Ghost Notes Remix Event
skip
Home » Forums » Help » Question About Licenses?

Question About Licenses?

admin
admin
.
permalink   Tue, Jul 4, 2006 @ 8:25 PM
While it’s true that ccMixter is owned and operated by Creative Commons, we here at ccMixter are not lawyers and in fact, the lawyers at CC have told the ccMixter staff that we are not allowed to dispense legal advice. And quite frankly we were glad to hear it. If you think about it, legal advice carries risk and a remix site where people can barely agree on the proper EQ setting on a kick track is hardly an adequate resource for legal consultation.

We heed the directive from the law staff CC in a very narrow fashion so most questions about what samples are legal to post to this site and what constitutes a “commercial” context when using music found on this site are going to be deferred.

The good news is that there are established online communities that are staffed by CC and ready to discuss all kind of issues related to licenses. You can find them all at the Creative Commons discussion area.

So in summation: If you have a question or comment about music or ccMixter itself, you’re in the right place. Questions about CC licenses should be directed to the CC discussion lists.

Thanks,
VS
THNK_SOON
.
permalink   Thu, Nov 23, 2006 @ 2:11 PM
ok..
i’m still not shure if i’m on the right spot, but anyway.
did a little remix for the Noite de Carnaval-Cibelle remix-contest.
I want to put my remix on a myspace-page, so..what do I need to do?

regards,
soon
jamyoung
.
permalink   Fri, Jun 6, 2008 @ 10:36 AM
if you have a question about CC it might be worth posting it on the NEW CC forum link
Resident76
.
permalink   Thu, Feb 24, 2011 @ 7:58 AM
hi im very new to this , but can i use non commercial music in a trailer for a graphic novel.
 
.
permalink   Admiral Bob Thu, Feb 24, 2011 @ 9:17 AM
While I’m not a lawyer, and can’t give you any legal advice, the basic meaning of a non-commercial license is that you can use the music to promote something you’re not making money from.

So if the graphic novel is a webzine or PDF that you’re not charging for, or you’re printing the novel and not charging people for the copies, then you could do that.

If the trailer is an ad for something you’re planning to sell, then you’d probably have to use music licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. (CCMixter has a lot of that, too.)

http://dig.ccmixter.org/fre...
 
.
permalink   Resident76 Thu, Feb 24, 2011 @ 9:46 AM
thanks
 
.
permalink   Clarence Simpson Fri, Feb 25, 2011 @ 9:55 AM
I’ll add something to what AB said: you can always ask. If you find a non-commercial song that you really want to use and your graphic novel is a commercial project, just contact the producer. They may be willing to grant you permission for free depending on the nature of your project or maybe you can come to a reasonable arrangement in terms of compensation.
 
.
permalink   fluffy Sat, Mar 22, 2014 @ 2:00 PM
Quote: Clarence SimpsonI’ll add something to what AB said: you can always ask. If you find a non-commercial song that you really want to use and your graphic novel is a commercial project, just contact the producer. They may be willing to grant you permission for free depending on the nature of your project or maybe you can come to a reasonable arrangement in terms of compensation.
Yep, people always forget that CC is a blanket granting of permissions, but is also non-exclusive. It’s just saying “if you want to use it for A, B or C you don’t have to ask me. You can still ask me if you want to use it for D or Q.”
mandthedband
.
permalink   Fri, Aug 12, 2011 @ 2:24 AM
What about using samples that are said to be public domain or CC and that are not on ccmixter or related sites? E.g. I’ve found http://soundbible.com/1227-... can I trust the “public domain” claim and use in a remix here?
xgipper
.
permalink   Sun, Jan 22, 2012 @ 3:49 AM
Hi
Hope this is the right place - excuse newbness.
So I want to know whether it’s OK to include tracks in a live stream from http://dig.ccmixter.org/fre... in ‘free for commercial use’ section? I am testing out a streaming service and want some good tracks to use to test it all out, in between some voice recordings I already have.
Thanks a mill for any help
 
.
permalink   SackJo22 Sun, Jan 22, 2012 @ 9:56 AM
As long as artists are given attribution per license terms, you are free to use the music. In a live stream situation, this could mean either posting credits on the web page where the stream is hosted, and/or a voice over announcement as we do in our podcasts.
 
.
permalink   xgipper Mon, Jan 23, 2012 @ 1:57 AM
Quote: SackJo22As long as artists are given attribution per license terms, you are free to use the music. In a live stream situation, this could mean either posting credits on the web page where the stream is hosted, and/or a voice over announcement as we do in our podcasts.
Thanks. Yes I set up a page linkable from the live player with a list of tracks and credits. It is a stream rather than a podcast, however. I take it this makes no difference then.
 
.
permalink   Snowflake Thu, Jan 26, 2012 @ 11:32 AM
Streaming is fine as long as you use CC-BY tracks (exclude CC-BY-NC) and Attribute ALL contributing artists for each track. A page with links to each track would likely suffice as the remix history would thereby be accessible and all contributing artists are listed there. The best practice, however, is to list all contributing artists AND link to each song’s source page. Let us know where we can listen!
KungFu
.
permalink   Tue, Feb 14, 2012 @ 11:34 AM
Can I change the type of license for my work (an a Capella in the public domain) to allow commercial work?

Cheers :)
 
.
permalink   Clarence Simpson Thu, Feb 16, 2012 @ 8:27 AM
Unless I misunderstand your question, a work in the public domain is already allowed for use in commercial projects.
 
.
permalink   KungFu Fri, Feb 17, 2012 @ 7:12 AM
What I meant was is there any way to change the license once it has been submitted? I submitted a piece that I intended to allow commercial work from but I mis-tagged it. Either way I found the place to choose it so it won’t be a problem from now on I was just wondering about the old file.
Thanks for the reply though :)
Cheers!
 
.
permalink   Clarence Simpson Sat, Feb 18, 2012 @ 5:20 PM
I’m pretty sure you would need an admin to do that for you. I would try contacting snowflake or Admiral Bob.
 
.
permalink   Admiral Bob Sat, Feb 18, 2012 @ 6:07 PM
Which one is it… Oh Shenandoah? Let me know and I will change it for you.
 
.
permalink   KungFu Tue, Feb 21, 2012 @ 6:29 AM
Yes it is Oh Shenandoah :) It is a very old song and I think that people should be able to use it commercially :) Attribution it is then.
Cheers!
texasradiofish
.
permalink   Sun, Feb 19, 2012 @ 12:39 AM
Did I notice that the license for some TRF songs have change from BY-NC to NC-SamplingPlus?

TRF
 
.
permalink   Admiral Bob Sun, Feb 19, 2012 @ 1:12 AM
this shouldn’t actually be possible….?
 
.
permalink   texasradiofish Sun, Feb 19, 2012 @ 1:38 PM
Like your reply, AB

Good to hear that what I observe is just a finger of my imagination and that license assignment is static.

Was worried that the Rock of Gibraltar had fallen into the sea.

Attribution does not seem static since source references go away when members remove samples and pells.

TRF
 
.
permalink   Admiral Bob Sun, Feb 19, 2012 @ 1:46 PM
Attribution is static - the license type is assigned to the upload directly. Although the license type inherits at the time of upload through the UI, there actually is hard storage of the license type as part of your upload.
duckett
.
permalink   Wed, Jun 6, 2012 @ 8:16 PM
On a related note to TRF’s post-
I periodically do the ol’ vanity-google thing just to see who’s using my stuff for what (that might’ve not been trackbacked etc.) and came across this
I read the description, checked the track, and said to myself “Oho, a retired license. How unattractive this must be, to would-be participants in our lovely creative commons culture.”
How might (or can) this be addressed?
Mr_Yesterday
.
permalink   Thu, Nov 1, 2012 @ 5:02 PM
OK, then I think I am in the right place. I need to follow two threads:

1) What is ccMixter’s stance on (CC)BY-SA 3.0 and why is it not a supported choice? Is there some reason why only (CC)BY and (CC)BY-NC but NOT (CC)BY-SA?

2) What is ccMixter’s stance on conflicting licenses, if the license on ccMixter is less restrictive than elsewhere? In other words, does ccMixter require I withdraw my submissions if they are more restrictively licensed elsewhere?

I can of course take up with the CC legal community, but here is the situation leading to these questions:

I license on my own site—and wherever applicable—my own work as (CC)BY-SA 3.0 (2.0 once upon a time).

I have posted some of the same works here on ccMixter as (CC)BY, thus relaxing the SA restriction. However, I have not made any effort to backtrack and change all former postings, because I prefer (and intend in future) to publish most of my work as (CC)BY-SA.

It may be useful to understand I fully intend my own work to NOT be limited to NC. I feel it’s an unnecessary restriction for a lot of work, especially samples. For this reason I will not generally use NC material myself; not because I have a commercial goal, but because I do not want to so restrict derivatives (I actually feel it slows down the cc movement to add “NC” as a matter of course. It should be used judiciously, if at all.) So perhaps that explains the concern a bit.

Anyway, do ccMxter and/or ArtisTech have a position? Let me know if you’d rather take it up in email.

PS — I am running the ccHost engine on my own site and all cc licenses are available as options there. Check out (yeah, it’s a little rough) http://wikigong.com/cchost/view/media/home. MrY
Mackenzie_Andersen
.
permalink   Mon, Feb 11, 2013 @ 7:03 AM
I contacted both the artist and cc community about my question and now I am just waiting But I have a question for CtMixtera s well.

If the work that one wants to use “says “you already have permission to use this? then don’t I already have permission?

I thought I would be fine selecting from the commercial list for my KIckStarter project but when I read the CC license it said one can’t use whatever to promote something and one can’t use teh work as is- unless one asks permission of the artist.

So if it is on a commercial list that says “You already have permission to use this” DOes that means that permission through the artist has already been granted via CtMixter?
 
.
permalink   Mackenzie_Andersen Mon, Feb 11, 2013 @ 9:25 AM
My own interpretation is that when it says “You Already Have Permission to Use This” it means that the artist has granted permission via CtMixter and that when it says on the Creative Commons license that one has to get permission from the artists - that is covered by the “You already have permission to use this statement on CTMixter.

I have contacted all involved but communication is not yet forth coming at the other end and so I am going with my own interpretation.

If anyone thinks my interpretation is misguided- please say so- it’s better to have confirmation from another source.
 
.
permalink   Mackenzie_Andersen Mon, Feb 11, 2013 @ 9:46 AM
All of these resources are phenomenal but I feel like I am talking into the void on all fronts.
 
.
permalink   Mackenzie_Andersen Mon, Feb 11, 2013 @ 9:53 AM
OOPs upon reading the info in the little cc icon it says you cannot use it to “adverstise or promote anything except teh music. If I am where I thought I was in the free to use for commercial uses section- I interpret that as meaning you can use this for commercial uses to promote the music and the artist but you cannot use it for your own commercial purposes-since commercial pUrposes generally do sell or promote something.

And that makes no sense what so ever!

Too bad- once I cut off a short section at the beginning - it is the perfect length and blends with my own video like it was made for it.
Mackenzie_Andersen
.
permalink   Mon, Feb 11, 2013 @ 7:05 AM
I contacted both the artist and cc community about my question and now I am just waiting But I have a question for CtMixtera s well.

If the work that one wants to use “says “you already have permission to use this? then don’t I already have permission?

I thought I would be fine selecting from the commercial list for my KIckStarter project but when I read the CC license it said one can’t use whatever to promote something and one can’t use teh work as is- unless one asks permission of the artist.

So if it is on a commercial list that says “You already have permission to use this” DOes that means that permission through the artist has already been granted via CtMixter?
 
.
permalink   Admiral Bob Mon, Feb 11, 2013 @ 11:29 AM
If the license says “CC-BY” on the right side of the track, then yes… you already have permission. You don’t need to ask (provided you meet the licensing needs of giving credit where it is due.)

The reason you do need to ask in other cases is because the artist has not made a commercial license available. You’re free to use it if you don’t make money, but those are the only rights they have given. Those will have a license called CC-BY-NC on the right side of the track.

The following is an example of a CC-BY track. See a song with this logo, and you can use it in your for-profit projects.

http://ccmixter.org/files/L...
 
.
permalink   Mackenzie_Andersen Mon, Feb 11, 2013 @ 12:56 PM
Thanks for responding. I only see a little circle with cc in it.

the track’s name is Yiourgh

At the bottom of the search page I see the CC-BY-NC with a notice about the “text and images” on this site-

If I click on the little circle with the cc in it I get a message that I can use it for anything excluding promoting and selling- but I went through the commercial link to find the selection.

Perhaps ctMixter has recently changed its system- Even though this selection was found through clicking the commercial link- it seems as if one cannot use it for commercial purposes.
 
.
permalink   Mackenzie_Andersen Mon, Feb 11, 2013 @ 1:12 PM
Since I clicked on a different track and it didn’t have the message about not using it for promotion and selling, this must be the new system. It says above it that it no longer uses a certain tool.

The track Yiourgh must be in the commercial list by mistake. I wrote to the artists but so far no response. While I am waiting I’ll search some more - now that I understand the system.
 
.
permalink   Mackenzie_Andersen Mon, Feb 11, 2013 @ 1:28 PM
GOOD NEWS!

I just clicked on Yiourgh again and now it has a different message which says it can be used for commercial use! Great!
 
.
permalink   Mackenzie_Andersen Mon, Feb 11, 2013 @ 1:35 PM
BAD NEWS again!

I clicked on the MORE and that is where it says it cannot be used to promote or sell anything. How can a “commercial purpose” not be promoting or selling something?

Is this an error that the site administrators need to fix? Or can anyone actually be intending to say that one can use it for commericial purposes as long as one does not promote or sell anything other than the music itself?
 
.
permalink   Admiral Bob Mon, Feb 11, 2013 @ 1:50 PM
As far as I know there is no problem with the ability to search for commercially available music. Do one of the following:

- Go to dig.ccmixter.org
- click on “Music free for commercial use”
- play any track that says “CC BY” to the right of the track name (some of the items in the list come up CC Sampling+, a weird out of date license, and they are best avoided.)

Voila. Commercial music.

Now, if you search, and narrow it down, make sure you select ONLY “free for commercial use.” If you broaden that selection, you will see songs in the list that are not for commercial use, so don’t do that.
 
.
permalink   Mackenzie_Andersen Mon, Feb 11, 2013 @ 3:03 PM
I will do that but when I search Yiourgh and select commercial music license it comes up>

I think what is happening is that creative Commons has changed their license so that each tracks name and teh artist is listed in teh license agreement, which is what comes up when one clicks more. When you click the CC circle there is a message that Creative Commons is no longer using teh tool and not to trust it. That license does not list each track and artist individually.

So I suspect that all artists would be listed as not having a commercial license by default and that the artist has to agree to the license terms with each track. If the artist hasn’t agreed to the terms yet- they will be listed as non-commercial and so it may be that Yiourgh is intended to be available for a commercial license ( as it is listed in the commercial use list) but the artist hasn’t gone in and agreed to terms for all of their individual tracks yet.

So I’ll just have to wait and see i f the artist responds and in the meantime look for another solution.

Too bad- it is such a perfect match to my video.
 
.
permalink   Admiral Bob Tue, Feb 12, 2013 @ 6:09 AM
Did you see my response about the CC Sampling+? It doesn’t have anything to do with artists not clicking on something, agreeing, or anything like that. These are the actual terms of the CC Sampling+ license, which billed itself as a commercial-friendly license, but really wasn’t.

http://creativecommons.org/...

At any rate, contacting DoKashiteru won’t be enough. They’re on a CC Sampling+ license because they inherited it from a FreeSound Archive file.
 
.
permalink   Mackenzie_Andersen Wed, Feb 13, 2013 @ 7:12 AM
I have observed that all of the artists listed on the commercial list that exclude use for promotion and selling on the MORE link, link to cc contract page via the cc log which says “this tool has been retired” at the top.

But artists that do not have an exclusion for promoting and selling on the MORE link, link via the cc logo to a cc contract that DOES NOT say “this tool has been retired” at the top of it.

That is why I have concluded that when the CC logo links to a CC contract with “this tool has been retired” - it means those artists have not completed the process of the new system- which I am guessing is that the “MORE” section may have been added. In the “MORE” link each individual track’s name and the artists name is included. In the CC LOGO contract - it is a general contract ( no individual tracts or artists names )

This has been consistently the case with many different links that I have clicked and so it seems like a reasonable assumption to me.
 
.
permalink   Admiral Bob Wed, Feb 13, 2013 @ 9:11 AM
I am not sure I understand your comment. I will just reiterate how licensing works on this site.

I will repeat that this does not have anything to do with a process, new system, or anything that the artists have to do, click, sign, agree to or any of that. It simply has to do with the nature of the license the remixes inherited from the source tracks that they derive from.

For instance, if I go and find an old Freesound file for my remix, and it uses a CC Sampling+ license, then by derivation, my remix will be of this license as well. (Sampling+ is the one that returns the message about being retired.)

If I download and remix a ccMixter sound that was uploaded CC-BY, then by derivation, my upload will share that license. (CC-BY 3.0 licenses are NOT deprecated, come with no warning, and are safe for almost any use you can think of, provided you attribute.)

So to sum up - Sampling+ = bad. Any works that derive from it = bad. Sampling+ characterized itself as a commercial friendly license, but really wasn’t.

CC-BY = good. Works that derive from it = good.
 
.
permalink   Mackenzie_Andersen Wed, Feb 13, 2013 @ 4:07 PM
I’m new to this and I just go by what I see posted here. When I check the license for and artist by clicking the cc logo and it says that this tool has been retired and it should not be trusted- I have to go by that- and when I click on MORE and it says that use for promotion and sales are prohibited- I have to go by that.

With all due respect to you- I have to go by what I see on line- and what I see on line is that all the artists that say anyone can use the tracks even if one makes money from the use- do not have the notice about the application being retired by CC- only the artists ( using the commercial license search) that prohibit commercial use on the MORE icon also have the “This license is being retired” notice on the CC icon. I wish I could just assume that that doesn’t mean anything but I can’t.

Have you checked that lately? It looks like something recent- like CC is going through a transitional process.
 
.
permalink   Admiral Bob Thu, Feb 14, 2013 @ 3:59 AM
It isn’t recent. Not to belabour the point, but the difference here is the CC Sampling+ license, and the CC-BY license.

The Sampling+ License was an attempt by CC to create a way for people to share sounds in a way similar to the way stock photography works. You can use the sound as part of a new sound work, but you couldn’t simply redistribute the sound as a thing on its own.

The license’s attempt to do this, however, restricted a lot of rights for derived works, and made it nearly unworkable as a solution. Creative Commons backed away from the Sampling licenses years ago (hence the stuff about “tool doesn’t work” (how I wish they had not worded it that way.)

However, a license is a license. And at ccMixter, you don’t pick licenses, per se - the tracks you use to remix basically pick the license for you.

So any artist that, for instance, remixes a Freesound file, inherits the Freesound file’s licensing arrangements. And if that happens to include the Sampling+ license, then it inherits all the baggage that goes with it.

It is unfortunate - but trust me, it is the case. It is not recent, nor is it transitional (in the sense that Creative Commons fully retired those licenses a couple of years ago.)

In terms of having to “go by that,” indeed you do: in that Creative Commons characterizations’ of the licenses are accurate. But the retirement of the license is meaningless to you, the end user. A license is a legal agreement, not software, so anything that exists under such a license is not similarly “retired”, in terms of your usage rights to it expanding.

If the work is under the license, it is under the license, until such time as all the artists in the derivation chain agree to a new one.
*** Topic deleted by author ***
 
.
permalink   Mackenzie_Andersen Thu, Feb 14, 2013 @ 7:07 AM
My understanding as a new user is that all of it can be used for remixing (as I interpreting “sampling”) but the message that says “CC is retiring this tool” tells one not to trust that license but leaves one wondering why a license is published at all if one is then told not to trust the license?

And when I click on MORE it says that the license offered prohibits use for promotion and sales AND that one CAN’T use the piece as is unless one gets permission from the artist.

All of the artists with the retired license- which means all of the artists that prohibit commercial use, are found on the CCMIXTER search for commercial licenses - leading to the conclusion that this is a recent licensing change by Creative Commons.

If it is not a recent change-then why are there still so many artists that come up on the commercial license search which are not actually available for commercial use?

I submitted an inquiry to the Creative Commons list serve and have contacted the artist repeatedly with no response from either.

I want to use Yiourgh exactly as it is. I thought it a miracle when I found a piece that fit the tempo and transitions in my video like a glove - so frustrating to find it and not to be able to use it.

So now, after spending hours looking for some thing else I decided to learn remixing myself- hoping I can come up with something comparable.
fluffy
.
permalink   Sat, Mar 22, 2014 @ 1:59 PM
I accidentally kept a lot of my tracks as the default ‘by-nc’ when I uploaded them, but I’d actually like to change them to the less-restrictive ‘by.’ It seems like this should always be possible to do, since it doesn’t take away any rights already being used by anyone else (since others can still use by-nc if they want).

It seems like you should always be able to downgrade the restrictiveness of an upload (by-nc to by or 0, by to 0, etc.) - it’s just that upgrading is where legal issues come into play.
 
.
permalink   Wautip Sat, Apr 5, 2014 @ 2:25 AM
I have to agree
 
.
permalink   Snowflake Mon, Oct 20, 2014 @ 10:17 AM
unfortunately right now we don’t have a simple way to change your license, and if you are using any remix sources that are CC BY NC then it has to default to CC BY NC. if you have your own samples that you’d like to change, email me with the links and i’ll try to change.
ama
.
permalink   Mon, Oct 13, 2014 @ 9:28 AM
Chiedo scusa. Vorrei essere sicuro di una cosa: i brani con licenza CC-BY (quindi anche per uso commerciale) possono essere usati come base audio di un video da proiettarsi in una fiera, che non passerà sul web, dove perciò gli indirizzi di attribuzione possono essere solo trascritti, ma non linkati? Ringrazio molto chi può chiarirmi questo dubbio.
 
.
permalink   Snowflake Mon, Oct 20, 2014 @ 9:05 AM
I apologize. I would like to be sure of one thing: the songs under CC-BY (also for commercial use) can be used as the basis of audio from a video projected in a fair, which will not go on the web, where therefore addresses the allocation can be only transcribed, but not linked? Thank you very much who can clarify this doubt

Salve. Parlo un po ‘italiano, ma non è buono. Sì, è possibile utilizzare i brani audio per il video in fiera, e se Attribuzione stampato solo è disponibile, allora è ok. Basta assicurarsi che sia completa: 1) Artista (i) nomi, 2) Song Name, 3) di riferimento del sito (ccMixter.org in questo caso) 4) CC BY tipo di licenza. Grazie per la scrittura!
texasradiofish
.
permalink   Fri, Aug 18, 2017 @ 2:10 AM
What karmic disturbance wrought this?

After dealing with Youtube and Clanger, TRF got this


Hi texasborderlegends (aka TRF),

Good news! After reviewing your dispute, Clanger Rights has decided to release their copyright claim on your YouTube video.

Video title: “Top Butts”

- The YouTube Team



Gee folks, we are allowed to use our own stuff. Thanks, Clanger.

Discouraging that Clanger is trying to collect money or some measurement for licensors but doesn’t read the Youtube description citing authorship and link back.


As Bugs Bunny often said, “What a maroon!”
 
.
permalink   Kara Square Fri, Aug 18, 2017 @ 9:37 AM
Hey TRF! I totally understand your frustration. I’ve actually dealt with the same thing for my personal music with claimants. It sucks.

But this time… that’s actually us. Someone on our team (maybe me) obviously made a mistake in claiming your video. The claiming process is completely manual and we do check out the descriptions. I believe what happened was a false match. Your mix was confused with a remix.

But here’s the good news: it won’t happen again on your channel. We can “whitelist” channels and I did that to yours. So hey, I am sorry this happened to you guys.
 
.
permalink   texasradiofish Fri, Aug 18, 2017 @ 7:12 PM
Hey, Kara

Looked up Clanger Rights when we got the Youtube notification so we knew we were taking on friendly fire.

Accordingly, I posted a G rated forum note expressing unhappiness.