http://forum.creativecommons.org/ CC Forum Tag: music - Recent Posts en Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:14:48 +0000 http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/182#post-554 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:44:29 +0000 rgraham 554@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Just to clarify, does this mean that you are relasing the lyrics and score under CC, but in doing so don't want anybody to use the lyrics and score to make studio recordings, OR you are releasing the lyrics and score under CC, and it's your own studio recordings that you want to retain full copyright on? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/182#post-541 Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:13:55 +0000 osorio 541@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>RE 'some commercial rights reserved'</p> <p>CC wiki link:</p> <p><a href="http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_does_the_Creative_Commons_.E2.80.9CSome_Rights_Reserved.E2.80.9D_button_mean.3F_What_does_a_Creative_Commons_license_do.3F" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_does_the_Creative_Commons_.E2.80.9CSome_Rights_Reserved.E2.80.9D_button_mean.3F_What_does_a_Creative_Commons_license_do.3F</a> </p> 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/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/178#post-498 Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:09:03 +0000 Oxygen Sensor 498@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>the increase in fees is ridiculous! This fitness music genre is ripe for entrepreneurs. I wonder if there is a fitness/gym version of Muzak - the ubiquitous elevator music remade for gyms. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/182#post-476 Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:30:57 +0000 diner dash game 476@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Is there even a 'some commercial rights reserved'? I'm not really aware of it. I do know that there's an Attribution Non-Commercial, Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike and Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/178#post-466 Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:38:23 +0000 Anonymous 466@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>This is an opportunity I thought for Creative Commons artists to approach Fitness program providers, such as Les Mills and offer their work. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/182#post-455 Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:19:11 +0000 Ladies clothing 455@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I have the same question. To my knowledge, commercial rights reserved mean permission is granted to reproduce any or all of this page for individual or non-profit institutional internal use as long as credit is given. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/178#post-434 Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:33:55 +0000 Early Learning Toys 434@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>It will be interesting to see how this pans out, because I can see the majority of smaller gyms not even changing the music they play.</p> <p>How the PPCA plans on enforcing it will be interesting indeed... </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/182#post-411 Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:13:36 +0000 Insurance Leads 411@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Can you give me details about the 'some commercial rights reserved' attribute? I don't fully understand. </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/178#post-384 Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:53:06 +0000 Jacket 384@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>This is an opportunity I thought for Creative Commons artists to approach Fitness program providers, such as Les Mills and offer their work.<br /> The Les Mills latest CD offering had only 50% PPCA controlled works - if that becomes 100% then Creative Commons licenced music may have a new market.</p> <p> I agree that the increase in fees is off the scale, and the fitness industry would be better off approaching Artists directly! Creative Commons is being promoted by the PPCA putting its fees up!</p> <p>Jack </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/182#post-363 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:00:25 +0000 osorio 363@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I think you may need to utilize the 'some commercial rights reserved' attribute in your license agreement. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/178#post-357 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:50:12 +0000 Yagan Kiely 357@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Or they will merely use copyright free music, or live music.</p> <p>The increase in fees is laughable, especially when virtually none of the money ends up in the Artist's hands. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/182#post-351 Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:13:54 +0000 gomi 351@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I would like to license the lyrics and score of my music under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 for audio of live performances, and retain full copyright on studio recordings.</p> <p>What is the best way to do this, keeping in mind that I don't want to leave any room for confusion. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/178#post-346 Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:24:39 +0000 Jacket 346@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi all,<br /> interesting issue in the Australian fitness industry - local music rights controller Phonographic Performance Company of Australia (PPCA) are wanting to increase the fees they charge the industry.</p> <p>If however the industry or even a particular gym simply chose instead to use appropriately CC licenced music, possibly even opting to pay some fees direct to the artists they have downloaded could provide them an out.<br /> The proposal will see an increase in fees from the industry go from $1.5 million a year to $100 million a year!</p> <p><a href="http://www.taxonfitness.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.taxonfitness.org</a></p> <p>I immediately thought of Creative Commons artists...</p> <p>Jack@! </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/170#post-335 Sun, 24 May 2009 00:08:29 +0000 jegenes 335@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Not sure how to explain this, but here goes:</p> <p>I've just released a new CD (my own label), and am a BMI member as my PRO. The album is registered with ISRC codes, etc, through BMI. </p> <p>I'm creating a Remix site, where people will be able to download the songs in their raw formats (ie: individual tracks for each song: think, "Nine Inch Nails"). I have remixed the master recordings especially for this. Each song will contain 6-10 tracks (instruments, vocals, etc) for the user to remix. (For those who don't know, these individual tracks are called "Stems") </p> <p>I want to offer the stems under a CC license (BY-NC-SA), but still want my original release (and the songwriting) to be under the commercial BMI license. I see the remix stems as being different property than the album itself. </p> <p>What problems, if any, do you see in this scenario? </p> <p>--john </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/112#post-242 Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:50:44 +0000 canton 242@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi! I've recently started curating / editing a collection of fantastic 100% creative commons licensed electronic music tracks here:</p> <p><a href="http://sampleswap.org/mp3/creative-commons/free-music.php" rel="nofollow">http://sampleswap.org/mp3/creative-commons/free-music.php</a></p> <p>Can anyone suggest ways to make it easy for search engines and such to find this content, aside from regular old SEO techniques?</p> <p>For example, is there a value in making an RSS feed with some special creative commons tags that help CC search engines find this content?</p> <p>Or are there some specific libraries I should manually submit this URL to?</p> <p>Thanks very much for any advice. I'm really excited about this huge collection of CC-licensed music, and I'd love to know how to get it more exposure.</p> <p>- canton </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/78#post-178 Sun, 05 Oct 2008 01:34:05 +0000 Mikelo 178@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I'll try those places. Much thanks! </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/78#post-175 Sat, 04 Oct 2008 18:29:15 +0000 mlinksva 175@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Sadly, I don't know of one, but it sounds like a great idea.</p> <p>I'd ask on the likes of Jamendo, Dogmazic, ccMixter, etc. Maybe one is working on such a thing or would take it on. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/78#post-173 Sat, 04 Oct 2008 15:28:02 +0000 Mikelo 173@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Howdy,</p> <p>Is there a list or directory of CC-licensed music videos? In particular, I'm looking for BY and BY-ND licensed videos. Can anyone help me?</p> <p>Thanks,</p> <p>Mike </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/61#post-145 Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:20:22 +0000 mlinksva 145@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>You have to comply with the terms of the BY-SA license, assuming you're using the music under those terms.</p> <p>I see no reason you couldn't sell in stores, but iTunes may be a problem as it uses DRM and CC licenses do not allow DRM if it restricts the freedoms granted by the CC licenses.</p> <p>IANAL and this is not legal advice, of course... </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/61#post-138 Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:57:00 +0000 Adisa 138@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>can I sell Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 music that I find, on Itunes, cd baby and in stores? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/60#post-135 Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:17:48 +0000 mlinksva 135@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <blockquote><p>My understanding of commercial use is if I use a creative commons NC in an ad to sell or promote something.</p></blockquote> <p><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode" rel="nofollow">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode</a> says exactly the following "You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation."</p> <blockquote><p>I need conformation that I can use NC music in a non commercial way on an ad supported site.</p></blockquote> <p>You're not going to get hard and fast confirmation here, because legal advice is not dispensed here. The best available guide is a draft, see <a href="http://wiki.creativecommons.org/NC" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.creativecommons.org/NC</a></p> <p>Note that you always have the options of using music released under a CC license without the NC term -- see <a href="http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Commercial_music" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Commercial_music</a> for some pointers -- or of asking for permission from NC licensors. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/60#post-134 Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:58:27 +0000 Adisa 134@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I have looked through the forums and I find conflicting or incomplete answers. I want to submit my vocal and submit some of my instrumentals then make any derivative work available on my website for free. My site is ad supported. I will be not be selling the music. My understanding of commercial use is if I use a creative commons NC in an ad to sell or promote something. I need conformation that I can use NC music in a non commercial way on an ad supported site. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/57#post-126 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 05:13:31 +0000 mlinksva 126@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Magnatune only streams music on the Magnatune label. Presumably they have the rights to do so. There MAY be different interplay between CC NC and CC non-NC licenses and streaming royalties. I really don't understand these issues to be honest. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will weigh in. </p>