http://forum.creativecommons.org/ CC Forum Tag: license - Recent Posts en Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:49:46 +0000 http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/228#post-534 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:04:55 +0000 globalciti 534@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi- I produce non-commercial short documentaries for the web. In the past, I have used creative commons photos and music to supplement my storytelling.</p> <p> One site I use for music is Jamendo. This year they began Jamendo Pro which you purchase a license for particular song you want to use for your video. </p> <p>This confuses me. The cost they ask for is miniscule but if the song is already released under the creative commons(attribute-share-alike-and noncommercial) license then why would I need to purchase an additional license from Jamendo? <a href="http://pro.jamendo.com" rel="nofollow">http://pro.jamendo.com</a></p> <p>Just to clarify the details of the video: It is for an organization. I am a professional and the videos are release under creative commons (share-alike, attribute, non-commercial, non-derivs).</p> <p>Thanks for your thoughts </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/220#post-517 Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:18:46 +0000 serenityfound 517@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>The organization I work for is putting its annual conference publication online. We are interested in offering CC licenses to the authors whose works appear in the publications, but I'm not sure which to use. It is an academic publication, so it would be best if the license allowed for the articles to be cited and otherwise used in other academic/journalistic situations (with attribution, of course). Which license would be best for this?</p> <p>Also, do we need to do a separate license for each author or can we simply license the publication? </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/166#post-328 Sat, 16 May 2009 17:06:53 +0000 Yagan Kiely 328@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>No. Syncing (in any sense) music(sound) to film constitutes a derivative, and all derivatives must be 'Shared Alike' under that license.</p> <p>Regards,<br /> Yagan </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/166#post-325 Mon, 11 May 2009 23:47:06 +0000 grafik.muzik 325@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Can I put my work (flash animation) under Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives license (BY-NC-ND) if it includes a MP3 sound which is under Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license (BY-NC-SA)?</p> <p>Thanks ;) </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/164#post-321 Tue, 05 May 2009 21:42:48 +0000 kaldari 321@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>There seems to be a small error in the legal code of the cc-by-sa 3.0 license. In section 1(b) it says "or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f)". Problem is 1(f) is the definition of Licensor. The definition of Work (which is what I presume they are wanting to refer to) is at 1(h), not 1(f). </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/155#post-303 Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:01:29 +0000 mlinksva 303@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi rahul66,</p> <p>First, I'm not a lawyer and am not/can't give you legal advice.</p> <p>If your film constitutes a derivative/adaptation of the audio track, the film would need to be CC BY-SA. Note that CC licenses explicitly say that </p> <blockquote><p>For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.</p></blockquote> <p>See 1a in <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode" rel="nofollow">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode</a></p> <p>It is conceivable that your use could be fair use, in which case you might not need permission at all (which is what the license gives you, under certain conditions), so you wouldn't need to abide by the license. But fair use is only a defense, has been narrowed considerably in recent decades, and film festivals might not consider your film to be cleared...</p> <p>You can always also seek permission directly from the copyright holder of the audio you want to use. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/155#post-302 Fri, 03 Apr 2009 23:05:08 +0000 rahul66 302@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I want to use a CC 'by-sa' licensed track for my film. Am I obliged to release my film under a CC license as well? I'm planning to send my film to various film festivals, and I can't afford to freely share it under a CC license, atleast for 1 year. </p> <p>I will be only using a part of the track(the first 30seconds or so). Going by the terms of share-alike, does using a bit/portion of a soundtrack constitute "alter, transform, or build upon" of the work?</p> <p>And what if I want to use a part from the middle of the track? </p> <p>Please note that I'm not modifying the track in any other way. </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/150#post-288 Sat, 28 Mar 2009 04:49:08 +0000 nwilliam3 288@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I recently downloaded a Wordpress template from <a href="http://www.wpthemesfree.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wpthemesfree.com/</a> that didn't have any indicators as to what if any licensing applied to it. I found in the code a note from the author to only download the template from one of two sites; the one I downloaded it from and the site: <a href="http://www.wpthemescreator.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wpthemescreator.com/</a>. I went to that site and on it states that all of their templates are licensed Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic. It also states that the authors only requirement for attribution is that the links in the footer are not removed. The problem is the links in the footer are not attribution links but advertisements for SuperbHosting.net. </p> <p>So my question is do I need to retain those advertising links or since they are clearly outside the intent of the license can I replace them with an appropriate attribution? Give that there is no mention of a Creative Commons license anywhere in the work, I kind of wonder if the license on the website is more of scare tactic to prevent the footer links from being removed. Versus an honest attempt and licensing the template. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/143#post-280 Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:50:55 +0000 Victor 280@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>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. </p> <p>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. </p> <p>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?</p> <p>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> </p> <p>Do I need to cite this music using all three or just one?</p> <p>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. </p> <p>Thanks for your help. </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/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/82#post-190 Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:13:35 +0000 raphaelh 190@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi,</p> <p>would it make sense to put a license on a forum?</p> <p>Someone just suggested that I put one on <a href="http://mediawikifr.org">Forum MediaWiki Francophone</a> (which is a forum for french speaking MediaWiki users).</p> <p>Then, as on most forums there are citations coming from Wikipedia, does it mean that the license of the forum should be compatible with the GFDL?</p> <p>Thanks in advance! </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/71#post-161 Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:56:23 +0000 mlinksva 161@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>It isn't entirely clear to me what you want to do. By using a CC license, you're pre-clearing certain uses for any member of the public, not just members of a certain community.</p> <p>It sounds like you want to censor commercial uses. If you're ok with pre-clearing non-commercial uses for any member of the public, CC offers licenses that do that. You can get one at <a href="http://creativecommons.org/license" rel="nofollow">http://creativecommons.org/license</a> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/71#post-159 Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:06:21 +0000 Jaxx89 159@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hello everyone.<br /> I am very much new to the Creative Commons thing and there is a lot I have to learn about it<br /> Though I have a question.</p> <p>I have made a few Video presentations for an NGO called Rotaract.<br /> However I want to license those Video presentations as free of use only in the Rotaract Community with my prior permission, but should not be used for personal or commercial(professional) advertisement by any member or other senior authorities of the NGO.</p> <p>I have created the videos myself but with some help from a Multimedia firm.<br /> As you must have understood my situation, I hope someone here will be able to guide me.</p> <p>Hoping for a positive response<br /> Thank you very much.<br /> Satyan Bajaj </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/52#post-118 Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:00:55 +0000 mlinksva 118@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>by-nc-nd permits noncommercial redistribution, and CC licenses are not for software, so you probably need to look elsewhere. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/52#post-117 Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:43:59 +0000 rpnunez 117@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hello,</p> <p>I have a quick question about the "by-nc-nd" license, which can be found here: <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/" rel="nofollow">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/</a></p> <p>I am currently writing a program that I want it to be free of charge to use/download (for non-commercial use). However, I don't want people to be able to redistribute it. Under any circumstance.</p> <p>I see that the license mentioned above ("by-nc-nd") meets my requirements. However, there is something that confuses me.</p> <p>Does the license allow people to add a modification to my program,, and be able to use it/execute my program? Because, I'd like for my consumers to be able to: add/change the style of the program, add/change code in the program to make it better for their own installation of their program, etc. Things that will only affect their installation, still without letting them redistribute it.</p> <p>Thank you for your time.</p> <p>Sincerely,</p> <p>Raymond Nuñez </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/49#post-115 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:12:55 +0000 Ano 115@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Ah ok thank you. Than I´ll just use the examples for a beta. A proffessional will recreate the soundfile with his own instruments and tools. I guess that won´t be a problem because the samples I use are only tones like A, C etc. Nobody can held an overall license on a single tone? =P </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/49#post-114 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:24:49 +0000 mlinksva 114@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Ano, sorry, not that I know of -- unless your use is so small or so transformative that it would be considered <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use</a> in which case you don't need a license at all. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/49#post-110 Wed, 13 Aug 2008 06:43:17 +0000 Ano 110@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>The problem is that I have some time pressure on the project. There is no time to search for another source under different license. The samples that I have right now are really what I need for working.</p> <p>I know that I could ask the creators for the license, but there is no time for it now and somehow it´s an unsure thing for me. I don´t know how I can be sure that he gave the rights to me.</p> <p>That´s why I´m asking if there is a way of legalization or if mixing together things give me a new license with new rights, wich maybe allow ads. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/49#post-109 Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:07:19 +0000 mlinksva 109@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Re which work, the work that is a derivative of the sampling+ work, ie the audio itself, not your software.</p> <p>If you're creating an ad you may want to look for something licensed under BY or BY-SA (but maybe not this unless you're willing to put your whole ad under BY-SA) or in the public domain, or negotiate a private permission. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/49#post-108 Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:01:00 +0000 Ano 108@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hello,</p> <p>I searched through the faq, but didn´t really found an answer for my problem. I got the task to create a sound logo for our commercial project. Yeah it will get even tv and radio ads so there will be a commercial use of the sound logo.</p> <p>I would like to create the sound logo with samples from a website wich hosts the works under the CC - Sampling Plus 1.0 license.<br /> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/" rel="nofollow">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/</a></p> <p>Ok so I take two or more sound effects and mix, alter them together. Both sounds are under this license. In the end I created a new work, so I can put it under a new license like "reserved all rights"? The soundlogo will consit after a bunch of instrumental notes wich where all published under this license. I don´t only let them "play in a row" I also heavly overlap two or more (so I mix something new out of it).</p> <p>First of there are two things unclear for me:</p> <p># You may not use this work to advertise for or promote anything but the work you create from it.</p> <p>Wich work? An audio work or is my product allowed. I programed in a team on the product!</p> <p># For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page. </p> <p>#Attribute</p> <p>Hell. How should I do those two things? In every commercial tv ad? On the products website? I don´t have something like credits in the program for sure. The only thing that lies under a CC license would be just this soundlogo.</p> <p>I´m really thankful for some help. thx in advice </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>