|
Creative Commons Licensing
StoreTags: copyright, Creative Common, licensing
Author: dylan on June 04 2008 Viewed 1567 times. 8 people liked this blog. You can rate it below if you haven't already.
-->
The other day a friend of a friend asked for some copies of my beats. I was happy to share them with him, although since I didn't know him very well I became a bit reluctant to hand them over to him.
So I thought that maybe it would behoove me to get my stuff copyrighted, after all this hoopla about bands like Crystal Castles pilfering the works of others. This is not to say that my stuff is worthy of stealing, but I think it would ease my anxieties and also make me more inclined to want to share with others.
Does anyone use Creative Commons? If so, which license option does everyone use? I want to get this thing going!
| |
Comments
06/04/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
Raaphorst
I love CC. been using BY and BY-NC for year. the lower license the better imo. I only use NC for my professional work because music is my main source of income. if not: BY! all my photo's are under BY. best license ever. friendly :-)
06/04/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
yawn
Your stuff is copyrighted. If you can prove you're the author you're protected. CC lowers the level of "protection" by allowing remixing, distribution etc, according to the license you use. Why would you be suspicious anyway?
06/04/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
adcBicycle
i agree that the lower the license the better... i prefer not even using BY or NC... i wouldn't want to hinder someone from using a sample of mine, and them not being able to sell a CD with this track... and i don't need to appear in the liner notes of their CD if they used a 2 second sample of mine in the background of a track...
i say, no license at all ... public domain!
06/04/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
Fant00m
Thank raaphorst here for whats he been doing for the CC comunity! Although not legaly as strong as it should be CC is the best way to go for any project imo
cheers
06/04/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
dylan
yawn said: "Why would you be suspicious anyway?"
Well, I am not suspicious of anyone here. But more suspicious of the possibility that somewhere down the line of transmission that there is a possibility of someone who doesn't give a shit about music (insert evil corporation name here) biting my music and claiming it as their own. A legitimate concern, I think.
06/04/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
Psyingo
just be able to prove you made it, copyright is automatic.
06/04/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
dylan
Psyingo said: "just be able to prove you made it, copyright is automatic."
i have heard that you can postmark and mail a disc of the tracks with a © symbol to yourself. would owning the project file (such as the original ableton .als file, for example) be substantial enough proof?
06/04/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
utofbu
yes
06/05/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
tunalicker
intellectual property rights exist, whether copyright, GNU license or © official library of congress routes. If you made it, you have rights. The "harder" the license, the louder you are yelling at the guys/companies who do not care anyway.
Library of Congress:
".. Copyright Protection Is Automatic
Under the 1976 Copyright Act, which became effective January 1, 1978, a work is automatically protected by copyright when it is created. A work is created when it is “fixed” in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. Neither registration in the Copyright Office nor publication is required for copyright protection under the present law.
.."
This is rarely pointed out, but I think it should be discussed (also library of congress, law)
"...
Mandatory Deposit for Works Published in the United States
Although a copyright registration is not required, the 1976 Copyright Act establishes a mandatory deposit requirement for works published in the United States. In general, the owner of copyright or the owner of the exclusive right of publication in the work has a legal obligation to deposit in the Copyright Office within 3 months of publication in the United States two complete phonorecords of the best edition.
..."
So on one hand, "deposit of work not required" and in the middle "expediently filing legit copyright entitles you to 150Gs if legally accosted..."
on the end bits, you are legally required to copyright if performing the work "publicly" and it is your own and suggestion is witihin three months.
any thoughtS?
06/05/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
tunalicker
oh! does the library of congress have an official statement on copy requirements for Creative Commons works or not? I am still researching that. To me it is still too close to call. it may work out brilliantly or it may turn into a complete cluster-mess. this CC business...
06/05/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
kidgamma
CC just leads to messes. My technique is to make shit stuff noone likes enough to steal
06/05/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
gamatam
kidgamma needs a hug everyone
06/05/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
tunalicker
kidgamma said: "CC just leads to messes. My technique is to make shit stuff noone likes enough to steal"
I used to think that. But when the time is right, I think you'll find the right way of getting your good stuff out there! =) good lucks
06/05/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
dylan
thanks for the help, everyone. this will help me make a more educated decision.
Register / login
|
^
EM411 is Copyright 2001-2008 EM411.com
All rights reserved. | Contact | RSS
|
