http://forum.creativecommons.org/ CC Forum Tag: publisher - Recent Posts en Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:20:11 +0000 http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/181#post-374 Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:25:20 +0000 Metatee 374@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi<br /> I am very much interested in the same topic, except I am working on a videoclip which contains photos with a cc license. Is it possible to use fotos with a cc-by-sa license together with fotos issued under a cc-by-nc-sa license in the same derivative work, i.e. the videoclip?<br /> cheers, Jo </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/181#post-369 Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:37:29 +0000 levro 369@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hello,<br /> thanks for your reply, Osorio.<br /> I am sorry that I have perhaps not expressed myself clearly. All photos that I use in the book are allowed for commercial purposes but some of them (20-30) also have a share-alike (SA) license. I am unsure if this makes my book a share-alike product as well? I presume that my publisher does not want that. The SA license says: "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute ***the resulting work*** only under the same, similar or a compatible license." The big question is: what falls under the term ***resulting work***: the specific photo I have used (and perhaps changed) or the entire book although the photos are only a very small part of it?</p> <p>Kind regards &#38; I would be grateful for further advice, Steffen </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/181#post-366 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 08:36:44 +0000 osorio 366@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>How many noncommercial/share-alike CC pictures are there in your work? If you've put the time and effort into placing credits for each of these and you needed then as relevant material for your publication then it may be worth contacting the photographic artists and get first hand permissions just to cover your base. In doing so this may protect your work from lawsuit's not that I think that may happen, It's just a good precaution to take. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/181#post-350 Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:20:05 +0000 levro 350@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hello,</p> <p>I am about to publish a scientific book (psychology) via a regular publisher which uses many creative commons pictures that allow usage for commercial purposes. Many of those pictures have a “noncommerical/share-alike” license and I am a bit unclear what this means for my book. At the end of my book every single artist is certainly credited with his/her name and the title of the picture. I also make clear that many of the pictures are used under a “share alike” license. However, what does this mean for me? Can for example reader request that I hand them the original photos or copy pages? Does this license make the entire book a share-alike product (my publisher might have objections against this). I am sorry if these questions sound stupid. I have really tried hard to answer them myself but I am not a legal expert and want to be on the safe side.</p> <p>Kind regards, Levro </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>