can a CC license work for a live performance?
I thought to have something like this written on a postcard that i would send out with my promo to venues.
"the live performance of this artist is licensed under a creative commons attribution license. For details of the license goto http://creativecommons.org/license/by/2.5/au for details of the content performed by the artist goto http://www.setlist.cc"
would this work?
From the US Copyright Office website:
"Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works."
That leaves me to believe that you can't copyright live performances since they're not a fixed medium. Since CC works on top of copyright law, that means you wouldn't be able to apply a CC license to them either. However, copyright would apply to the recordings of the live concert, so you could CC license those instead. I know that Fabricatorz (http://fabricatorz.com/) does stuff with live recordings and CC licensing. Maybe you can send them an email about what you're trying to accomplish and see if they have any helpful info.
IANAL, so I could be wrong!
In Europe live music performance in some countries carries an extra fee, there are mechanical aspects to the use of content as well as the use of the song. When someone sings a Bob Dylan song in a public space and that artist is a member of a rights organization, the live performance carries a mechanical aspect, that the artist might or might not be able to collect, depending on the rights organization in that particular country. The publisher of the song is also entitled to collect for the live performance. Artists are able to put in live performance returns when they play music that they wrote themselves and collect a royalty for use.
If i license the live songs i create under a CC license, then the song and my mechanical performance of that song is free to that space. Although most spaces pay a blanket license for use of content, in Austria and many other countries live music costs an extra fee (depends on how many people can fit into the space).
Music is seen like hot water, everyone pays, if its recorded or live. The laws are different in the US as the rights organizations don't hold the exclusive rights to the voice of member artists.
backticks
thoughts...
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...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamtea/2912038406/
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?
# We have the right to be compensated for the use of our creative works, and share in the revenues that they generate.
# We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free.
food for though, maybe?
AKM response to me issuing a CC license...
AKM see all art from all artists that have put their content with a rights organization as exclusive, within the boarders of Austria.
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.
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?
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?
Seems like AKM and partners Gema, make the rules up as they go? I can do that as well though can't I?
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...
http://flickr.com/photos/jamtea/2912038406/ .
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.
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
You must log in to post.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is
licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License