Good indeed, however I wish there was a way to filter out by source. Of all tunes I tried so far, all those coming from Reddit, mostly if not all from the same author/uploader, sound like the worst possible elevator music with added drums played on a 20 years old General Midi presets-only expander. Definitely some interesting stuff among the others, however.
This is great! It would be nice to be able to filter by license type. By my understanding, there are many projects where music licensed under CC BY-SA would not be usable.
Seconding this. I love the simplicity of the site, but the way the links work for the results, I would expect that clicking on the license type would filter by that license rather than bring me to the license itself. It would be cool if those links acted like a filter, but were also accompanied by something like a question mark or info button that would bring me to the definition in case I needed it.
Good idea. Gonna invest some time into writing an index of the different types instead and then having those on the category page for it. Was afraid of legal ramifications, if something was incorrect, hence the link to the CC site.
Lovely! Was thinking about making some stuff in Fruity loops for tutorial video background tracks, but this is much easier! I'd recommend swapping the hamburger menu on the left with a filter/funnel icon, the double hamburger is a little weird.
Make sure it is not too loud! Also matching music taste of audience is not an easy task. Most of the time I prefer only tutor's voice and/or natural workplace ambient sounds (including keyboard). This one makes it to perfection https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsDtlB4OSrs
Where is the music being sourced from? As a music creator, how can I add my music to be visible here?
Another question (which contradicts my first question):
Aren't you helping to create another "race to the bottom" where free music always wins over paid?
Really nice! Since Unsplash is mentioned in the About page, I hope it doesn’t go the same way with a strange non-CC license at some point. (Also ideally sticking to just Attribution and Share-Alike as now. :)
I tried out the feed at /feed but it seems to be empty – is there a way to get updates of new additions?
It used to be CC0 on Unsplash but some time ago they moved from that to a custom license with some special restrictons, which makes it impossible to use in other Creative Commons work: https://unsplash.com/license
This also happened to a lot of other similar photo sites unfortunately.
Preferred for the feed would be RSS I’d say, but maybe Twitter is good on top for promo.
The WTF license is an antipattern really. All it does is push away anyone who has serious use cases for your work, because of the risk that nothing in that license will (likely) hold up in court. MIT carries basically the exact same provisions as WTF, so just use that.
When I think of royalty free music for “creators,” my mind instantly goes to the sort of cliched, bombastic audio that is used to score “epic b-roll” that serves no purpose in so many YouTube videos. The world needs less of this, not more.
What does HN think of free content like audio clips and samples, stock photography, etc? I think it is different than free software where folks are contributing as a community and can sometimes thrive as a business by providing support. IMO free "hard" content such as this is destroying a lot of small content creators that used to earn a living but are now forced to abandon their professions. I fear it will create a bimodal distribution - top notch large houses (Getty Images, for e.g.) and free distribution sites (Unsplash) and nothing in the middle.
I fear a society that is used to free stuff all the time.
"You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at the public library." -- Will Hunting
And yet people still pay to go to college. It is okay.
Yes, the distribution of CC and GPL work products at negligible cost does cut into the revenue streams of existing business models. However, there will always be something to do for others that is both engaging and adds value to their lives. Furthermore, Mozart hasn't put modern music out of business.
Unsplash absolutely threatens existing business models, but Unsplash and derivatives aren't going away. One must adapt. Furthermore, CC-BY-SA licensing of high-quality content may even threaten the likes of Getty in the long run. GNU/Linux/BSD clearly compete with once-dominant Microsoft.
The alternative is to force people to charge for something of value they wish to give, gratis, to the world.
One can always offer a service at any price; the trick is finding an agreeable buyer.
I would love to sell my photographs at a price that would allow me to do so full-time. Alas, there are a lot of other people who would love to do the same. Some of them are willing to charge less than presently seems sustainable for me to do. We adapt, or we're bummed out all the time.
often there is just no mechanism to facilitate the trade, or someone else is hoarding all the benefits.
Videos created with this music will end up in social media sites which will make tons of money out of them. Yet the creators have no way to earn a part of it.
I agree. This is no longer the 2000s, big tech should start paying people for providing content. It's too hard to make people pay for digital copies however (and it doesn;t make sens for ephemeral content) , so creators should start demanding pay for their free content that appears on social
/subscription / ad-supported sites.
There is too much duplication, some of those people are now free to create something of more value and those who have been held back from creating content are now are to make it more easily and with less friction.
