Hidden Treasures Remix Event
skip
Home » Forums » Features » Search by License

Search by License

creativelycommon
.
permalink   Sun, Dec 11, 2005 @ 3:35 AM
I think the ability to search by license would make sampling for the new contest a lot easier…
Sons of Korah
.
permalink   Sat, Dec 17, 2005 @ 7:59 AM
I agree. Not just for the contest, but in general, some of us are particular about the details of the licenses, so we only want to work with certain license specifications (e.g. Share-Alike)
fourstones
admin
.
permalink   Sat, Dec 17, 2005 @ 9:11 AM
Limiting the actual search by license is certainly a decent feature, I’ll toss it into the feature wish list.

Meanwhile you can Browse based on license

Start with ‘Browse Tags’ on the left
Click on ‘Turn System tags on’
(the actual link is http://ccmixter.org/media/t...)

Then click on tags like ‘attribution’ or ‘non_commercial’ etc.

we don’t use the Sampling or SA for new material here anymore because the lawyers told me that you can’t mix those sources in new remixes — which, uh, kind of defeats the purpose of a remix site.

But there are 100s of remixes that use Magnatune as source material and all of that is by-nc-sa.
zotz
.
permalink   Mon, Jan 30, 2006 @ 3:52 PM
Quote: Limiting the actual search by license is certainly a decent feature, I’ll toss it into the feature wish list.

Meanwhile you can Browse based on license

Start with ‘Browse Tags’ on the left
Click on ‘Turn System tags on’
(the actual link is http://ccmixter.org/media/t...)

then click on tags like ‘attribution’ or ‘non_commercial’ etc.

we don’t use the sampling or sa for new material here anymore because the lawyers told me that you can’t mix those sources in new remixes — which, uh, kind of defeats the purpose of a remix site.

but there are 100s of remixes that use magnatune as source material and all of that is by-nc-sa.


do i understand you to be saying that your lawyer told you that you can’t use by-sa material in a remix? that seems very strange to me. i don’t see why you couldn’t. it would just mean that the remix would also have to be by-sa. at least that’s how i figure it. could someone clarify?

btw, thanks for the hint on how to browse by license. i would like to have it so that you can specify the licenses you are interested in in your profile and then have the site only show you material that matches your interests.

all the best,

drew
———
Tings. A BY-SA novel written for NaNoWriMo 2005.
fourstones
admin
.
permalink   Mon, Jan 30, 2006 @ 4:14 PM
I am not a lawyer and anything I say in this or any other context should not be taken as legal advice or legal anything for that matter.

I would hope you can you use SA in remixes, I’ve put out dozens, including for commercial use.

my understanding is that sharealike limits what can and can not be "mixed" together — the term in that conversation was "licesne compatibility" (I think) — after that there was a decision to use the most flexible licenses possible on this site in order to prevent remixers from stumbling into "incompatible" (i.e. illegal) remixes. There are still major issues with the Sampling licensed content here on the site that we are still trying to work out a year after we started using them — the By and BY-NC choice is our way to keep things running as smoothly and simply as possible on the site.

Hope that helps,
VS
zotz
.
permalink   Mon, Jan 30, 2006 @ 7:19 PM
Quote: My understanding is that ShareAlike limits what can and can not be "mixed" together — the By and BY-NC choice is our way to keep things running as smoothly and simply as possible on the site.

Hope that helps,
VS


Share alike does limit things. It is a limit that I like though.

BY and BY-SA would be two that would work together just fine as well.

NC is in my humble opinion a very dangerous option. I have seen something recently indicating that a for profit concern can never legally use NC works no matter the commercial or non-commercial uses they put them to.

If thta is right, a band that is incorporated could never legall use NC works for any purpose if I catch what was being said.

all the best,

drew

ps. I don’t give legal advice either.
 
.
permalink   Mr_Yesterday Sat, Jan 12, 2019 @ 11:09 PM
zotz:

Not sure you still monitor the site but I am interested in your historical comment, as well as the (apparently settled?) debate in the cc community over what constitutes an “open” license. I suspect the decision to discard (cc)BY-SA in favor of (cc)BY-NC has had significant consequences for the project, and not merely in terms of what users choose to contribute or re-use.

As an early ccHost implementer I wrestled with some of this myself but reached a different conclusion. My aging, unsupported ccHost instance leaves the would-be user responsible for vetting license type compatibility. The site never really took off but the experience was…educational. Going it alone? Not advised, certainly not if you lack time and development resources.

The ccc and ccMixter arguments were apparently settled well before my time here, but I had a few spare cycles and was searching the fora for license keywords. I thought I’d carve a few words in this bench even if you aren’t around to read them. Go in peace.

Y
 
.
permalink   Admiral Bob Tue, Jan 29, 2019 @ 8:19 AM
Since the site’s aim, really, was to start the biggest band in the world with the best musicians, we had to have license choices that were compatible…. or you couldn’t legally remix things. For instance, if you took a sample with CC-BY-SA, there’d be a whole bunch of samples that were just off limits to you. You couldn’t use them. You’d be stuck with CC-0, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA. Everything else would be incompatible.

That really wasn’t compatible with the aim of getting the best singers belting to the compositions of the best composers, remixed by the best remixers. We want musicians to delight in what they find and toss whatever they want together…. not to be lawyers first, and musicians second. :)
 
.
permalink   Mr_Yesterday Tue, Jan 29, 2019 @ 11:34 PM
I have a quibble with these explanations of why SA was dropped, in light of the fact that NC was retained. As discussed on the creative commons website, NC licenses are not considered “open” today, because they restrict future use.

The problem of “mixing” SA and NC works could have been resolved by dropping support for NC instead. I opine the three choices you mention are preferable to the three we are “stuck with” now: CC0, CC-BY, and CC-BY-NC.

My principal objection to NC is that the restriction can be added in remix. I believe strongly that NC added to a derivative work diminishes any included CC-BY content by overriding author intent. A CC-BY author’s only recourse is to add NC at the outset—a poor option for those who find NC mean-spirited—or to post elsewhere.
 
.
permalink   Admiral Bob Mon, Feb 11, 2019 @ 8:21 AM
I guess the site takes a “creator first” point of view. A lot of our contributors would not be willing to foreclose on the potential commercial worth of their offerings (which for some of them are considerable.)

The number of creators at the site, from what I’ve seen, who are married to the idea that their license must be viral is likely dwarfed by our users who prefer to preserve the potential commerciality of what they’ve done. As someone who’s done CC-BY uploads, I’m firmly in the BSD rather than Gnu camp, myself. My CC-BY offering is a gift, and I’m not willing to forcibly constrain or expand the generosity of the giving of any of my remix successors, who have put in efforts of their own.

I can’t foresee a change, given the culture of the community, and the needs of the remix tree.
 
.
permalink   Mr_Yesterday Mon, Feb 11, 2019 @ 11:27 AM
First, thanks so much for your demonstrative CC-BY remix! And for an explanation I can “buy”: that -NC suited the prospective interests of professional users, while -SA might not have done.

Both restrictions have valid uses in the broader ccc. I just feel they are often applied needlessly, and that -SA is the better defense against the corporate media hegemony preventing a more successful creative community in the US. (Though individuals can suck, too: on the parallel UK color debate, for example, I sympathize with Semple, not Kapoor ;-)).

So I am mostly happy to license the work I do post on ccMixter under CC-BY. But I just also do -SA work by serious intent, so I can’t work here as wholeheartedly as I might like.
 
.
permalink   Mr_Yesterday Mon, Feb 11, 2019 @ 11:50 AM
But back on the feature request topic! I do think a more obvious way to reach out to members to discuss licensing and alternate use might be useful, especially where commercial restrictions are in place. Currently, one can bounce between the classic pages, beta, and digg to try and figure this out, and become pretty confused. Of course, user contact opt-in should be retained (assuming Allow anonymous contact actually still works).

Perhaps this only makes sense under the aegis of a broader homologation of the site, a dream facing its own cultural hurdles.