http://forum.creativecommons.org/ CC Forum Tag: art - Recent Posts en Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:10:59 +0000 http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/38#post-389 Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:46:06 +0000 erbs palsy 389@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>No, I don't think you can license a live performance. You can, however, license the rights to a performance. You know, who gets to cover the actual thing; media, newspapers, who can publish photos or upload audio and video </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/85#post-195 Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:45:09 +0000 jam 195@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>The NC license looks to be a better license for software developers and artists that don't want their songs, code or graphic being used in a commercial way. It seems strange for me that Buma/stemra, coda &#38; APRA have gone for these licenses within their system. Artists that join these organizations give exclusive permissions for the use of their copyright to these organizations. This means the NC license is not able to flex or move at all. In the US the CC license can flex as artists with ASCAP and BMI have not signed exclusive contracts. Most artists that sign with a rights organization outside the US probably don't know that the contract they have with their rights organization is exclusive, most artists in the US probably don't know that the contract they sign is non-exclusive. As the contract is non-exclusive in the US, artists can join ASCAP via the net. As what difference is it if the artists is a member or not, they still have their exclusive right. </p> <p>It seems clear from recent mails with rights organization AKM, that the non-exclusive right of an artist that has issued the right for their media to be used via ASCAP/bmi, is unable to translate outside the US on any level. This in turn means that the commons license as far as audio works licensed by artists that are members of ASCAP or BMI are only able to go as far as the boarders of the US, from the information i have so far.</p> <p>AKM write:::</p> <p>your “case” has been discussed thoroughly. Our position is that in reference to the reciprocal representation agreement AKM has concluded with ASCAP we have the right to license the right of public performance of your musical works. No evidence is shown in the IPI-database that your membership agreement with ASCAP excludes live-performances. Given the fact that the membership agreement between ASCAP and its members is on a non-exclusive basis you too have the right to license the right of public performance of your musical works.</p> <p>Our contracting partner is ASCAP. As long as we do not have a written information from ASCAP that we shall no longer license live-performances or public performances as a whole of your musical works we will proceed as before. So, please contact your contracting partner ASCAP:::</p> <p>If all rights organization (outside the US) stand on the same ground as AKM its hard to know (yet if its upto a board run via corporations, its probably yes), what does that tell the artist that puts a creative commons license on their songs, be it non-commercial or commercial?</p> <p>The other consideration that the audio creator might want to take into view is that no law exists (that i know of), that defines commercial or non-commercial. The rights organization have the ability to decide what a non-commercial or commercial use is, yet as the rights organizations voting system, is built in such a way that the more an artist or publisher gets the more power the artist or publisher has, this ultimately means that a definition of non-commercial or commercial is going to be created in favor of the corporation affiliated NGO's or the artists, that get the most revenues.</p> <p>This in turn means that creative commons has to bend to the wills of the corporations and governmental institutions rather than the artists. No artists or regular publisher is on the board of creative commons or icommons and i do feel that creative commons has understood the situation as i do now for some time. </p> <p>The artist who is signed with ASCAP does have the right to defend her or his right to issue a license in the court of law, if they have signed a non-exclusive contract with a rights organization. Consider though, as non-commercial is not defined and share alike easily mis-understood, this means that a license that allows commercial use with attribution is probably the better choice for the artist that wants to stay self publishing.</p> <p>From this view it seems joining ASCAP and defending the space/media that the artist issues the license 2, is a smart way to go. <a href="http://www.setlist.CC" rel="nofollow">http://www.setlist.CC</a></p> <p>I'm not a lawyer, so maybe i have it a little mixed up. Yet getting things mixed up might open up some other ways, that don't just help the corporations, government and NGO's. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/38#post-194 Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:04:03 +0000 jam 194@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I issue your space with a license so that you don't have to pay a fee to Gema. All my contracts that deal with my rights are non-exclusive, so the license i issue your space with is valid and would stand in any court of law (if need be, and i would defend that license always), the license includes a link to the content that i perform in your space... view the license on the postcard here...<br /> <a href="http://flickr.com/photos/jamtea/2912038406/" rel="nofollow">http://flickr.com/photos/jamtea/2912038406/</a> . </p> <p>If Gema issued your space with a fee for the use of the songs i wrote, Gema would be braking the law. I reserve the right to defend all licenses that i issue in a court of law, in other words, if you used this license and Gema imposed a fee on you and you paid that fee, I would be in a position to take you to a court of law. Its a ridiculous system, so it takes ridiculous measures to ensure that music can be free. You are free of course to pay Gema for the use of my live music performance, yet none of the money that you paid for the use of the songs would be paid to me anyway, as i refuse to submit live performance returns, as it only makes the situation worse. So if you pay a fee to Gema for the use of the songs i created, then you would be giving money that would go to the larger publishers and artists that control Gema. Its interesting to note the way that the board of Gema is elected, it goes something like this. The more that the artist or publisher collects the more power that that artist or publisher has within Gema. The publishers in turn regulate the venues and spaces for maximum exploitation of published content. Publishing networks have been set up with the specific intention of excluding the self published works of the people. Gema must be dismantled and regulated by the self publishing artists that have been oppressed through its monopoly status over the past 100 years. Power to the people. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/38#post-192 Thu, 16 Oct 2008 21:48:17 +0000 jam 192@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>AKM response to me issuing a CC license...</p> <p>AKM see all art from all artists that have put their content with a rights organization as exclusive, within the boarders of Austria. </p> <p>Its not possible for a creative commons license to function in Austria. Although artists might have signed a non-exclusive contract with ASCAP, AKM see that contract as exclusive. AKM deals with all rights as exclusive rights. </p> <p>What does this mean for the ASCAP bill of rights? Do these rights only pertain to the borders of the US? Does this mean an artist that is with ASCAP uploading content from an IP address outside the US is making that content exclusive?</p> <p>The licenses I issue are valid, as i signed an agreement that is non-exclusive. If an organization deals with those rights as being exclusive, I don't see it as my problem. How can something non-exclusive be exclusive?</p> <p>Seems like AKM and partners Gema, make the rules up as they go? I can do that as well though can't I? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/38#post-185 Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:53:30 +0000 jam 185@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>thoughts...</p> <p>the license is legal, the reason i think the live license is legal is cause i think it is. If its not legal then the rights organization that the live venue presents the attached license to, so as not to pay a fee for my live performance of the "works" i create.. would have to get back to me and let me know why the license is not valid... then i would have to make an adjustment to that license or make another one...</p> <p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamtea/2912038406/" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamtea/2912038406/</a></p> <p>It interesting that this license i created on this postcard is for Australia as that is where i was born. By the time the rights organization could figure out if the license was valid, me being a member of rights organization ASCAP and being born in Australia. The legal bill might just be a little to high, yet who can know?</p> <p><a href="http://www.ascap.com/rights/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ascap.com/rights/</a></p> <p># We have the right to be compensated for the use of our creative works, and share in the revenues that they generate.</p> <p># We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free.</p> <p>food for though, maybe? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/38#post-184 Thu, 09 Oct 2008 09:42:20 +0000 amar_444 184@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>backticks </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/38#post-102 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:22:38 +0000 jam 102@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>In Europe live music performance in some countries carries an extra fee, there are mechanical aspects to the use of content as well as the use of the song. When someone sings a Bob Dylan song in a public space and that artist is a member of a rights organization, the live performance carries a mechanical aspect, that the artist might or might not be able to collect, depending on the rights organization in that particular country. The publisher of the song is also entitled to collect for the live performance. Artists are able to put in live performance returns when they play music that they wrote themselves and collect a royalty for use. </p> <p>If i license the live songs i create under a CC license, then the song and my mechanical performance of that song is free to that space. Although most spaces pay a blanket license for use of content, in Austria and many other countries live music costs an extra fee (depends on how many people can fit into the space).</p> <p>Music is seen like hot water, everyone pays, if its recorded or live. The laws are different in the US as the rights organizations don't hold the exclusive rights to the voice of member artists. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/38#post-97 Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:41:47 +0000 ajbrooks 97@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>From the US Copyright Office website:</p> <p>"Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works."</p> <p>That leaves me to believe that you can't copyright live performances since they're not a fixed medium. Since CC works on top of copyright law, that means you wouldn't be able to apply a CC license to them either. However, copyright would apply to the recordings of the live concert, so you could CC license those instead. I know that Fabricatorz (<a href="http://fabricatorz.com/" rel="nofollow">http://fabricatorz.com/</a>) does stuff with live recordings and CC licensing. Maybe you can send them an email about what you're trying to accomplish and see if they have any helpful info.</p> <p>IANAL, so I could be wrong! </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/38#post-80 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:33:50 +0000 jam 80@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>can a CC license work for a live performance?</p> <p>I thought to have something like this written on a postcard that i would send out with my promo to venues.</p> <p>"the live performance of this artist is licensed under a creative commons attribution license. For details of the license goto <a href="http://creativecommons.org/license/by/2.5/au" rel="nofollow">http://creativecommons.org/license/by/2.5/au</a> for details of the content performed by the artist goto <a href="http://www.setlist.cc" rel="nofollow">http://www.setlist.cc</a>"</p> <p>would this work? </p>