http://forum.creativecommons.org/ CC Forum Tag: free - Recent Posts en Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:00:43 +0000 http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/39#post-82 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 17:36:53 +0000 jam 82@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>This text comes from this link.<br /> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/legalcode" rel="nofollow">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/legalcode</a></p> <p># Performance Royalties Under Blanket Licences. Licensor will not collect, whether individually or via a performance rights society, royalties for Your communication to the public, broadcast, public performance or public digital performance (e.g. webcast) of the Work.</p> <p>Youtube now pay royalties for the use of content to rights organizations. Youtube have not yet integrated any of the creative commons licenses into their upload system. </p> <p>If someone makes media using content licensed with a cc license and then uploads that content to youtube, do the rights to that content flow on? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/24#post-60 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:33:23 +0000 jam 60@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>i just uploaded rawmedia content to <a href="http://rawmedia.blip.tv" rel="nofollow">http://rawmedia.blip.tv</a> allows use of creative commons and has great sharing functions. </p> <p>please also check out the idea of <a href="http://www.rawmedia.tv" rel="nofollow">http://www.rawmedia.tv</a> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/24#post-54 Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:20:06 +0000 agarton 54@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>i've heard talk of CC and YouTube discussions for some time now. </p> <p>in terms of rights management options for screen practitioners, the best i've seen thus far is what's on offer at <a href="http://engagemedia.org/" rel="nofollow">http://engagemedia.org/</a>. although they're not in the business of generating royalties, their rights management tool(s) are very good.</p> <p>and what of Vimeo and any emerging others? in interest in these hills?</p> <p>-ag. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/24#post-51 Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:41:00 +0000 jam 51@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Youtube pay royalties on the amount of youtube plays.</p> <p>if the creative commons licenses were integrated into part of the upload system (through the request of subscriber) public spaces could use these works without that space having to pay the rights organizations for use of content. </p> <p>its possible to put a link, yet a link to a license that can be changed at anytime is not much use to the user of that content.</p> <p>does youtube have plans to incorporate the license, if so when? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/21#post-44 Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:21:47 +0000 jam 44@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Although much of the music licensed with creative commons is supposed to be free when a creative commons license is put onto it, it seems that even when a creative commons license is on the music, the music is often played in spaces (be they non-commercial or commercial) that pay blanket licenses anyway. Its not possible for these blankets to have gaps (yet), especially when publishers are running the rights organizations. </p> <p>Most venues/spaces want to be able to choose any content they like, they would like to get a reduction when they use content that is licensed free, yet i am not sure that this happening yet and i can't see how rights organizations that are run by publishers are ever going to allow this.</p> <p>When a songwriter writes a song, they own that song. So when its remixed its difficult for the person that remixed that track to make a claim through the rights organizations, as the words and melody belong to the songwriter.</p> <p>Recently songs that were released through the CC-mixter went out through cdbaby and were also registered with a UK rights organization. Uk rights organizations don't recognize what a non-commercial use is and see all public use as commercial. The artist stated this on the website: "I asked for a license to use and sell the remixes, and in return I stated that each remix would be a co-write. I retain my rights to the original song but the remixes are new recordings with all new music and arrangements against my lyrics and melody". </p> <p>As the rights organizations see the song as the words and the melody, how does this system translate to a rights organization?</p> <p>It makes sense that a non-profit publisher might evolve to take care of the publishing administration for works licensed with a creative commons license. The songwriters guild offer the artist the ability to own their copyright through a publisher and they handle the administration and licensing for those songs. The organization charges 108 dollars per year for this service and takes a percentage of what is collected also. </p> <p>Songwriters and remixes don't want to spend their lives making sure they get what belongs to them and if music is made free through a CC license, yet is also collecting through a blanket license, isn't it better that the larger publishers don't pool free-culture content to their own benefit via rights organizations?</p> <p>ASCAP bill of rights state<br /> <a href="http://www.ascap.com/rights/billText.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.ascap.com/rights/billText.aspx</a></p> <p>“We have the right to license our works and control the ways in which they are used.”</p> <p>“We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free.”</p> <p>No other rights organizations allow this kind of flexibility that i am aware of. Although on the ascap website it says that artists need a social scerity number, this is only for members that choose to join online. Artists from outside the US can transfer and join ASCAP.</p> <p>ASCAP artist contract allows the use of creative commons from what i understand.</p> <p>If each remix was registered under a different tittle and the proceeds split 50/50 remixes/ songwriter. Artists registered as artist/publisher of ASCAP that had their content remixed could distribute revenues fairly and the content could also be free when the artist would choose under the creative commons license. </p>