And that’s why I don’t think we should be uploading tweaks to other’s samples as our own samples. At least not without labeling them as such.
Although when I come across those that are labeled as such (trf does this quite a lot) I avoid using them, as the attribution mechanism isn’t designed for second hand credit.
And isn’t there something on the sample upload page that says ‘must be your original’? Shouldn’t that also apply to the samples shared with a remix?

Absolutely, all of what you said is true, I admit I was lazy on not indicating the changes made (I’ll add that now).
I interpret the by-nc license as allowing to share changes made to the original material (share and adapt).
The ‘original’ part is definitely broad in this case, leaning more towards authorship (sample rate and level adjustment, quantization) but sound snippets (I think) would apply here.
All being said, I didn’t add them as ‘samples’ but as extra files to a remix, purpose of which to be further remixed and to demonstrate how I changed Darkroom’s stems.
Wasn’t trying to be sneaky or take credit for Darkroom’s work.
As far as what you called second hand credit, I think that’s where the remix tree comes in to play, I could be wrong in that interpretation, but it provides links to all previous attribution.
This is a good topic to bring up to admins, maybe as a public thread, what are your thoughts?

I think I think too much.

Probably best to just leave well enough alone.

Understood, I do appreciate you bringing it up though. In researching this, I realized that people without access to the remix tree would assume I created the original stems, like people who make videos or share on other sites.
At least for ccPlus, I will bring this up privately to see what the team thinks about a better way to reflect this.
Thanks again, Speck, I appreciate your feedback.