http://forum.creativecommons.org/ CC Forum Tag: publishing - Recent Posts en Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:48:28 +0000 http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/34#post-84 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:04:30 +0000 nkinkade 84@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>The BY-SA licenses don't have a commercial restriction. For the SA (ShareAlike) licenses the thing to keep in mind is whether or not your resulting work is a derivative or adaptation, in which case the resulting work would need to be released under the same license. However, if you determine that your intended usage only falls into the category of a "Collectionm," then you are only obligated to properly attribute the work. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/34#post-70 Sat, 14 Jun 2008 22:42:08 +0000 jmtarjan 70@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hello. I am about to self-publish a novel. The book will be sold through a publishing service that will sell physical copies of my book via print-on-demand, and also through PDF digital downloads. (I will receive a (small) percentage of the revenue.)</p> <p>Here's the issue: I am designing my own cover and would like to use an image I found on Wikipedia, posted with the CC-BY-SA-2.0-AT license. I would like to use a part of this image on a part of my cover, and am trying to understand the extent to which I can use this image "commercially." I can certainly put an attribute to the author within the first few pages of the book (or on the back cover). I could also make a digital version of the cover freely available through my own website (and state that fact within the book). But obviously I can't give the entire book away for free (at least not physical copies).</p> <p>So my question is: From a publishing perspective, what constitutes valid commercial use (if any) with the above license?</p> <p>Thanks for any feedback on this matter. </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>