http://forum.creativecommons.org/ CC Forum Tag: cc - Recent Posts en Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:19:27 +0000 http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/190#post-551 Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:43:12 +0000 mmray31 551@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>but before doing so such thing, check everything first for legality purpose.<br /> just to avoid problems, right?</p> <p><a href="http://www.best-debt-consolidation.co.uk/">IVA Help</a> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/190#post-550 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:16:51 +0000 alexisjameson 550@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I've read it's actually more free to use as well. Not entirely sure about the copyright laws, though .... </p> <p><a href="http://DCincome.com" rel="nofollow">http://DCincome.com</a> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/190#post-449 Sat, 26 Sep 2009 04:04:43 +0000 chucky1976 449@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Public domain material is even more free-to-use than Creative Commons licenses material. Go nuts and animate the hell out of it :) </p> <p>Does this mean that we're not breaking copyright laws when we use public domain material? Thanks in advance!</p> <p><a href="http://pregnancymiraclereview.org/" rel="nofollow">http://pregnancymiraclereview.org/</a> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/190#post-448 Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:40:25 +0000 AdamProut9 448@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Please email me a copy of those Kung Fu films, sounds like an awesome project. Anyone know the laws on taking someones Youtube video and putting your watermark on it? Is all the Youtube stuff considered public domain. </p> <p>Adam<br /> <a href="http://www.longbeachchiropractor.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.longbeachchiropractor.org</a> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/190#post-446 Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:01:35 +0000 carter1990 446@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi uphillcastle,</p> <p>Thats a good idea to include kung fu films. I personally enjoy them very much. As opcws says public domains are accesible to pretty much everyone.</p> <p><a href="http://www.get-out-of-debt-x.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.get-out-of-debt-x.com</a><br /> <a href="http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=2006306" rel="nofollow">http://www.goarticles.com/cgi-bin/showa.cgi?C=2006306</a><br /> <a href="http://www.squidoo.com/get-out-of-debt-x" rel="nofollow">http://www.squidoo.com/get-out-of-debt-x</a> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/162#post-431 Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:04:10 +0000 howard001 431@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi,<br /> Thanks for the links,this going to help me a lot. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/190#post-429 Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:16:37 +0000 thomas123 429@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>uphillcastle,</p> <p>Do you mind sharing the link to the films as I am looking for material for a video that I am currently working on? </p> <p>Thanks and regards. Thomas </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/162#post-419 Tue, 15 Sep 2009 01:55:03 +0000 sevendayforum1 419@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I find one of your our given source very interesting... i wonder i there are lots of it... i really liked Abstruse Goose... sort of weird at first but they portrays some of the realities that really happens around the globe.. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/162#post-418 Tue, 15 Sep 2009 01:00:09 +0000 ShannonMiller 418@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Thanks for that link osorio, I found some great stuff there!</p> <p>-Shannon </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/204#post-407 Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:47:34 +0000 cuchosan 407@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hello. I am new to CC. Thank you for working on this cause.</p> <p>I want to start an idea sharing website where users post their ideas under a CC attribution license.</p> <p>The ideas will improve existing products and services or propose new ones.</p> <p>For example, an idea would be: "soya milk in flights to/from vegetarian countries"</p> <p>Other example idea can be "soya milk in Starbucks coffee"</p> <p>I understand that an idea itself is not protected by copyright, but the description (the actual wording) is.</p> <p>I understand that an idea cannot be patented. In UK Intellectual Property Office website: "Ideas and concepts for inventions are not patentable"</p> <p>Then an idea can't be patented (but an invention can) and can't be copyrighted (but the description can).</p> <p>Then, as the description of the idea is copyright-able, the users can submit it as a creative commons. Is this right?</p> <p>Do you know someone who can help me? A CC-experienced lawyer?</p> <p>Thank you</p> <p>Victor </p> 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/190#post-376 Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:41:33 +0000 opcws 376@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Public domain material is even more free-to-use than Creative Commons licenses material. Go nuts and animate the hell out of it :) </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/162#post-368 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:50:17 +0000 osorio 368@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi Kane, Mike's got some great works at <a href="http://www.southpolestrip.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.southpolestrip.com/</a> I think they're listed under a noncommercial no derivative works 2.5 attribution. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/190#post-367 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:48:08 +0000 uphillcastle 367@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hello I have found some kung fu films on public domain and would like to animate some of the footage for a project for college. Now does public domain mean it has a creative commons license, and if it does not - does anybody know of kung fu material anywhere on the web that is? Thanks! </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/162#post-319 Sun, 03 May 2009 23:57:41 +0000 kane2742 319@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Does anyone know some Creative Commons-licensed comic strips? The main reason I ask is that I edit a local free paper (also available online at <a href="http://www.GistWeekly.com/currentissue" rel="nofollow">http://www.GistWeekly.com/currentissue</a> - CC licensed, of course) and I would like to add some CC-licensed comics to it, but could not find any lists/directories of Creative Commons-licensed comics online.</p> <p>Here are the ones that I know of so far (listed alphabetically by name):</p> <p>Abstruse Goose (BY-NC) - <a href="http://abstrusegoose.com" rel="nofollow">http://abstrusegoose.com</a><br /> Bigger Than Cheeses (BY-NC-SA) - <a href="http://www.biggercheese.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.biggercheese.com</a><br /> Cectic (BY) - <a href="http://cectic.com" rel="nofollow">http://cectic.com</a><br /> XKCD (BY-NC) - <a href="http://xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com</a> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/89#post-203 Sat, 08 Nov 2008 19:38:57 +0000 jam 203@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>This is my statement to the AKM board (AKM is the rights organization in Austria). AKM refuse to talk with me. I ask a member of the CC Austrian community if they might possibly present this statement to the board of AKM or any of their partners in what-ever form you/they choose.</p> <p>Under new laws that were introduced to the EU, my understanding is that rights organizations are able to compete in different territories. This means that artists that have not signed an exclusive agreements can do the same, we have the right to be our own rights organization. AKM have known this for some time, yet have intentionally violated my human right to issue licences as i choose in conjunction with the contracts that i agree with. </p> <p>Artist join rights organizations for many reasons, some include.</p> <p>1) to collect royalties.<br /> 2) to give media the legal platform to use the works that artists in the community create.<br /> 3) so artists can get together and make songs together and then have those songs performed in a public space, with the appropriate legal platform.</p> <p>It seems that AKM's policy is dominated by policies that revolve around the collection of royalties.</p> <p>With most household's having an Internet connection, the need for publishers and labels is much less. The Internet is able to copy many things around the world at the click of a button. Technology makes point 2 &#38; 3 more important than 1 for new innovative creators. Unfortunately the way that the boards are elected in rights organizations (in Australia for example, for every 500 dollars that an artist or publisher collect they get an extra vote) mean that the collection of royalties has dominated how these non-profit organizations operate, since they began. </p> <p>The ripple effect of this voting policy within organizations such as AKM and its partners is having a huge effects everywhere. </p> <p>AKM have instructed me that if I am to license my songs freely in Austria that I'm not able to collect any royalties. The new policies that allow competition within the European union, allow me to license what i create where i choose. My understanding is that its not possible to make something non-exclusive to exclusive under any laws within Europe. If my rights are under a non-exclusive management agreement, its my right to deal with those rights as i choose and be a member of ASCAP.</p> <p>If AKM choose to change their reciprocal agreements with ASCAP, this has nothing to do with me. I'm under no obligation to change the way i deal with my rights as a result of the way that AKM choose to deal with the rights that ASCAP issue in the territory of Austria. I can issue content for free and collect royalties where appropriate. Many spaces have no agreements with AKM or partners. Its my right to innovate.</p> <p>Consider that AKM is most likely more dependent on ASCAP's content than ASCAP is dependent on AKM's content. AKM offer artist a exclusive agreement rather than a non-exclusive one, AKM policy over many years I feel has put the market place (from my view) into a situation where very little competition exists for the use of sound recordings. The government with many NGO's and councils has had to step in and find solutions for artists that want to create. Now these non-government organizations look to be dependent on a system that maintains exclusivity for the artist contract. </p> <p>My view is that this means that the artist is unable to innovate and participate in the market place without the help of an NGO or a corporation. Yet these non-profits entwined with corporations look to no-longer be relevant to the modern creator. Any change that these non-profits manufacture in conjunction with corporations are sure to create more culture similar to that of the commercial culture already in place.</p> <p>The situation looks to have created a situation in Austria (Europe) where even the punk now has to fill in a form or join a queue with a begging bowl.</p> <p>The word independent means dependency on something that does not have a direct deal with a major, yet ultimately almost all the labels, publishers and artists that want to be heard through the centralized system (or even just on myspace it seems) are tied together via the rights organizations.</p> <p>Artists that are not dependent on AKM are in a situation where they have to prove that the songs they make are not within the catalog of AKM, for a space/media not to have a pay a fee for use of media. </p> <p>The policy's that AKM and their partners create ensure that the self publishing artists are at the mercy of the publishing system, yet with the Internet, publishing mechanism of the past are far less important.</p> <p>What's worse is that the commercial air waves of Austria seem mostly dominated by content that has arrived via a very competitive US market place, rather than performers within the community of Austria. Self publishing Austrian (European) artists rights are locked up under exclusive management conditions that do not allow rights to compete in the US market place, yet many create content suited to the American culture rather than Austrian culture.</p> <p>My intention has never been to collect royalties for the use of songs i create, the intention has always been to have people hear the songs. I have tried every commercial means possible in Austria (Europe) to get the attention of the people. Its just not possible for the type of music i create. The non-profit organizations that run most of the spaces in Austria are also not able to work in conjunction with me as I'm not with an Austrian cultural label or part of a culturally funded publisher. My only choice is often to direct license.</p> <p>My understanding is that my songs (that have been used in a major release film) also need the legal platform that rights organizations provide for use in the territory of Austria. If i was to stop collecting royalties in the territory of Austria (as AKM instruct me to do) for the use of the songs I create, then what platform does the media in Austria have to use those songs?</p> <p>My rights are managed under a non-exclusive agreement, this means i can also deal with my rights as I choose. As i understand it, its my right to do business as i choose in Austria. I ask that AKM allow me to do business as i choose with the songs that i wrote in the territory of Austria (Europe). Respect the licenses that i issue. As i said, I wrote these songs for people to hear them. The centralized media in Austria (Europe) has no interest in the works i create, for the reasons I explain above (from the point of view of my experience). The same problems in Austria can be applied to every European territory. I have been in Europe almost 5 years and found the same brick wall in every territory.</p> <p>The system is not valid anymore and is best dismantled or deregulated.</p> <p>The problems i have apply to all artists that want to tour with what they create around Europe that are not connected with the publishing industry, in some way shape or form. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/89#post-200 Sun, 02 Nov 2008 14:32:28 +0000 jam 200@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I got an email from AKM (Austrian rights organization), telling me as an artist with ASCAP, that any CC license (or any form of direct licensing) could not be recognized, while ASCAP was issuing blanket licenses for the use of songs i create to the territory of Austria.</p> <p>The Artist that signs with ASCAP, signs a non-exclusive contract. My understanding is that this in effect means that a group (,or just one) of artists signed with ASCAP could create their own rights organizations and be signed with ASCAP. True?</p> <p>My understanding is that ASCAP is issuing licenses to AKM under the same conditions as they do to members in the US. What business it is of mine, If ASCAP is issuing licenses that imply my rights in Europe are exclusive. I can't see artists in the US allowing their contracts to be exclusive under any circumstance, many artists would be upset if they found out that their content was exclusive outside the US, if they found out. That is if that is true?</p> <p>AKM have instructed me to contact ASCAP and stop collecting revenues for use of content in Austria. I'm confused about what AKM have said though, as i was also under the impression that under new laws introduced to the EU that rights organizations are able to issue content in different countries. If its possible for different rights organizations in Europe to issue content in different countries, then why can't artists with non-exclusive rights to the same. I can be my own rights organization. Why not?</p> <p>Does it not make sense for each CC territory to encourage artists to join ASCAP and then get those artists to form as their own publishing collectives under rules they make for themselves, form their own rights organizations that operates in conjunction with ASCAP. CC could in effect help protect the right to provide free content. It seems fair in conditions where free content is being paid for, the artist that provides that content be paid if a fee for use of content is being paid.</p> <p>Do artists that have signed non-exclusive contracts, have the right to create their own rights organizations in conjunction with ASCAP. If not what laws are stopping this from happening, if competition between rights organizations already exists?</p> <p>If this does not happen, in effect what is happening in Europe is that artists that use CC licenses and don't join a rights organizations are creating more revenues for the publishing industry, this makes the situation even worse for self publishing of art. </p> <p>It seems perfectly obvious to me that no rights organizations in Europe is going to deregulate to a non-exclusive contract as the publishers and artists that collect the most revenues run the boards of all the rights organizations. </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/64#post-148 Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:10:05 +0000 mlinksva 148@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>You're right about mailing lists not being adequate for all, thanks for directing people here.</p> <p>I was just noting that for this particular conversation (about iCommons) the CC forum is not the best place, as CC != iCommons. Unfortunately I have no idea if iCommons has a web forum to discuss on.</p> <p>The email linked to above was also posted to icommons.org/blogs/a-key-change-at-icommons -- could leave comments there. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/64#post-147 Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:26:10 +0000 jam 147@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I linked some other forum sites to here...a problem might be that a lot of artists don't use mailing lists much, i already posted both these links..</p> <p><a href="http://ccmixter.org/thread/1645#47582" rel="nofollow">http://ccmixter.org/thread/1645#47582</a><br /> <a href="http://www.jamendo.com/en/forums/discussion/4298/a-festival-for-cc-music/" rel="nofollow">http://www.jamendo.com/en/forums/discussion/4298/a-festival-for-cc-music/</a> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/64#post-146 Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:21:50 +0000 mlinksva 146@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>The iCommons mailing list above would be a better place to write. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/64#post-142 Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:46:30 +0000 jam 142@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>its worth having a good read of this link here...</p> <p><a href="http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/icommons/Week-of-Mon-20080825/001421.html" rel="nofollow">http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/icommons/Week-of-Mon-20080825/001421.html</a></p> <p>Icommons is having a change of team and direction. if you have any ideas on a direction that iCommons might take please write them here. </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> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/26#post-58 Tue, 10 Jun 2008 22:53:35 +0000 ajbrooks 58@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>If you'd like control over translations, I'd suggest you pick one of the ND licenses. </p> <p>I'm curious though, if you decided to allow derivatives and multiple translations popped up, what's stopping you from endorsing one translation over another? </p>