10 members (Fdemetrio, VNORTH2, Gary E. Andrews, Perry Neal Crawford, couchgrouch, Sunset Poet, Guy E. Trepanier, bennash, Bill Draper, David Gill),
4,088
guests, and
270
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Welcome to the Just Plain Folks forums! You are currently viewing our forums as a Guest which gives you limited access to most of our discussions and to other features.
By joining our free community you will have access to post and respond to topics, communicate privately with our users (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free; so please join our community today!
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,650
Top 100 Poster
|
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,650 |
thanks for this post John
sure looks like a screw job to me......and often the leaders of these "non-profit" entities make big bucks.....another con job disguised as something good for the creative community........thats my opinion anyway......
Tom
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,710
Top 100 Poster
|
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,710 |
It's simply a waiver of your right to full copyright protection under the law. I don't see why anyone would give up those rights.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30
Top 20 Poster
|
OP
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30 |
I agree with you Tom. And once you sign tracks over to a Creative Commons license, it's forever. John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30
Top 20 Poster
|
OP
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30 |
It's simply a waiver of your right to full copyright protection under the law. I don't see why anyone would give up those rights. Yes Dan, and there are a multitude of shady options within the Creative Commons license. John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,608
Top 50 Poster
|
Top 50 Poster
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,608 |
Is it forever or is it just to that user?
Can someone more in the know explain further?
For example there are places I wouldn't mind doing this type of licensing if it is to a school or nonprofit to help them out with their perenially short funds.
I wouldn't want to lose that forever though.
Hm, any lawyers?
Linda
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 772
Top 500 Poster
|
Top 500 Poster
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 772 |
Creative Commons is just a way for artists to distribute their works and give away varying amounts of rights. It's adding a legal document to go along with your work that says in certain terms what people can and can't do with that work.
IMO, there's not much point in it, but it's certainly not a threat to anybody. If you want to license your work for nonprofit or educational usage, just state on your website that you will do that, and to contact you to make arrangements. Simple.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 772
Top 500 Poster
|
Top 500 Poster
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 772 |
Creative Commons is just a way for artists to distribute their works and give away varying amounts of rights. It's adding a legal document to go along with your work that says in certain terms what people can and can't do with that work.
IMO, there's not much point in it, but it's certainly not a threat to anybody. If you want to license your work for nonprofit or educational usage, just state on your website that you will do that, and to contact you to make arrangements. Simple.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,608
Top 50 Poster
|
Top 50 Poster
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,608 |
That's sort of what I thought, Andrew, thank you! I was curious about the "forever" - I don't think it turns it into public domain. However I have heard horror stories of improper licensing of a dramatic work (such as a stage play) before production and then by some this-or-that law the thing falls into public domain.... but I can't remember the story.... Personally I sort of think 100 years is long enough for anyone (or their family) to hold a copyright. Never never NEVER going into public domain into eternity seems odd to me... 100, 150 years and you and your family & survivors should have enough payment. After all no one is still paying the Mozart and Beethoven families. Just thoughts... Linda
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30
Top 20 Poster
|
OP
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30 |
Joan McGivern, ASCAP General Counsel, SVP:
"Irrevocability – All the CC licenses are "irrevocable" - meaning they cannot be changed or revoked; once you place a work under a CC license, the meta-data travels with the digital version of your work - forever. This provision conflicts with a creator's absolute right under the U.S. Copyright Act to end any license or contract regarding a creator's work after 35 years (generally speaking), no matter what the license or contract says. This right of termination can be very valuable, particularly if a work "breaks through," but there is no apparent way to exercise your termination rights under a CC license."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30
Top 20 Poster
|
OP
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30 |
Whether a threat or not Andrew, it depends on who's talking . I think it leaves much room for deceiving shenanigans.
Here's the article from Joan McGiven in its entirety.
Joan McGivern, ASCAP General Counsel, SVP:
1. Irrevocability – All the CC licenses are "irrevocable" - meaning they cannot be changed or revoked; once you place a work under a CC license, the meta-data travels with the digital version of your work - forever. This provision conflicts with a creator's absolute right under the U.S. Copyright Act to end any license or contract regarding a creator's work after 35 years (generally speaking), no matter what the license or contract says. This right of termination can be very valuable, particularly if a work "breaks through," but there is no apparent way to exercise your termination rights under a CC license.
2. Waiving Royalties – Most CC licenses ask creators to waive the ability to collect royalties - including from public performance rights. Such a waiver illustrates that these licenses are for people who do not make a living primarily from their creative work. For example, academics and scientists enjoy salaried positions, with health care and often with university or subsidized housing. Independent songwriters and composers have no such luxuries.
3. Confusions Over "Noncommercial Use" – Many CC licenses are for "noncommercial use." While this would seem to preclude a creator's work from being unfairly exploited for monetary gain, a problem immediately arises: there is no definition of "noncommercial use" under the U.S. Copyright Act. Though there are a few narrow exemptions for "noncommercial performances," all other uses of creative works should be licensed, either by the creator or otherwise licensed by reason of a compulsory license. Even "non-commercial" PBS and NPR pay license fees for their right to perform music in their broadcasts and on their websites. To further complicate matters, CC licenses define peer-to-peer file sharing as "noncommercial" - a position with which the United States Supreme Court has disagreed and is otherwise at odds with U.S. law.\
4. No Support for Rights Enforcement – There is no support for rights enforcement under the Creative Commons system. There is no larger organization, like an ASCAP, to enforce the scope of creators' rights under these licenses. Creators are on their own when, for example, the boundaries of a non-commercial CC license are breached, and the creator finds out the work is being exploited for compensation by another. Creators who have not obtained a U.S. Copyright Registration for a CC licensed work, will also find out that they have no standing to even sue in a U.S. Court, and thus, are left with few realistic options for recourse.
5. Potential Global Conflicts – CC licenses are global, which can complicate a creator's ability to enforce his or her rights when those rights are violated. Normally a work's creator can control the geographic territory in which a work is used - or appoint representatives to do so. For example, ASCAP relies on a global network of Performing Rights Organizations to license and collect royalties for performances of ASCAP members' works in other countries. The global nature of the Creative Commons system can interfere with the support and income offered by these types of existing rights infrastructures.
6. Non-Exclusivity – CC licenses are "nonexclusive," which means that the work's creator will have no future ability to enter into exclusive deals for a work licensed under the Creative Commons system. In the entertainment industry, producers may want exclusive rights to use, for example, a musical work as the signature theme for a television show or an advertisement. Such an opportunity could be lost to the creator of a work licensed under a CC license.
7. The Issue of Co-Creators – CC licenses can cause complications for works created by more than one individual. Under the U.S. Copyright Act, unless they have a written agreement otherwise, each "co-creator" has the right to license the work on a non-exclusive basis without the consent of their co-creator. Each co-creator's responsibility is to ensure that the other co-creator receives a share of profits. But what happens when a co-creator places a work under a CC license? If a license eliminates the possibility for payment on that work, and extends both globally and forever, the other co-creator is essentially out of luck.
8. Lack of Distinction Between Types of Uses – CC licenses do not distinguish between types of uses. A music creator's submission of a work to a CC license means that he or she allows the work to be performed, copied, distributed or even synchronized to an audiovisual work. This can lead not only to lost financial opportunity, but also a conflict of ideology. If a creator gives up control over the use of his or her song, that song could end up being synchronized with an audio-visual work that promotes a point of view offensive to the creator and the creator will be without any remedy.
9. Prohibition of DRM – CC licenses prohibit use of digital rights management (DRM). DRM is a core element in today's digital music arena and a component of most tracks distributed by major labels or sold through top online venues. If a song is successful, distribution channels using DRM will not be an option for a creator who has submitted their work to a CC license.
10. No "Authentication" When a Work Is Submitted – Even if a creator doesn't want to submit his or her work to a CC license, someone else can. How? Because there is no "authentication" as to whether the true owner of a piece of creative content is the one applying for the CC license. Any person can go to the Creative Commons website with a digital song file or photograph, follow the instructions online and claim it as his or her own and release your work, without your consent, to the "commons."
Under U.S. Copyright Law, creators already have the right to waive their rights, give their works away for free or permit the use of their music for sampling or mash-ups, without necessarily giving up their ownership rights. They also have the right to say "no" to licensing their works for uses with which they disagree, on creative or other grounds.
Just because the music industry is changing, doesn't mean songwriters and composers have to give up control of their rights.
Simply put, before making a choice to license away any right irrevocably, music creators should fully understand the terms to which they are agreeing and the implications down the line.
You may choose to give up some or all of your rights, if you want to, but understand the risks.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 135
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 135 |
John it sounds like a less than ethical person or company could hire a less than ethical lawyer/person to CC works by an artist (Visual or audio) and use those works and the expense of litigation could break an artist trying to protect their work. I know of artist that work in wood or clay that have had their work copied exactly in China and sold back here but could not afford the time and cost to litigate. Even if they won, there would be no hope of getting any money. Seems like the China Syndrome to me. Wyndham
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,891 Likes: 6
Top 100 Poster
|
Top 100 Poster
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,891 Likes: 6 |
I’ve always seen CCL as a way of making your work freely available to others providing they give you credit. Many of you seem to be asking why would you want to do this? Well, getting your work out there and known is a pretty good marketing tool. You may also ask why would an artist give away a free download or CD? It’s all publicity and networking and if someone likes what you did or uses it in a film/advert or whatever then that’s going to look pretty good on your CV and could ultimately lead to more work. If you are precious about a piece of work don't use CCL but remember sometimes you need to use a sprat to catch a mackerel
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30
Top 20 Poster
|
OP
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30 |
I’ve always seen CCL as a way of making your work freely available to others providing they give you credit. Many of you seem to be asking why would you want to do this? Well, getting your work out there and known is a pretty good marketing tool. You may also ask why would an artist give away a free download or CD? It’s all publicity and networking and if someone likes what you did or uses it in a film/advert or whatever then that’s going to look pretty good on your CV and could ultimately lead to more work. If you are precious about a piece of work don't use CCL but remember sometimes you need to use a sprat to catch a mackerel The main concern is these agreements leave a lot of room for modifications. This promotion/networking alternative deal is being used more and more in the pursuit of acquiring free music. Networking is on overload. Often this kind of promotion is like being the needle in a haystack. John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 772
Top 500 Poster
|
Top 500 Poster
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 772 |
John it sounds like a less than ethical person or company could hire a less than ethical lawyer/person to CC works by an artist (Visual or audio) and use those works and the expense of litigation could break an artist trying to protect their work. This doesn't really make any sense. Someone could "CC works by an artist"? First of all, to license your own works under Creative Commons, you need to display the CC badge + info on your *own website*. So unless that unethical person has also hacked your website, they're not going to be able to do that. Second, if someone was that unethical, they would try to rip you off in a far more straightforward way - by taking your music and claiming it as their own. No muss, no fuss. Unethical people will rip you off even if your work is properly copyrighted, because even if 100% of the evidence is on your side, you still have to find them, bring them to court, hire lawyers, etc. John (and others who 'fear' CC), what you're doing is akin to protesting the Salvation Army. All the Salvation Army does is allow people to donate their used clothing, toys, etc. All CC does is allow people to 'donate' (give away) rights to their music. Just because OTHER people are doing this, does not mean YOU have to. Again, I personally don't see the *point* of CC and have no interest in doing it myself, but I won't stop other people from doing it. If you want to make music and give it away, be my guest.
Last edited by Andrew Aversa; 12/21/10 07:25 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30
Top 20 Poster
|
OP
Top 20 Poster
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,190 Likes: 30 |
"John (and others who 'fear' CC), what you're doing is akin to protesting the Salvation Army All the Salvation Army does is allow people to donate their used clothing, toys, etc." - AndrewExcept I don't have to sign anything with the Salvation Army. And the destination of one's donation goes to the needy, not the greedy. Interesting analysis comparing music to used clothing. IMO, it's just another Industry ploy to obtain free music. Of course; I may be paranoid. Now why would I be paranoid in such an honest World. Bottom-line: I don't like it. John
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,831
Top 30 Poster
|
Top 30 Poster
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,831 |
Creative Commons sounds good on the surface but I sure don't care to participate. No John, you're not paranoid... I am... LOL! Methinks it is not the "cure for the common cold "it's "inventors" envisioned.
Although the current copyright system stinks and is administered by non-caring beaurocrats... it has more protection for the songwriter IMHO. I suspect Creative Common's founder was named "Lenin."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,579 Likes: 13
Top 10 Poster
|
Top 10 Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,579 Likes: 13 |
I agree pretty much with Andrew. There's no reason to use CC even if you want to let someone use your music for free. But if you DO use CC, then you've given it away (albeit with a few conditions) to any idiot who wants to use it. It's basically musical marxism. In a CC world, no one would own anything and all would be fair use for everyone... if that's your political bag and you dream of Karl Marx-ish views, CC should be right up your alley. Just not mine.
Brian
Brian Austin Whitney Founder Just Plain Folks jpfolkspro@gmail.com Skype: Brian Austin Whitney Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney "It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney "Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
|
We would like to keep the membership in Just Plain Folks FREE! Your donation helps support the many programs we offer including Road Trips and the Music Awards.
|
|
Forums117
Topics125,717
Posts1,160,950
Members21,470
|
Most Online37,523 Jan 25th, 2020
|
|
"If one man can do it, any man can do it. It is true. But the real question is, if one man did it, are you willing to do what it takes to do it as well?" –Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
|
|