http://forum.creativecommons.org/ CC Forum Tag: rights - Recent Posts en Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:11:11 +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/185#post-359 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:09:51 +0000 Yagan Kiely 359@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Public Domain differs from country to country. Many US PD works will be PD in Europe also.</p> <p>A question: did Edith Piaf WRITE those songs? If she did I find it hard to believe it is PD anywhere in the world.</p> <p>US PD is special because if a work is first published 75 years ago, it's PD. Not so in the EU. If memory serves it's purpose, EU (mostly - WWs in France etc. change this sometimes) is 70 years after death.</p> <p>If she is just the performer and not the composer then copyright lasts 50 years after death (I believe currently, might change in future) so, most songs will be PD in both the EU and the US.</p> <p>Regards,<br /> Yagan </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/185#post-354 Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:16:36 +0000 paolocasalis 354@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi everyone,<br /> I'm an italian filmaker and I would like to use a couple of Edith Piaf's songs from this collection - <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/EdithPiaf-31-40" rel="nofollow">http://www.archive.org/details/EdithPiaf-31-40</a> - in my indapendent documentary movie.<br /> I've seen the type of license - <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/-" rel="nofollow">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/-</a> is only valid for the U.S.<br /> Can someone please tell me something about using this type of license in europe?<br /> In a few words:can I use these songs also in europe or not?<br /> thanks<br /> paolo<br /> <a href="http://www.unpassodopoaltro.it" rel="nofollow">http://www.unpassodopoaltro.it</a> (movie dedicated website) </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/24#post-60 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:33:23 +0000 jam 60@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>i just uploaded rawmedia content to <a href="http://rawmedia.blip.tv" rel="nofollow">http://rawmedia.blip.tv</a> allows use of creative commons and has great sharing functions. </p> <p>please also check out the idea of <a href="http://www.rawmedia.tv" rel="nofollow">http://www.rawmedia.tv</a> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/9#post-55 Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:23:33 +0000 agarton 55@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>from my experience, it was possible to CC license a review sample of album tracks, but not the entire track. we use CC at secession records to provide some rights reserved to sample tracks, but all rights reserved on the entire album (unless otherwise stated).</p> <p>-ag. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/24#post-54 Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:20:06 +0000 agarton 54@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>i've heard talk of CC and YouTube discussions for some time now. </p> <p>in terms of rights management options for screen practitioners, the best i've seen thus far is what's on offer at <a href="http://engagemedia.org/" rel="nofollow">http://engagemedia.org/</a>. although they're not in the business of generating royalties, their rights management tool(s) are very good.</p> <p>and what of Vimeo and any emerging others? in interest in these hills?</p> <p>-ag. </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/24#post-51 Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:41:00 +0000 jam 51@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Youtube pay royalties on the amount of youtube plays.</p> <p>if the creative commons licenses were integrated into part of the upload system (through the request of subscriber) public spaces could use these works without that space having to pay the rights organizations for use of content. </p> <p>its possible to put a link, yet a link to a license that can be changed at anytime is not much use to the user of that content.</p> <p>does youtube have plans to incorporate the license, if so when? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/15#post-32 Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:33:56 +0000 jam 32@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>a facebook group exists tittled creative commons explained.</p> <p>join and contribute links and ideas.<br /> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5400418785" rel="nofollow">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5400418785</a> </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/14#post-31 Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:10:32 +0000 jam 31@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Hi Just wanted to let people know about this <a href="http://wwww.ownterms.org" rel="nofollow">http://wwww.ownterms.org</a></p> <p>this is a site about licenses and putting your own models forward and making agreements available to all.</p> <p>So far i put these ideas forward to the wiki.<br /> <a href="http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/contract+2" rel="nofollow">http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/contract+2</a><br /> <a href="http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/contract+1" rel="nofollow">http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/contract+1</a><br /> <a href="http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/mecanical" rel="nofollow">http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/mecanical</a><br /> <a href="http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/Alone" rel="nofollow">http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/Alone</a><br /> <a href="http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/ZERO" rel="nofollow">http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/ZERO</a><br /> <a href="http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/Festival" rel="nofollow">http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/Festival</a><br /> <a href="http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/Artist" rel="nofollow">http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/Artist</a><br /> <a href="http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/hafhp" rel="nofollow">http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/hafhp</a></p> <p>Please get involved in this colaboration</p> <p>the site looks to be partly inspired by this quote.</p> <p>Woody Guthrie including the following note in a 1930s songbook distributed to listeners who wanted the words to his recordings had the following message:</p> <p>'This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin' it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ours, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do.' </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/11#post-20 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:56:08 +0000 jam 20@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>I create only content i make for live events (I plan to join ASCAP). I wondered if i could license my live gig under a creative commons attribution license. I have contacted AKM (rights organization is Austria) and asked them about this possibility. Their response was:</p> <p>AKM say: For the moment I can only give you general information about the licensing of public performances by AKM: (think AKM is the same as any other rights organization in Europe.)</p> <p>If an organizer maintaines that all music titles that will be performed (live or by “mechanical” means, like for instance CD, MP3, DVD, etc.) are written by composers and lyricists that are not a member of AKM or sister society of AKM (e.g. OSA, GEMA, etc.) the organizer has to send a music program (music title list incl. names of the authors/arrangers) to AKM. AKM then checks the list. If none of the right owners of the performed titles (composer, lyricist, arranger, music publisher, etc.) is a member of AKM or a foreign sister society AKM does not ask for payment of an AKM-fee. Moreover there has to be said that AKM also collects the fees for other domestic rights organizations, like for instance the copyright society for authors of literature (Literar Mechana). So if a program only or also contains works of authors of literature being a member of Literar Mechana or a foreign sister society of Literar Mechana a licence fee has to be paid to AKM.<br /> If an organizer would maintain that all titles of the programm performed are under a creative commons license the procedure of checking would be the same as said above.</p> <p>The organizer of the event would be the performing artist in the instance of the CC license? </p> <p>Can a member of ASCAP license their music under a creative commons license to live venues in Europe free? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/10#post-19 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:35:14 +0000 jam 19@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>It's not a problem for an artist to join ASCAP outside the US. All foreign artists have to do is fill in a US tax form and send it in with their application. They are not able to join online as they don't have a social security number.</p> <p>-I just wanted to make this point to artists in other countries, although its not likely that you are going to be kicked out of a rights organization for using a cc license, being a member of a rights organization outside the US means that there is a license conflict. </p> <p>-when content is used for community gatherings, if your content is registered with a rights organizations and your using a CC license and your registered with a rights organization outside the US, the rights organizations might make the gathering pay.</p> <p>John Buckman from magnitune started this node on the icommons site after last years summit.</p> <p><a href="http://www.icommons.org/nodes/project-dac" rel="nofollow">http://www.icommons.org/nodes/project-dac</a></p> <p>basic idea from node: Create an informative Web site explaining the rights and restrictions of each collecting society contract. Let musicians know they have options, and get musicians to lobby societies to change.</p> <p>I just figure that a lot of questions exist around this topic.</p> <p>Why are CC leads not spending more time working with organizations that regulate monopolies- pushing for more liberal licensing platforms for artists and changing vote conditions for boards??? </p> http://forum.creativecommons.org/topic/9#post-17 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:21:39 +0000 jam 17@http://forum.creativecommons.org/ <p>Recently on the CC mail list a record label asked about the possibility of being able to use the creative commons license, the problem was that the label only had the rights to use the recordings. the label was concerned about having to pay fees for giving music away for free.</p> <p>any other ways? the responses on the mailing lists seemed broad</p> <p>also i wonder how members of ASCAP and BMI differ when it comes to the same problem.</p> <p>is it possible to answer this question from the point of view of ASCAP BMI member and then also from the point of view of rights organizations outside the US?</p> <p><a href="http://www.iarts.cc" rel="nofollow">http://www.iarts.cc</a> </p>