http://forum.creativecommons.org/ CC Forum Tag: creative - Recent Posts en Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:22:05 +0000 http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/227#post-529 Sun, 01 Nov 2009 02:03:29 +0000 adal2007 529@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>just a news about creative commons music.<br /> we have created the first compilation of creative commons music (involved artists such as Yoko Ono, Nine Inch Nails, Rivers Cuomo, Daniel Bautista and Many more great artists participate in this great cc compilation of 50 artists, and 57 cc licensed tracks.</p> <p>The project details on:<br /> <a href="http://creativecommonsmusic.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">http://creativecommonsmusic.wordpress.com</a></p> <p>thanks </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/125#post-293 Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:23:18 +0000 Yagan Kiely 293@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>You can, but it wont retrospectively effect the license you have attributed to it, only subsequent publications. Effectively, the version or edition that is licensed under a Creative Commons license will continue to maintain that licence until the Copyright of the work has expired.</p> <p>Regards,<br /> Yagan </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/125#post-260 Tue, 27 Jan 2009 05:24:51 +0000 Matthias 260@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Is it possible to strip a project of a Creative Commons license as long as your are the licensee? I've read the complete license and I wasn't very sure on exact specifications for license termination. The reason I'm asking this is because I licensed one of my projects under a Creative Commons license, but now I no longer want it to be distributed. </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> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/9#post-55 Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:23:33 +0000 agarton 55@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>from my experience, it was possible to CC license a review sample of album tracks, but not the entire track. we use CC at secession records to provide some rights reserved to sample tracks, but all rights reserved on the entire album (unless otherwise stated).</p> <p>-ag. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/23#post-48 Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:33:53 +0000 mlinksva 48@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>ShareAlike requires that adaptations be released under the same license, so you'd have to put the completed work under the ShareAlike license.</p> <p>Now the question would be whether the other work's non-SA license is compatible with the SA license.</p> <p>eg work A under CC BY, work B under CC BY-SA -- work C that incorporates parts of A and B would have to be licensed under CC BY-SA.</p> <p>But work A under CC BY-NC, work B under CC BY-SA -- work C that incorporates parts of A and B would have to be licensed under CC BY-SA, but BY-NC and BY-SA are not compatible, so you'd need to get permission from the creator of work A and/or B to release.</p> <p>See <a href="http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#I_used_part_of_a_Creative_Commons-licensed_work.2C_which_Creative_Commons_license_can_I_relicense_my_work_under.3F" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#I_used_part_of_a_Creative_Commons-licensed_work.2C_which_Creative_Commons_license_can_I_relicense_my_work_under.3F</a></p> <p>However, this may be a simplistic answer, and I am not a lawyer. Depending on the exact details of your specific situation, you may want to consult one. :) </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/23#post-47 Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:56:49 +0000 question 47@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>If i create a work using art licensed with two different licenses, one that uses the share alike (SA) function and one that does'nt. What license would/could i put on the completed work? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/18#post-42 Sat, 07 Jun 2008 08:29:12 +0000 question 42@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>where best to find lawyers that understand CC? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/18#post-40 Sat, 07 Jun 2008 01:52:03 +0000 mlinksva 40@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I am not a lawyer, but I'm not sure merely posting on myspace is a commercial use -- myspace may be like an ISP or copy shop in this case -- so whether it is a commercial use or not depends on whether you (the person posting someone else's noncommercial content) are making commercial use of your myspace page. But again, I am not a lawyer and this is not a place to get legal advice.</p> <p>How would you best make an agreement? Start by emailing the relevant artist.</p> <p>And/or start by getting advice from your lawyer. :) </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/18#post-38 Fri, 06 Jun 2008 22:06:00 +0000 question 38@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>if i see putting content on myspace as being a commercial use?</p> <p>how best i make an agreement with another artist? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/18#post-37 Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:13:21 +0000 mlinksva 37@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>What do you need to do, you mean in order to post the track to another site (eg myspace) under the track's CC license? </p> <p>You should link to the track's home page on ccMixter, state the artist and track name and the license you are using it under. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/18#post-36 Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:45:14 +0000 question 36@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>this question was on the CCmixter. <a href="http://ccmixter.org/thread/633" rel="nofollow">http://ccmixter.org/thread/633</a></p> <p>ok..<br /> i’m still not shure if i’m on the right spot, but anyway.<br /> did a little remix for the Noite de Carnaval-Cibelle remix-contest.<br /> I want to put my remix on a myspace-page, so..what do I need to do?</p> <p>can i copy and paste questions i find in other places? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/17#post-35 Fri, 06 Jun 2008 12:24:58 +0000 jam 35@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I noticed that when i google "creative commons forum" that this link comes up on creative commons website.</p> <p><a href="http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5429" rel="nofollow">http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5429</a></p> <p><a href="http://messages.search.yahoo.com/ccommons/forumview?bn=ccommons" rel="nofollow">http://messages.search.yahoo.com/ccommons/forumview?bn=ccommons</a> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/15#post-32 Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:33:56 +0000 jam 32@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>a facebook group exists tittled creative commons explained.</p> <p>join and contribute links and ideas.<br /> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5400418785" rel="nofollow">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5400418785</a> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/14#post-31 Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:10:32 +0000 jam 31@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi Just wanted to let people know about this <a href="http://wwww.ownterms.org" rel="nofollow">http://wwww.ownterms.org</a></p> <p>this is a site about licenses and putting your own models forward and making agreements available to all.</p> <p>So far i put these ideas forward to the wiki.<br /> <a href="http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/contract+2" rel="nofollow">http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/contract+2</a><br /> <a href="http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/contract+1" rel="nofollow">http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/contract+1</a><br /> <a href="http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/mecanical" rel="nofollow">http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/mecanical</a><br /> <a href="http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/Alone" rel="nofollow">http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/Alone</a><br /> <a href="http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/ZERO" rel="nofollow">http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/ZERO</a><br /> <a href="http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/Festival" rel="nofollow">http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/Festival</a><br /> <a href="http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/Artist" rel="nofollow">http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/Artist</a><br /> <a href="http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/hafhp" rel="nofollow">http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/hafhp</a></p> <p>Please get involved in this colaboration</p> <p>the site looks to be partly inspired by this quote.</p> <p>Woody Guthrie including the following note in a 1930s songbook distributed to listeners who wanted the words to his recordings had the following message:</p> <p>'This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin' it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ours, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do.' </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/12#post-23 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:10:34 +0000 mlinksva 23@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi Jamison,</p> <p>I wish I knew the answers to your questions ... hopefully some people who know the music industry will come along and weigh in.</p> <p>Others, if you're interested in this stuff, there are some responses to a similar post from Jamison over on the ccMixter forums, see <a href="http://ccmixter.org/thread/1491" rel="nofollow">http://ccmixter.org/thread/1491</a> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/12#post-22 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:33:30 +0000 jam 22@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I’m very interested in doing my next release through the CCmixter, i’m a little confused though.</p> <p>thoughts: I noticed that Calender girl has released her remixes on CDbaby with their digital partners. This means that the remixes are available through i-tunes and all the regular DRM stores. how are these commercial revenues going to be distributed to those that contributed to the remixes if they are not members of a rights organization. i know its only a couple of cents most likely, yet is it important to have these things sorted out within the mixter?</p> <p>has ccmixter worked out a deal with CDbaby? has calender girl worked out a deal with each remixer and CC mixter? what of the commercial rights to the sounds within the mixter?</p> <p>what i would like to do with my next recording i release is possibly this: i would give my songs to the CCmixter under a CC BY license. then i would like to buy the right not to have to attribute the artist and use the sounds within the recording and be able to do as i choose with the song, yet at the same time not limit the artist to release the recording they used with the song.</p> <p>when a song is published through the rights organizations, the song is divided up into 2 parts. melody and words. technically a songwriter is able to release a recording and claim all publishing rights to the recording mixed on CC mixter under this system. i don’t really think this is fair, as the re-mixers have not been paid. unless the artist that is releasing the recording sets up a publishing company and distributes fairly. what is the result? would it not be best for CC mixter to have a publishing arm?</p> <p>i’m keen to know how CC mixter is dealing with these issues? even when an artist puts a remix licensed with a non-commercial license on myspace, they are technically in violation of NC conditions (from some aspects). Myspace take the artists rights and gain advertising revenue.</p> <p>ASCAP is the only rights organization that allows foreign artists deal with their rights as they choose. ASCAP divides royalties into 50 percent publisher and 50 percent artist.</p> <p>I noticed that Calender girl is a member of member of PRS (Performing Right Society) in the UK. UK rights organizations do not allow the use of creative commons licenses.</p> <p>Its possible for artists of most rights organizations to transfer their membership to ascap.</p> <p>if artists that released through the mixtr commercially were asked to transfer membership to a rights organization that allowed the use of creative commons licenses, this would bring attention to the issue of artists rights.<br /> <a href="http://www.iarts.CC" rel="nofollow">http://www.iarts.CC</a> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/11#post-20 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:56:08 +0000 jam 20@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I create only content i make for live events (I plan to join ASCAP). I wondered if i could license my live gig under a creative commons attribution license. I have contacted AKM (rights organization is Austria) and asked them about this possibility. Their response was:</p> <p>AKM say: For the moment I can only give you general information about the licensing of public performances by AKM: (think AKM is the same as any other rights organization in Europe.)</p> <p>If an organizer maintaines that all music titles that will be performed (live or by “mechanical” means, like for instance CD, MP3, DVD, etc.) are written by composers and lyricists that are not a member of AKM or sister society of AKM (e.g. OSA, GEMA, etc.) the organizer has to send a music program (music title list incl. names of the authors/arrangers) to AKM. AKM then checks the list. If none of the right owners of the performed titles (composer, lyricist, arranger, music publisher, etc.) is a member of AKM or a foreign sister society AKM does not ask for payment of an AKM-fee. Moreover there has to be said that AKM also collects the fees for other domestic rights organizations, like for instance the copyright society for authors of literature (Literar Mechana). So if a program only or also contains works of authors of literature being a member of Literar Mechana or a foreign sister society of Literar Mechana a licence fee has to be paid to AKM.<br /> If an organizer would maintain that all titles of the programm performed are under a creative commons license the procedure of checking would be the same as said above.</p> <p>The organizer of the event would be the performing artist in the instance of the CC license? </p> <p>Can a member of ASCAP license their music under a creative commons license to live venues in Europe free? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/10#post-19 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:35:14 +0000 jam 19@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>It's not a problem for an artist to join ASCAP outside the US. All foreign artists have to do is fill in a US tax form and send it in with their application. They are not able to join online as they don't have a social security number.</p> <p>-I just wanted to make this point to artists in other countries, although its not likely that you are going to be kicked out of a rights organization for using a cc license, being a member of a rights organization outside the US means that there is a license conflict. </p> <p>-when content is used for community gatherings, if your content is registered with a rights organizations and your using a CC license and your registered with a rights organization outside the US, the rights organizations might make the gathering pay.</p> <p>John Buckman from magnitune started this node on the icommons site after last years summit.</p> <p><a href="http://www.icommons.org/nodes/project-dac" rel="nofollow">http://www.icommons.org/nodes/project-dac</a></p> <p>basic idea from node: Create an informative Web site explaining the rights and restrictions of each collecting society contract. Let musicians know they have options, and get musicians to lobby societies to change.</p> <p>I just figure that a lot of questions exist around this topic.</p> <p>Why are CC leads not spending more time working with organizations that regulate monopolies- pushing for more liberal licensing platforms for artists and changing vote conditions for boards??? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/9#post-17 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:21:39 +0000 jam 17@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Recently on the CC mail list a record label asked about the possibility of being able to use the creative commons license, the problem was that the label only had the rights to use the recordings. the label was concerned about having to pay fees for giving music away for free.</p> <p>any other ways? the responses on the mailing lists seemed broad</p> <p>also i wonder how members of ASCAP and BMI differ when it comes to the same problem.</p> <p>is it possible to answer this question from the point of view of ASCAP BMI member and then also from the point of view of rights organizations outside the US?</p> <p><a href="http://www.iarts.cc" rel="nofollow">http://www.iarts.cc</a> </p>