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...

thanks

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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!

Unless I misunderstand your question, a work in the public domain is already allowed for use in commercial projects.

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!

I’m pretty sure you would need an admin to do that for you. I would try contacting snowflake or Admiral Bob.

Which one is it… Oh Shenandoah? Let me know and I will change it for you.

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!

this shouldn’t actually be possible….?

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

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.

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.

All of these resources are phenomenal but I feel like I am talking into the void on all fronts.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have to agree

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.

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!

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.

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.

Hi there! Here’s a link that explains how ccPlus works—> http://tunetrack.net/ccmixt...

If you would like to join ccPlus, email us here—> http://ccmixter.org/media/p...

When an artist joins ccPlus, we run a script that tags all eligible uploads ccPlus. For an upload to be eligible, all artists involved in the mix must be part of ccPlus. Please feel free to email with questions!

Quote: Kara SquareHi there! Here’s a link that explains how ccPlus works—> http://tunetrack.net/ccmixt...

If you would like to join ccPlus, email us here—> http://ccmixter.org/media/p...

When an artist joins ccPlus, we run a script that tags all eligible uploads ccPlus. For an upload to be eligible, all artists involved in the mix must be part of ccPlus. Please feel free to email with questions!
Thx a lot for your reply!

Upload # and/or link?
There’s multiple tracks with that name.

Please note, the license is determined by the license of the source material — you’re unable to change the license to a more liberal license (that wouldn’t be fair to who you remixed).

how would I give the artist useage rights?

BeatMachine, quick question, when you say “promotion,” do you mean just raising awareness of the program? If there’s no money involved, I think you’re okay to use it … last I checked Black Lives Matter Foundation is a non-profit, so you wouldn’t have to change the license.

Quote: ApoxodeBeatMachine, quick question, when you say “promotion,” do you mean just raising awareness of the program? If there’s no money involved, I think you’re okay to use it … last I checked Black Lives Matter Foundation is a non-profit, so you wouldn’t have to change the license.
I dont come here to make $$
I remix artist so they can get more exposure. If they can profit or get a message out with a track I produce
Im happy to suspended production licences

of course its up to the artist in the end and I didnt want to step on any toes
but thats basically what I was asking about

Its a moot issue because I couldnt really make the track good enough

Im not involved w BLM and wouldnt know who to contact,.so I wanted to raise this issue publicly to gain some sort of consensus

Which artist are you talking about? Mykleanthony?

Quote: spinningmerkabaWhich artist are you talking about? Mykleanthony?
yes I wanted to do something special w the track to show him my appreciation and support
unfortunately production has got bogged down
so I think its a non issue at this point

Thanks for clarifying BM! I’m sure Mykle would love to hear your remix when you, or if you finish it. I’d like to hear it too.

Mykle is also signed up for cc+ licensing, and we’re doing everything he can to make it possible for others to feature his work.

You might consider signing up for cc+ too, if you want to make your mixes available that way. Here is the link for more informatiuon.

http://tunetrack.net/ccmixter/pages/ccplus/

thanks i couldnt find a way to reg there

thanks i couldnt find a way to reg there

I let the admin team know you’re interested in signing up and they’ll contact you! Most likely Kara or Emily. I’ll be away from my home office on a camping trip for the next 6 days, but I’ll do my best to check in.

Just to be super clear on what your asking…are you referring to using mykleanthony’s “Let Me Breathe” source in a remix you’re producing?

Also, what specific BLM organization are you referring to. Is it Black Lives Matter or a supporting organization?

Reference link for the source I think you are asking about:
http://ccmixter.org/files/m...