CC Forum Tag: creative commons

CC Forum Tag: creative commons - Recent Posts http://forum.creativecommons.org/ CC Forum Tag: creative commons - Recent Posts en Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:26:15 +0000 mmray31 on "CC kung fu film?" http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/190#post-551 Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:43:12 +0000 mmray31 551@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ but before doing so such thing, check everything first for legality purpose. just to avoid problems, right? <a href="http://www.best-debt-consolidation.co.uk/">IVA Help</a> alexisjameson on "CC kung fu film?" http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/190#post-550 Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:16:51 +0000 alexisjameson 550@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ I've read it's actually more free to use as well. Not entirely sure about the copyright laws, though .... <a href="http://DCincome.com" rel="nofollow">http://DCincome.com</a> dre on "anyone ever tried to get someone to have their content CC'd?" http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/222#post-520 Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:25:05 +0000 dre 520@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ Hi everyone, am interested in learning of stories, where someone was able to convince another party to become Creative Commons. as i myself would like to have someone's content, which is presently part of a public school system be made creative commons, similar in nature to opencourseware and in fact following the same or similar license. the content i'm hoping to convert is the work done by the Monkseaton school system teaching method in spaced learning <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaced_learning" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaced_learning</a> so far ive contact MIT and the University of Oxford - Mathematics and asked them how they made the conversion and the benefits to them as i plan to write a letter to Headmaster, Paul Kelley requesting he make the data available in an opencourseware format. any ideas would be great! chucky1976 on "CC kung fu film?" http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/190#post-449 Sat, 26 Sep 2009 04:04:43 +0000 chucky1976 449@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ Public domain material is even more free-to-use than Creative Commons licenses material. Go nuts and animate the hell out of it :) Does this mean that we're not breaking copyright laws when we use public domain material? Thanks in advance! <a href="http://pregnancymiraclereview.org/" rel="nofollow">http://pregnancymiraclereview.org/</a> AdamProut9 on "CC kung fu film?" http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/190#post-448 Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:40:25 +0000 AdamProut9 448@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ 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. Adam <a href="http://www.longbeachchiropractor.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.longbeachchiropractor.org</a> carter1990 on "CC kung fu film?" http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/190#post-446 Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:01:35 +0000 carter1990 446@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ Hi uphillcastle, 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. <a href="http://www.get-out-of-debt-x.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.get-out-of-debt-x.com</a> <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> <a href="http://www.squidoo.com/get-out-of-debt-x" rel="nofollow">http://www.squidoo.com/get-out-of-debt-x</a> howard001 on "Creative Commons Comic Strips" http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/162#post-431 Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:04:10 +0000 howard001 431@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ Hi, Thanks for the links,this going to help me a lot. thomas123 on "CC kung fu film?" http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/190#post-429 Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:16:37 +0000 thomas123 429@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ uphillcastle, Do you mind sharing the link to the films as I am looking for material for a video that I am currently working on? Thanks and regards. Thomas sevendayforum1 on "Creative Commons Comic Strips" http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/162#post-419 Tue, 15 Sep 2009 01:55:03 +0000 sevendayforum1 419@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ 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.. ShannonMiller on "Creative Commons Comic Strips" http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/162#post-418 Tue, 15 Sep 2009 01:00:09 +0000 ShannonMiller 418@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ Thanks for that link osorio, I found some great stuff there! -Shannon opcws on "CC kung fu film?" http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/190#post-376 Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:41:33 +0000 opcws 376@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ Public domain material is even more free-to-use than Creative Commons licenses material. Go nuts and animate the hell out of it :) osorio on "Creative Commons Comic Strips" http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/162#post-368 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:50:17 +0000 osorio 368@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ 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. uphillcastle on "CC kung fu film?" http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/190#post-367 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:48:08 +0000 uphillcastle 367@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ 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! kane2742 on "Creative Commons Comic Strips" http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/162#post-319 Sun, 03 May 2009 23:57:41 +0000 kane2742 319@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ 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. Here are the ones that I know of so far (listed alphabetically by name): Abstruse Goose (BY-NC) - <a href="http://abstrusegoose.com" rel="nofollow">http://abstrusegoose.com</a> Bigger Than Cheeses (BY-NC-SA) - <a href="http://www.biggercheese.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.biggercheese.com</a> Cectic (BY) - <a href="http://cectic.com" rel="nofollow">http://cectic.com</a> XKCD (BY-NC) - <a href="http://xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com</a> Victor on "podcasting and CC license" http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/143#post-280 Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:50:55 +0000 Victor 280@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ I want to do a podcast using background music that is licensed with the Creative Commons license of share alike and attribution. The podcast is for a non-profit, education and research organization. What I'm not sure about is the proper attribution for a podcast. I'm going to be posting the podcast to a blog, so I could (have to??) display the CC license there. My question is do I have mention the band behind the background music in the podcast itself? or just somewhere on the blog or on ITunes somewhere? I'm also confused by this - "Creative Commons licenses are expressed in three different formats: the Commons Deed (human-readable code), the Legal Code (lawyer-readable code); and the metadata (machine readable code)." - <a href="http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_I_properly_attribute_a_Creative_Commons_licensed_work.3F" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_I_properly_attribute_a_Creative_Commons_licensed_work.3F</a> Do I need to cite this music using all three or just one? And if your curious the band I'm hoping to use is Butterfly Tea. You can find the site here - <a href="http://www.jamendo.com/en/album/36315" rel="nofollow">http://www.jamendo.com/en/album/36315</a> and they're really good. Thanks for your help. jam on "I am my own rights organization & i collect" http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/89#post-203 Sat, 08 Nov 2008 19:38:57 +0000 jam 203@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ 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. 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. Artist join rights organizations for many reasons, some include. 1) to collect royalties. 2) to give media the legal platform to use the works that artists in the community create. 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. It seems that AKM's policy is dominated by policies that revolve around the collection of royalties. 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 & 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. The ripple effect of this voting policy within organizations such as AKM and its partners is having a huge effects everywhere. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. The system is not valid anymore and is best dismantled or deregulated. 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. jam on "I am my own rights organization & i collect" http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/89#post-200 Sun, 02 Nov 2008 14:32:28 +0000 jam 200@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ 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. 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? 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? 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? 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. 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? 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. 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. jam on "what is a creative commons license?" http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/33#post-71 Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:30:29 +0000 jam 71@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ found this on mailing list. About Creative Commons Creative Commons is a not-for-profit organization, founded in 2001, that promotes the creative re-use of intellectual and artistic works, whether owned or in the public domain. Through its free copyright licenses, Creative Commons offers authors, artists, scientists, and educators the choice of a flexible range of protections and freedoms that build upon the "all rights reserved" concept of traditional copyright to enable a voluntary "some rights reserved" approach. question on "what is a creative commons license?" http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/33#post-67 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:02:10 +0000 question 67@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ Looking for different explanations as to what a creative commons license is.