i was not remembering the name of the site, ccmixter.
if you’ve got the wherewithal, i suggest picking up ccremix.org as well and redirecting accesses to this site. or, maybe it’s just me :)
i did check and that name is not yet registered.
-bill

There’s a reason it isn’t called *remix*, and it’s because the sampling licenses don’t allow simple "remixes". The derivative work has to be "highly transformative". Although I notice it says "Post A Remix" in the navigation here … I suppose that’s an oversight.

The home page references remixing too:
"….If you’re into sampling, mashups, and remixing, we have the full tracks and loops in a ready to mix format."

While I’m in the "I suggest" thread, I’d like to suggest the creation of a bit more guidance content describing what’s in and what’s out on the site. For example, can I pull down tracks, snag samples, and then mix them with samples I’ve recorded on my own (not from songs, not illegally, but from my guitar, for example)? If the only sounds allowed in tracks posted to the site must be sourced from sounds already on the site, the instructions could stand to be a bit more explicit on that topic. Alternatively, if tracks just need some amount of ccmixter-sourced sounds to be posted and can include other sounds the artist wants to mix in, it would be nice to know that. I think this is a gap in the tutorial. What about vocals?

‘dots…

That’s a great suggestion.

There are so many new freeing dimensions to working with CC licensed music that would probably surprise most musicians used to the confines what we’ve been trained to adhere to.

To answer specifically: yes. You are *encouraged* to mix in your own music, that’s actually a principle idea behind the licensing and this site.

What may be even more powerful that’s very easy to overlook is that the music on this site can be shared on OTHER sites for non-commercial purposes (and under certain conditions even for commercial purposes).

Yea, I think the FAQ could make all this stuff a lot clearer. We’re on it.

Thanks,
Victor

huh.
i haven’t seen anything that says "highly transformative" before now. and what does that even mean? this path seems fraught with peril, in defining how you can use the samples…
-bill

fwiw this is from 3(a)i-ii of http://creativecommons.org/...

1.

the Derivative Work(s) constitute a good-faith partial or recombined usage employing "sampling," "collage," "mash-up," or other comparable artistic technique, whether now known or hereafter devised, that is highly transformative of the original, as appropriate to the medium, genre, and market niche; and
2.

Your Derivative Work(s) must only make a partial use of the original Work, or if You choose to use the original Work as a whole, You must either use the Work as an insubstantial portion of Your Derivative Work(s) or transform it into something substantially different from the original Work. In the case of a musical Work and/or audio recording, the mere synchronization ("synching") of the Work with a moving image shall not be considered a transformation of the Work into something substantially different.

well, interesting.
i think the creative commons people are so focused on making their site easy to use that they forgot to make it possible to find things.
on THREE searchings around on the site i have not been able to find that text anywhere. even knowing what its address is, i can’t find it today.
argh!
-bill

Quote: on THREE searchings around on the site i have not been able to find that text anywhere. even knowing what its address is, i can’t find it today.
argh!
-bill

sorry for being dense, but by ‘that text’ do you mean ‘highly transformative’? I ask because Mike’s message that quotes it points directly to the license agreement….

VS

I mean I have tried three times to find that above link on the CC site. And never did. Even looking in the site index… now I have the link, but don’t you think others would benefit from the legal definitions of the licenses being easier to find? Without having to have somebody give you a direct link? Unless I’m just being dense!
-bill

OK, I was just making sure I understood before answering a question that wasn’t asked…

So part of the confusion may be that the actual licenses are held on another site: the Creative Commons site, not CC Mixter. So a search of *that* site with term starts to do you a little better.

http://google.com/search?q=...

Having said that we point to the sampling licenses in the first question in the Is It Legal FAQ. Not to menion that each and every submission to the site links to the assigned license agreement (the ‘human readable’ which predominantly points to the legalese version).

Having said all that, bill, your music defines transformative so really I wouldn’t worry about it.

Victor

nah, i knew they were on the cc site; that’s where i’d been looking. i see how to get there from here, now… but i think i was trying to find that legalese on their site, not coming from here!
ok, thanks.
i guess i was just going about it all wrong or something :)
if you’re in touch with those guys, you might suggest they make it easier to find the legalese on their site!
anyway, i often use some of the loops as-is without modifying them much. that’s what i was concerned about… but reading it, looks like i’m ok.
-bill