http://forum.creativecommons.org/ CC Forum Tag: model - Recent Posts en Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:03:30 +0000 http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/131#post-442 Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:07:40 +0000 Ljone 442@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Saw the sites for further information. The shows look promising....now waiting eagerly for it!! Thanks for the info </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/131#post-437 Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:47:56 +0000 Early Learning Toys 437@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Thanks for the info. Taking a look at the wetpaint site right now! </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/131#post-267 Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:54:03 +0000 Je_Suis_Barry 267@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>ZXZW, the Dutch festival for independent culture in Tilburg, has made its whole business model transparent through Internet. Everybody who thinks they can contribute something to the festival can have a say in the organization. </p> <p>With this development the organization asks input of everyone who feels committed to the festival, with the policy development and with new digital interactivity. The 'Social Festival Model', as the ZXZW-organization calls it, makes all processes of the festival open for discussion. Because of this open source mentality, all the subsidy applications, annual reports and marketing plans are made public and adjustable for fresh perspectives. The project is licensed with the Creative Commons' Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.</p> <p>Last year, ZXZW already opened up their own website. In a wiki-style way the audience could alter biographies and profiles of the artists. </p> <p>To make their business model public, the organization uses Wetpaint, a website to build your own online community. A profile is not necessary; anonymous use is also possible.</p> <p>On zxzw.wetpaint.com the complete business model of the organization can be found, including an explanation of the open source site.</p> <p>ZXZW is the annual celebration of independent culture. Expect a diverse view on indie culture as a whole, including music, contemporary dance, film and visual arts. We bring more than 200 cutting edge artist in an intimate context to an international audience. Black metal next to free jazz. Street art next to academic dance.</p> <p>ZXZW takes place from the 13th until 20st of September in the city of Tilburg in the Netherlands. From a squat to the mayors room. From music venue to museum.</p> <p>For more information: <a href="http://www.zxzw.nl" rel="nofollow">http://www.zxzw.nl</a>, <a href="http://www.zxzwblog.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.zxzwblog.com</a>, <a href="http://www.myspace.com/zxzwtilburg" rel="nofollow">http://www.myspace.com/zxzwtilburg</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/zxzwtilburg" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/zxzwtilburg</a> and <a href="http://www.last.fm/user/zxzw" rel="nofollow">http://www.last.fm/user/zxzw</a> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/19#post-45 Sun, 08 Jun 2008 08:48:21 +0000 gisle 45@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>The CC core licenses does not effect publicity rights.</p> <p>The proposed CCzero license includes an explicit waiver of all publicity rights that the affirmer holds: <a href="http://labs.creativecommons.org/licenses/zero/1.0/legalcode" rel="nofollow">http://labs.creativecommons.org/licenses/zero/1.0/legalcode</a> .</p> <p>However, this waiver is worthless. If you are to use a picture with a person in it that is available under CCzero, you have no way of knowing if the waiver applies to that person, as the waiver is made contingent of the affirmer having those rights in the first place. As a publisher, it is your duty to clear publicity rights before using photo. I would strongly advice any publisher against believing that the waiver in CCzero has any legal meaning whatsoever. </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> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/19#post-41 Sat, 07 Jun 2008 02:00:44 +0000 mlinksva 41@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>CC licenses don't effect publicity rights at all -- so if you'd need a model release to use a photo, you need a model release to use a CC licensed photo. For help on that, talk to a lawyer (I am not one) or read up on model releases generally -- there's one guide at <a href="http://www.danheller.com/model-release-primer.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.danheller.com/model-release-primer.html</a> (not being a lawyer I have no idea of how good it is). The same author has a series of somewhat critical but informative posts about CC on his site. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/19#post-39 Fri, 06 Jun 2008 23:03:21 +0000 question 39@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>-I'm confused by events between virgin mobile and creative commons. Am i able to license a picture with a person in it, with any type of Creative Commons license (without a model release) ? Do i need to have a model release for each person ? how do a i create a model release ? How can the user of a CC licensed picture be sure that the picture has one ? </p>