mis-attribution vs non-attribution
victor
|
.
permalink
Fri, Oct 3, 2008 @ 6:53 AM
I know we’ve had heated discussions here about the subject of attribution but I’m giving a talk later this month on the subject and it would be helpful to get people’s feeling on the subject:
It’s been said here that attribution is important, especially in NonCommercial usage because if you’re not going to compensate with money, the least you can do is display a prominent credit so the musician can get noticed (and possibly work) from the usage of their music. At least that’s how I understand the argument as presented in these forums. To be brutally honest, I would happy to have my ‘attribution’ licensed music used any time, any where, even if I wasn’t readily credited. The thing that I would not appreciate is mis-attribution - that is, someone else taking credit for my work (hey, we’re talking theoretical here). But if I could add it to my resume that some cool ad used my music (for no money) and if the agency pointed inquiries about the music directly to me then yea, I would be totally cool with that. So, for my music, I’m not worried about non-attribution, just mis-attribution. Am I the only one who feels this way? VS |
spinmeister
|
.
permalink
Fri, Oct 3, 2008 @ 11:46 AM
Isn’t non-attribution practically the same as mis-attribution?
How can you have bragging rights without attribution? If Coke used one of your creations for their next world-wide ad campaigns, who would believe you, if you said that you wrote and/or played that? I think the more likely common assumption would be that they paid someone for that work. Worse yet, people might even assume that you “stole” it from Coke and your bragging rights have just turned into a nightmare, because people might not give you the gig, because they think you lied on your portfolio. And I can live with, but am not particularly happy about only having to attribute one generation of remixes. That fundamentally creates mis-attributions too, by giving all the attribution to the parent sources and none to the grandparent sources. I sure hope that the NC clause prevails better across multiple generations, otherwise the whole CC thing would stop making sense to me. Also, in a multi-generation BY-NC scenario , if someone breaks the BY chain, it would seem to make it difficult to get commercial clearance. Also, the BY is often the only link to the songwriting/publishing rights. By playing fast and loose with that, doesn’t one trample all over song writers? And given that many of our a cappella creators consider themselves song writers possibly even more so than singers, a lack of respect for BY would be really discouraging to them. No? |
|
.
Quote: spinmeisterIsn’t non-attribution practically the same as mis-attribution?
I’m asking you how you feel about it. Which I think I know now… Quote: How can you have bragging rights without attribution? If Coke used one of your creations for their next world-wide ad campaigns, who would believe you, if you said that you wrote and/or played that? In my TOTALLY made up scenario, those who called the ad agency asking who did the music would get the answer to that question. It’s checking a reference. There’s no difference there if I got paid or not. I’m just saying I’m ok with the non-by version of that. If I’m alone on this I’m ok with that too. Quote: And I can live with, but am not particularly happy about only having to attribute one generation of remixes. That fundamentally creates mis-attributions too… I think this is a discussion started on the blog (?) and not that it’s totally on topic here but: Nope. At least not by any legal/moral/practical standard out there today. Quote: I sure hope that the NC clause prevails better across multiple generations, otherwise the whole CC thing would stop making sense to me. This I know is totally unrelated but here goes: Attribution is a positive assertion (which is what I’m questioning). NC is a reserved right - my interpretation is that it’s short hand for “NC, just like the copyright says” so by default, all reserved rights trickle all the way down. Quote: Also, in a multi-generation BY-NC scenario , if someone breaks the BY chain, it would seem to make it difficult to get commercial clearance. Again, not exactly on point but if someone breaks the BY chain they are in violation of the CC license, which means they are violation of copyright and everything else that implies. That’s just a bootleg. Quote: Also, the BY is often the only link to the songwriting/publishing rights. By playing fast and loose with that, doesn’t one trample all over song writers? I’m confused. I’m not clear what publishing rights are you talking about? This is my music, that I own and licensed to world under BY and how I feel about relaxing BY under certain conditions. Quote: And given that many of our a cappella creators consider themselves song writers possibly even more so than singers, a lack of respect for BY would be really discouraging to them. No? I’m still having a problem seeing how it’s on point but: Every pell, every sample, every piece of every sound under CC has to be attributed. No matter how many ways you come at it, the CC license does not require that every source of every sources’ sources be attributed through every generation. The assumption there if there are only LEGAL uses of the material then everybody gets credited because the trail is clear and obvious. You know, there are places on the web where the people that drafted the license are hanging out and in the same place you’ll find folks who are paid to think about and draft the next revisions of them. They might go for a BY+ (ShareAttribution) license… go for it. IME the hurdles to giving singers the warm fuzzies about CC is not quite this esoteric so I’m prone to prioritize my advocating energies elsewhere. OTOH you seem fired up about this, you should absolutely pursue it. |
|
|
.
Quote: In my TOTALLY made up scenario, those who called the ad agency asking who did the music would get the answer to that question. It’s checking a reference.
And it’s not very scalable. To me the genius of CC in general and also of ccMixter specifically is in two dimensions: interoperability and scalability. The whole idea is NOT to have to make one on one contact or to have a department that looks after rights clearances. As to the other issues, I see them as highly related: “how strong is the attribution principle in a CC world”? However I can understand that you’d think of that as a thread-jack. So as per your suggestion I took my pitchfork over here. ;-) |
|
|
.
Quote: spinmeisterAnd it’s not very scalable. To me the genius of CC in general and also of ccMixter specifically is in two dimensions: interoperability and scalability. The whole idea is NOT to have to make one on one contact or to have a department that looks after rights clearances.
BY would allow for not needing one on one contact. BY-NC will not allow for this for many uses. Right? That said, I think you have hit what is a key “feature” for me. The ability to do things based on the nature of the license without needing to make contact. all the best, drew |
|
teru
|
.
permalink
Fri, Oct 3, 2008 @ 12:12 PM
As it stands today, if someone were to use something I’ve made and not attribute me, I would be a little disappointed but would probably stay silent. If someone mis-attributed it I would probably write a polite email to straighten things out.
But since we’re talking theoretical here, in a perfect world I would like to see everything attributed properly, even multiple generations and would like to see an evolution towards a perfect attribution model. “Perfect” of course being a very relative term. *I made a remix of Brad (CC-BY) a few years ago which was used in a video. The video attributed me but not Brad. Sucks when that happens. |
|
.
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
.
I misunderstood your comment.
In my defense why would you bring pitchforks and torches to the CC forum? They’re on our side. In any case now I have to clarify that I did not mean to say CC was a windmill. I did not. I should have just kept my mouth shut from the beginning. ; ) |
|
|
.
doh - and of course I didn’t mean they were not on our side. I said it was a lousy reference. I was just trying to say (in a terrible way) that it’s clearly something deeply felt and deserved to be expressed in a place that can potentially do something about it. (As opposed to my seemingly dead-on-arrival NonPlagiarize license which allowed sharing without attribution.)
|
|
|
.
Your example was spot on for my “cause”. Brad lost out on getting attribution for the music in the video, both as a performer and as a song writer.
“pitchforks and torches” made me laugh out loud - and so did “windmills” :-) |
|
MC Jack in the Box
|
.
permalink
Fri, Oct 3, 2008 @ 5:28 PM
I actually have to say i agree with most of what Spin has brought up. Keep in mind this is just my personal opinion, but I’m not too particularly worried about being attributed myself. Like Victor, I’m for the most part ok if someone didn’t attribute me but used something I made. But like Spin mentions, I’d feel bad if that happened more for the source artists than myself. I think this is one of the reasons I have absolutely no desire to commercialize anything i’ve done, although if the right opportunity presented itself, I’d listen, and insist that the source artists be attributed (if i was). Even with the Cool Music show, I always try to mention the source artists for each track (at Victor’s suggestion) since they seem to usually take a back seat in terms of credit (as teru pointed out in his example with brad). I also try to always mention the source artists in the ID3tag as well, but obviously anyone can download and change that. and certainly, the more derivative the source becomes, and the more remixers get involved, the harder it is to follow the chain of attribution.
as to being on point, i do think it’s a relevant part of the discussion, maybe not in terms of the legality of it, but in terms of more what i would call “etiquette and protocol”, which I might also translate loosely into mutual respect. so yeah, i guess i’d be a little bummed if some corporate shill stole my remix and made money off it without sharing that, but again, i personally have the utmost respect for the source artists, because without them, this place would not be what it is, and we would not have the sense of community we have. so in a nutshell…..i’m ok with it, but i’d feel bad for the source artist, like teru said. |
tacet
|
.
permalink
Sat, Oct 4, 2008 @ 8:48 AM
non-attribution first: I think I’d be concerned enough to make an effort to ask someone to attribute me who’d neglected to do so. I’d do this in two steps. Firstly, I’d contact them and thank them for using my work, but noting that the forgot to attribute me, and that I’d appreciate it very much if they would. Assuming that they did simply forget.
Secondly, failing a response I’d become a bit concerned that the person posting the remix or video didn’t appreciate the way the license worked. So I’d ask again, politely for them to attribute me. Failing this one, I’d call the pitch fork mob. ;) If someone ignores your request you can actually ask the host to remove the video or remix because it does not follow your license terms. I, like most people here would probably shy away from a confrontation about it, but who knows, it depends on the reaction from the person I contacted. If for example they were being an ass, that might motivate me. miss-attribution: Same thing really, I’d probably ask that the attribution be put right if I found someone had not attributed me correctly, putting someone else in my place or missing me out from the attribution completely. The way I see this in both cases is that we (the originators and remixers) ask for very little - in terms of reward for what we do. We do ask for a credit where appropriate, it’s not so much to ask, really. Also, if like in Teru’s example, I noticed another artist missing from the attribution I’d be inclined to ask for that artist to also be attributed. Music consumers aren’t used to this crazy concept of more than one artist being part of the whole. They come to ccMixter, they download the track and it says on the page “New Song” remixed by Teru, samples from……..maybe that’s a drawback of the way ccMixter presents remixes? Hmm, I’m guessing you’ve considered this already Victor? Anyway, I think the need to bring awareness to CC and what the license does would be as much a motivation to me as seeing our names attributed. |
|
.
“maybe that’s a drawback of the way ccMixter presents remixes? ”
Please don’t call it a drawback. There is no other place that makes the effort to attribute the source artist more. Sure there is room for improvement but don’t focus on the negative because of that. |
|
|
.
Easy Teru. I was referring to the “music consumer” view of ccM, and that maybe consumers see ccM and sites which host CC music differently to you and I.
ccM uses a method of last-to-edit credit when presenting remixes, which may be confusing to a consumer who’s used to shopping in a store for Beck or Radiohead and not their respective producer/re-mixer. This is in no way critical or derogatory, it’s merely an observation. |
|
|
.
Quote: tacetthis crazy concept of more than one artist being part of the whole
The concept of multiple contributors has always existed. For quite a long time in recorded music, studio musicians were typically not even mentioned in the liner notes for an album. If I recall correctly. there was no mention that Eric Clapton played the memorable guitar solo on The Beatles’ White Album track “while my guitar gently weeps”. Recently I watched a movie about the largely uncredited Motown studio musicians who created so many memorable parts of huge hit songs. So non-attribution of collaborators was the default for a long time. On the other hand, song writers (composers) have long held rather exalted attribution status. In classical music arguably the composer matters more than the orchestra and the conductor. Songwriters/composers have been credited on vinyl and CD as long as I can remember. However in the case of non attribution in the pre-internet world there was always the underlying concept of the contributor having been compensated (how fairly is a different topic), and in the case of a typical studio musician it was kind of similar to an employed computer programmer contributing to software for compensation. In some jurisdictions this concept is known as “work for hire” - i.e. you work for an agreed upon fee and give up any intellectual property rights you otherwise might have. But in CC licensed work, attribution is often the only “compensation” a creator asks for. So the argument could be made that non-attribution is akin to not getting paid. And not getting paid sucks. And that brings us back to the example of Brad. :-) That being said, I want to make it abundantly clear that I’m a huge fan of CC licensing and obviously of ccMixter. However I think that the good work of creating a modern legal, business and technology infrastructure for creative types has just begun. And I cheer on the work of the CC and others who are genuinely trying to create a kinder, fairer and culturally richer environment. |
|
|
.
“crazy”….
From the eyes of a consumer : Attribution being one-dimensional, they purchase a CD from Virgin Megastore and more often than not it’s of a single artist or group they like. So, lets say they buy the latest “Beck” CD, they understand Beck made it and performed it (because Beck is after all a brand) - Beck Hanson is credited for his (c) work as are contributors (who are listed in the cd-liner notes). From the eyes of a ccM artist : In a CC parallel world, a bedroom Beck uploads his pellas. Beck’s “Golden Age” becomes CDK’s “Golden Age”, Teru’s “Golden Age (revisited)”, tacet’s “Platinum Age” and BOCrew’s “Golden guns”. - we understand the nature of attribution and the way ccM deals with it currently. Everyone contributed skills and talents, CDK/Teru/tacet/BOCrew are currently the last in the chain of their thread(for now). I can see how switching from the (c) consumer mode to CC consumer mode might be problematic. “attribution”…. The interesting thing here is that according to the licenses involved the CD purchased in VM has the correct attribution/credit and (c) message. A similar CD - if one were made - of the four remixes of bedroom Beck, should contain a list of everyone involved. (I personally hope ccM will one day offer this - a one-click tree view of the entire attribution) |
|
|
.
I’m not sure if the issue of an attribution can be solved technically. I think it needs judgment and disclosure of the remixer. And in some cases it may even be hard to figure out.
i.e. Just because I remixed a remix doesn’t necessarily imply that the grandparent has anything to do with my remix. For example I might have just used a drum loop from a remix, which was never present in the grandparent material. In that case no attribution should be owed to the grandparent material. So I think good remixer behavior would be to attribute grandparent and further back ancestral parts as best as possible. For example, if I was to use part from a remix, I would carefully listen to the parent contributions of that remix to try to determine, if any of those are now present in my remix, and I would attribute them (rather than ccM determining that automatically). So if I did a remix of teru’s remix of Brad, I would listen carefully to all the sources of teru’s remix. If it appeared that some of Brad’s parts (vocal or otherwise) are now in my remix, I would attribute both teru and Brad. If it was clear that I just used a snippet of teru’s remix, which had nothing from Brad, then I would only attribute teru. I hope that makes some sense. |
|
|
victor
|
.
permalink
Sun, Oct 5, 2008 @ 5:36 AM
There is no (sane) reason to addendum this thread but I will say that it was, in fact, hijacked into a completely different area than what I was hoping to talk about. Related, maybe, but really off track. fwiw I completely blame myself for not being clearer about the area I was hoping to discuss. I should, by now, know this community better and therefore should have been much more careful in my framing.
We’ve seen in recent days a public version of a debate that I see often in my inbox and one that I am confronted with in person. The argument that ccMixter is on the wrong track is made by folks that, to one degree or another, think that anything associated with ‘free’ is a commie pipe-dream hurting businesses and dooming us to an end with people “sleep[ing] under a bridge.” If you look closely you also will see a topic brought up a few days ago that hearkens to a discussion going on in public (and in my inbox) dating back to the earliest days of the site from the “other” side. In this version ccMixter is on the wrong track because it isn’t free enough. There is deep disappointment that the site doesn’t support ShareAlike because of the (pardon the term) viral nature of spreading ‘freedom’ throughout cyber culture. To this crew, NonCommercial is a blight and since all art starts out as free, should remain so and any encroachment is threatening the safety of bunnies and puppies everywhere - ok I’m paraphrasing, actually it’s “true freedom” that’s being threatened. (For all my snarkiness here, I happen to think the Virginia Tech link above makes a helluva argument.) iow, as the ‘ccMixter guy’ I hear it all. All the time. Now, finally… Let’s assume there are people here who would be proud, willing and happy (with or without a tinge of self-righteousness) to put some of their own music, that they created and would otherwise ‘own’ into the Public Domain. Let’s further assume that career and financial reward is not the only endgame in town and that egos can cool off, just enough, to not require a credit on everything posted into the wild. It’s in this context that I ask if anybody else out there feels like they would post material into the wild, not expecting credit per se, but bummed about someone else taking credit. I’ve recently heard of several cases (mainly DJs) who put material out there and are neutral about having their name literally visible at every instance, but freaked out of their minds when someone else took credit. In the CC licenses version 1.0 there used to be a license that didn’t even require Attribution. But since it was never used (less than 1% I think) CC dropped it in version 2.0. I’m curious to see if this is because people really do want credit on every single posting, or if it’s misappropriation they are actually trying to avoid. I wonder if that earlier, non-popular non-BY license had read something like “when asked or if crediting you must mention me, otherwise if you’re sharing ‘as-is’ don’t worry about credit” if more people would have opted for it. Makes sense? VS [Edit: minor grammatical edits] |
|
.
now you really lost me: aren’t you talking about Tracking Attribution Across the Web? So how is the stuff we discussed here not deeply relevant? We have raised exactly the case of attribution becoming non-tracked in a very practical and a very typical situation. Intuitively I would say that situation is much more common than mis-attribution.
I don’t mean to be cruel, but the non-attribution vs. mis-attribution seems banal and obvious in comparison: Non-attribution is silence. Silence is seldom ill-intended. Mis-attribution is a lie. Lies are seldom well intended. Exceptions apply. |
|
|
.
I’m doing my best here - I suppose it’s possible I can not explain what I’m looking for in a cogent manner. I’m not great at meta-discussions but I’ll try: The discussion above is only related to what I’m looking for in that they share the topic ‘attribution’ in the same way they share the topic ‘licensing’ - both of which are wide subjects in and of themselves, one is a narrowing subset of the other. I’m curious about one aspect of attribution that has nothing to do with multi-level derivative works, nothing to do with commercial scenarios, nothing to do with song publishing vs. recording rights, etc., etc. This one aspect will probably be one slide out of 30 in the deck.
I know, in my head, what I intended to discuss in the thread and so far that hasn’t happened - so far it’s all been tangential. I’m sorry if I haven’t expressed it all well enough. It may well be simple and banal if the artist’s intention, when posting material to the public, is to always expect credit pointing back to him/her. In that case, consensus seems to be that non-attribution is bummer, mis-attribution is a sin. Got it. Not relevant, but I get it. But I know there are musicians out there (perhaps not reading this thread, perhaps afraid to speak up) who don’t care about attribution because the act of keeping a piece of music free (as in speech) is more important than that. In that case the intention of the consumer, whether negligence, plagiarism (sp?) or something else may be on point… but I suspect not. As an example of what I’m trying to get at, I’m curious how many of those content posting artists assign the Attribution license simply and only out of fear of plagiarism. That’s about it for me… I don’t think I have it in me to describe the position any other way… sorry. VS |
|
|
.
I understand where you’re coming from. (this is like arguing with myself really. lol.)
IMO “Some Rights Reserved” can be approached from two directions. One from “All Rights Reserved” backwards and the other from Public Domain forward. It also can be approached from the perspectives of either protecting the artists from infringement versus making it easier for others to share and remix. So far, after 4(?) years of ccM, I believe there is a happy middle ground here. The licenses help protect the artist from exploitaion and this site specifically makes it easier for downloaders and remixers. Therefore I welcome more restrictive licenses as opposed to less restrictive when it comes to attribution. This is my simplified view of the situation. : ) |
|
|
.
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
.
in that case, SA might be the better license than BY? Or am I threadjacking again? ;-)
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
.
I guess I’ll better refrain from discussing GPL vs. BSD then! ;-)
|
|
|
.
that’s ok, but only if you tie in the swedish definition of noncommercial with further discussion here…
|
|
|
.
Resmoos und zee cese-a ooff nun-cummerceeel
Fullooeeng thees velk in zee lundscepe-a ooff Svedeesh cupyreeght und debete-a oofer ixpunseeun ooff intellectooel pruperty, beck tu Resmoos’ veblug Cupyreeut. Um de hur de hur de hur. Oone-a ooff zee must pupooler Creeteefe-a Cummuns leecenses in Svedee, used by muny Svedeesh bluggers, is Ettreebooshun-NunCummerceeel-ShereEleeke-a 2.0. (7) Eccurdeeng tu thees leecense-a yuoo ere-a free-a tu cupy, deestriboote-a, deespley, und perffurm zee vurk und tu meke-a dereefetife-a vurks es lung es yuoo geefe-a zee ooreeginel oothur credeet, yuoo shere-a a leeke-a thet is iff yuoo elter, trunsffurm, oor booeeld upun thees vurk, yuoo mey deestriboote-a zee resoolteeng vurk oonly under a leecense-a identeecel tu thees oone-a und es lung es yuoo du nut use-a zee vurk fur cummerceeel poorpuses. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Resmoos is cuncerned thet cunffooseeun oofer zee term “nun-cummerceeel” used in zee Creeteefe-a Cummuns leecenses veell meke-a but oothurs und users cunffoosed oofer vheech reeghts und restreecshuns zeey meke-a pert ooff zeeur egreement. Um de hur de hur de hur. In ferseeun 2.0 ooff zee leecense’s su-celled “legel cude-a” (zee ectooel leecense-a egreement) un ettempt et a deffeenishun ooff nun-cummerceeel is intrudooced. Bork bork bork! done and done :-) |
|
|
.
ok, so would I put something I created into the Public Domain?
Yes. Do I have an expectation of others to do the same? No. Why? Because I think it depends on personal circumstance. I’d do it because I’m not starving and I’d enjoy it. Do I expect people who earn money from their music to be critical of me? Yes. Judging from the number of professional photographers on flickr who complain about amateurs doing “work” for free. Would I prefer attribution-based freedom for my creations? Yes. It’s always nice to be credited and get something back. PD in general? I think the 50 year (c) term is too long and should not be extended (UK). I think the early Beetles should fall into PD soon and we can all enjoy remixing 50/60’s classics. Victor, did this even come close? lol :) Discussion about making music for free, what could go wrong? |
|
|
.
|
|
zotz
|
.
permalink
Sun, Oct 12, 2008 @ 4:31 PM
Quote: fourstonesIt’s been said here that attribution is important, especially in NonCommercial usage because if you’re not going to compensate with money, the least you can do is display a prominent credit so the musician can get noticed (and possibly work) from the usage of their music. At least that’s how I understand the argument as presented in these forums.
I find this thinking confusing. If you choose and NC license, you are more likely to GET monetary compensation. At least for the first in line creator. Remixers would be different. Perhaps that is the angle? Quote: fourstonesTo be brutally honest, I would happy to have my ‘attribution’ licensed music used any time, any where, even if I wasn’t readily credited. The thing that I would not appreciate is mis-attribution - that is, someone else taking credit for my work (hey, we’re talking theoretical here). But if I could add it to my resume that some cool ad used my music (for no money) and if the agency pointed inquiries about the music directly to me then yea, I would be totally cool with that. So, for my music, I’m not worried about non-attribution, just mis-attribution. Am I the only one who feels this way? VS I agree that mis-attribution is a more troubling situation than non-attribution. As for non-attribution, off the top, I think it might matter to me who failed to give attribution and under what circumstances. Did a DJ mixing in a club mix the tune in a set and couldn’t give attribution without breaking the flow? Not a really big issue. Did a blockbuster use it in the soundtrack and credit everyone except you? That might be a bigger issue. Thoughts? all the best, drew |
|
zotz
|
.
permalink
Mon, Oct 13, 2008 @ 7:42 AM
Quote: fourstonesBut if I could add it to my resume that some cool ad used my music (for no money) and if the agency pointed inquiries about the music directly to me then yea, I would be totally cool with that.
VS I just re-read this bit. It seems that perhaps it would help to consider in-band attribution versus out-of-band attribution. They willingly attribute you, it is just that the attribution is not “travelling along” with the work as it “should”. Is that thought helpful in any way? all the best, drew |
|
.
I’m only interested (here) in how people feel about distributing their own music - it was a very small question, not the basis or vehicle to launch a worldwide action - just a survey of personal attitudes about one’s own art.
Thanks for eveybodys help at trying to make sense of my jumbled head space. I’m done with this thread. As always last word goes to them that cares the most. |
The Big OT::mis-attribution vs non-attribution
This site uses