Creative Commons for Sound Designers

;)

(INAL, I don’t represent CC, take what I say as legal advice and you get what you deserve)

just ftr: Magnatune is not evil. Really. Cheap, but not evil. ;) They would have been happy to use ccMixter samples as long it didn’t cost anything and didn’t restrict advertising.

I’ve been pretty jazzed at how many folks have re-licensed their work here to use the by/by-nc (about half the works on the site in the last few weeks).

just my personal view: please god not another license. ever.

Quote: I’ve been pretty jazzed at how many folks have re-licensed their work here to use the by/by-nc (about half the works on the site in the last few weeks).

i’m very happy too. i love the fact that now i can share my work to friends who need music for their films. i just re-licensed my latest remix I Waited Here (Boiling Mushrooms Mix), thanks to kind robot who re-licensed the a cappella track.

i think the Relicensing page should be in the sidebar, i doubt that everyone bookmarked it as adviced (and i myself use ccmixter from various locations and don’t have my bookmarks everywhere) — i guess the ratio of re-licensed works would be even greater.

Quote: just my personal view: please god not another license. ever.

Totally agree, although I now have a suggestion for a license renewal, too ;)

I guess the reason not having by-sa or by-nc-sa is that they don’t mix, and I think there could be this by-cc and by-nc-cc (where cc stand for “must be Creative Commons cc-licensed”). These would be very similar to the earlier, but require the new work to be under by-cc or by-nc-cc, if any by-nc-cc samples were used. This would allow the two licenses mix.

Of course the easiest way would be just to change the by-sa to mean “must be published under by-sa or by-nc-sa” in the future version of that license.

Anyway, I can do with the current licenses, and as we see from the sampling-licenses, a new generation of licenses should be very carefully thought over. I see ccMixterI as the beta for those licenses, and I think they failed.

I think that embedding the material rights in those Creative Commons licenses is not always useful. The distribution parts has nothing to do with the legal use of the song, or the remix of it, only the further distribution.

But I agree, adding more licenses makes it even more complicated.

Quote: I think the Relicensing page should be in the sidebar, I doubt that everyone bookmarked it as adviced (and I myself use ccMixter from various locations and don’t have my bookmarks everywhere) — I guess the ratio of re-licensed works would be even greater.

Maybe, or we’ll just re-trigger the nag screen that makes you go to that screen at regular intervals ;)

Quote: I see ccMixterI as the beta for those licenses, and I think they failed.

In the sense that they made it possible for the Beastie Boys, David Byrne, Chuck D, etc get involved in CC they were a huge success (!) — but yea, until you hit that level of fame it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense.

Quote: The distribution parts has nothing to do with the legal use of the song, or the remix of it, only the further distribution.

sigh. Yes, you’re right, very real-world insight; for Mixter tho’… we’re going to keep it simple.

Quote: Creative Commons for Sound Designers

I think the point about a broader license is a good one. Why not send an e mail to Mia Garlick, Creative Commons’ general counsel, suggesting it?

good idea gurdonark! but I think I have emailed Mia some time ago, but never got a reply. I am not sure if I have the right e-mail address of her.

Quote: good idea gurdonark! but I think I have emailed Mia some time ago, but never got a reply. I am not sure if I have the right e-mail address of her.

Hey marcoraaphorst,

Don’t think you did email me about this or if you did, I can’t find it in my inbox. Glad that you think the Sampling license generally suits your preferences but for the advertising restriction. The Sampling licenses were drafted based on a lot of community discussion amongst various people involved in the sampling and appropriation communities - you can check out the discussion archives here: http://creativecommons.org/...

You can also raise your questions, concerns etc. either to the Sampling email discussion list or the licenses discussion list - http://creativecommons.org/...

Obviously, people are free to create as many different licenses are they think suit the needs of themselves and industry constituents. The difficulty with license proliferation is that it creates content-ghettos - content that is free to use but only within a fenced-off commons. Sometimes that is necessary and even beneficial (ie. the Wired artists signalling in a high-profile way that sampling is good), sometimes its best to avoid it. So, before anyone starts a completely new license, it would be great if we could have a discussion about exactly whether and how the existing licenses work or do not work so that everyone is on the same page & we do not create content-ghettos unnecessarily. I know many people on the Sampling list feel strongly about the advertising restriction so it would be great if you could talk about it with that group first.

All the best, Mia Garlick

Thanks for the extra info I will try those discussion-lists.

I do believe I have contacted you because of this http://ccmixter.org/forum/v... but maybe something went wrong, form not working etc.

Yesterday I had a discussion for Dutch TV, VPRO, about CC versus BUMA (Dutch ASCAP). This is still complicated, probably I can discuss these things at the above maillists as well. Thanks for that!

article for VPRO is online now:
http://3voor12.vpro.nl/3voo...

Mia, I contacted you yesterday, please check your e-mail.

here’s my story about it in english;
http://melodiefabriek.nl/20...