, crews, distribution, and be just as legit. Well, OK, they are still "amateur" efforts until they make something serious, but it can be no less effort or work involved, potentially.

My point was--the examples I'm giving you, aren't from an 'amateur' standpoint...these are working professionals. I just wanted to make that point. Of course everyone has to start as an 'amateur'...I mean...everyone has to be born first!

Anyway.

I don't know too many films that have legitimate budgets, producers, solid crews, and distribution that I would call 'amateur.'

In fact, most 'amateur' film makers can't complete a film (especially a feature) to save their lives. Something like 90% of 'amateur' films never even see the light of day...they never make it to completion.

The point again...being...working professionals who do it for a living...these are the people (my friends) I'm talking about. My saying that they don't give a shit about the theft of a dog bark holds a little more leverage to the discussion I think.

Does it make the idea of content theft any less wrong or illegal? No. It's totally wrong. But do they care about a dog bark or a crow caw being stolen from them? Hell no. Firstly, they'd never even think about it...

bah...

I'm going home. Night guys.

Well, OK. Let me give you some perspective from my standpoint. I am a professional software developer. Have been for well over 25 years. That said, an "amateur" making a small utility that I wouldn't think twice in just "giving away", I have no problem with him/her obtaining and protecting a copyright on. Yeah, sure, I would laugh, too, I suppose, if someone copied it from me, but I certainly wouldn't laugh at that person just because he was an "amateur", or that his contribution to the global intellectual property pool was miniscule.

Basically, "pro" and "amateur" are pretty meaningless when it comes to the subject of Copyright, and anyone who puts in any kind of effort on a work is entitled to protection of said work, and no one should be belittling that effort or challenging the protections afforded.

So, while, being a "pro" in your area may make you feel like you have a little more leverage in the discussion, I can tell you that it in no way diminishes the point, especially coming from a "pro" in my area of expertise.



Yeah, again, that is great for them. *shrug* Just because they don't care doesn't lessen the point of caring for anyone else, though. I mean, I guess that is why you are bringing it up in the first place, right?

Why not record your own sounds?
Then you do what you wish with them.

By definition a professional makes monies at their chosen profession .. surely about time to pay royalties where due ? especially to the sound engineers and recording "pro's" out there trying to make a crust!

There is a site I like dedicated to just that:
http://www.soundsnap.com/

All the sounds there are created/recorded by the person who put them up (at least that's the idea--I suppose one could lie). Currently, it's free to register (although they've said that may change in the near future)