Mixing Mode
skip
Home » Forums » Bugs » license assignment

license assignment

lo tag blanco
.
permalink   Mon, Jul 3, 2006 @ 8:32 PM
i think something might be wrong with the way cc licenses are automatically assigned to tracks, but it might just be my ignorance…

1) in the choquett mix i just uploaded, i used a kcentric blurb. he’s assigned an Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 to the track that i used, but when i uploaded my mix i had the option of choosing the attribution license… i thought non-commercial was inherited? or did i get that wrong…

2) i assigned the same license (attribution-non commercial) to my remix, but when i downloaded the mp3 and looked at the song info, the license assigned is the attribution license:

2006 lo tag blanco Licensed to the public under http://creativecommons.org/... Verify at http://ccmixter.org/media/f...

sorry if this is just a misunderstanding on my part, or has already been discussed somewhere else…
fourstones
.
permalink   Mon, Jul 3, 2006 @ 9:43 PM
hmmm, something about you and that remix form ;)

ok, do me a favor and don’t touch the file or any of the attributes (name, tags, etc.) I’ll take a look at this later tonight.
Aamu
.
permalink   Sun, Dec 31, 2006 @ 1:31 PM
I see a lot of remixes that are licensed under sampling+ although some of the sources are by-nc(-sa). This seems like a very critical bug.

Some recent examples of remixes that violate a source’s license:
East of Vienna (and many more that use Fort Minor samples)
Prayer for Iraq (and many more using Magnatune sample pool)

This seems to be related with the sampling+, as all the remixes that correctly list sources have at least one sampling+ source, which somehow seems to override by-nc or by-nc-sa in sources. (I haven’t spotted any nc-sampling+ derivated remixes released under sampling+, so I’m just guessing there are none.)

I flagged these two songs, as they clearly violate the terms of the samples.
 
.
permalink   Aamu Sun, Dec 31, 2006 @ 1:41 PM
Quote: AamuI flagged these two songs

I just flagged a bunch more. I hope they went correct… this seems as a huge problem, and I think that some sort of automatic relicense check is required to all sampling+ remixes.
 
.
permalink   fourstones Sun, Dec 31, 2006 @ 5:02 PM
yup, hopefully I fixed the ones you mentioned (and a few dozens others that suffered from the same bug)

This fix is a quick retro fix but the underlying bug is still there. I’ll be fixing that after the 1st.

Regarding Magnatune there is one case you should now that is NOT a bug: even though those are all marked as SA, I got special dispensation from the label to re-lic the remixes as nc-sampling+

Thanks again,
VS
 
.
permalink   Aamu Sun, Dec 31, 2006 @ 6:47 PM
Quote: fourstonesRegarding Magnatune there is one case you should now that is NOT a bug: even though those are all marked as SA, I got special dispensation from the label to re-lic the remixes as nc-sampling+

There is another case, not related to magnatune: some samples and a cappellas were relicensed when we tried and found out that the sampling-licenses are not the best choice for this community. Brilliant Day (Vocals) is a good example: it used to be sampling+ but is currently by-nc, and there are legal non-nc remixes of that track.

BTW, how is that change possible? I thought only less restrictive license changes were allowed on this site. I, for example, did download that a cappella when it was released under sampling+, but wouldn’t be allowed to publish a remix here under sampling+ unless not atributed her via the site engine (or exploited the bug). Or maybe contacting admin would work, I guess :)
 
.
permalink   fourstones Sun, Dec 31, 2006 @ 6:58 PM
Quote: legal non-nc remixes

shouldn’t be

Quote: AamuOr maybe contacting admin would work, I guess :)

that’s it ;)

Happy new year..
VS