Licensing your music.

So in light of Nikolas' run in with needing to potentially exert his copyright legally, this thread is about licenses.

Me? I'm for the CC version with no commercial distribution. It's sort of like, the best thing we have right now considering that it's the internet and there's absolutely no way to control people torrenting/uploading/etc stuff anyways, so why pretend all rights reserved even works at all this day and age. So long as people hear my music I'm fine and the no-commercial thing is just extra insurance but honestly I don't plan to lawsuit anyone anytime soon.

So like I said, I don't think you really can deal with a traditional copyright these days.

Speaking of which, CC != Public Domain.

Creative Commons In case anyone doesn't know what CC stands for.

I think it's smartest answer so far as to the whole copyright vs sharing "problem" of interwebs.

never like the CC licenses, always felt like they weren't enough of a license to warrant writing down "pretty please do this..." it's like shareware... either release your product as freeware or polish it enough to go through traditional means.

That's overly simplistic thinking, but I'm sticking to it, since I'm probably going to stay in the ranks of amateurship.

??????????

They are valid licenses that can stand up according to copyright law just fine so long as you go through the proper channels. I don't know what you're talking about, lol. It's not "pretty please do this" it's "stay within the license or I can legally rape you."

So I'm not really sure what CC is about. I looked around the site for info but couldn't find it, but does anyone have a site that gives a fair overview of it?

So I'm not really sure what CC is about. I looked around the site for info but couldn't find it, but does anyone have a site that gives a fair overview of it?

Weird, it's all there. Let me link you.

About - Creative Commons

Well obviously there's this.

License your work - Creative Commons

What each license does, and in this page you can also see both the "human readable" version of the legal code AND the actual legal code which is probably what you want to read if you want to see how it really works. Of course, this changes from country to country and the countries that support this license are listed in the website too. (IE, there's no "fair use" in German copyright law, for example, lol.)

Creative Commons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

It's good to remember that all this crap is in its infancy, but I find it great that at least there's an initiative to try to adapt copyright and so on to all the technology stuff we have today without being absolutist. It only really works, though, if people actually use these things (which I encourage) but well, it's a personal option.

Interesting topic SSC.

For me I license my music often for clients- with either exclusive or non-exclusive rights offered. Before I started doing this "seriously" I would write music just for friends and family. At that time, I'd post my music for feedback, enjoyment and sometimes collaboration with other artists. Didn't bother me at all. All of my music was free and I shared it openly.

Now that I'm making my sole living by my work, I'm much more protective of it. Not only do I have to pay the usual living expenses and such (food, bills, rent, car payment, ins bills) I also have to maintain my studio and keep up with gear (both hardware and software wise). This gets very, very expensive very fast. My next system I'm looking to upgrade to is $11,000. Yeah. Ouch. But its worth it.

So like I said, I don't think you really can deal with a traditional copyright these days.

This comment confuses me because I'm not sure what "traditional copyright" means to you. My works are copyrighted because:

A) I own the licenses to the hardware and software used to create the content

B) I created it, therefore I own it unless I sign something transferring the rights to a client or group of clients. (Side note: I can keep all rights if the client doesn't fulfill their obligations even if I've signed something.)

C) I can provide tangible proof (DAW sessions and multiple drafts of the content) to any court proving that I am the author of the material.

D) When writing for a client, I draft up a contract that clearly states what kind of license I'm offering for the agreed terms. The contract is very clear on how long the license stands as well as what the client is and isn't allowed to do with the content. It also states that I'm to be credited as the author (or composer) of the work in all of the project's materials (packaging, literature, websites, etc).

As someone who has done extensive work under contract and has much of his work copyrighted, I think it is possible to work with "traditional copyright" in this age. The key is to aware of what you're signing, what your rights are and what others can and can't do with your material.

But I'm not a copyright lawyer. :)

Nate

Actually all that is fine.

The thing I was talking about was the way to handle copyright protection and still allow for legal distribution and sharing of your works, while giving you a measure of protection against license infringement.

If you work with clients or other people, most likely the license/agreement will vary depending on what you're doing and for whom.

By "traditional" copyright I mean precisely the "all rights reserved" thing which is all there really is unless you get half-way licenses like GPL (for code) or CC here. The point being that without these it gets sort of tricky legislating what actually is fair use and what isn't, plus it's impossible to enforce copyright these days unless you're a huge company with lots of cash to blow on lawsuits, and even if you do settle outside of court imagine doing this for every infringement you choose to pursue.

The reality is that these days means of mass distribution are becoming so prominent that licenses like these, I feel, are a necessity because it's quite unrealistic to think that you can enforce traditional copyright on a single individual level now where your work can get copied off across thousands of servers in instants and you have no idea who has what and is using it for what.

So what these licenses do is that they allow you to distribute your stuff and others to distribute it for you but you can pick how they can use your work. Ideally, the point is that you still retain copyright like you would with an "all rights reserved" usual license, but you agree that anyone can copy/distribute your stuff (and depends what license, you can bar them from making money out of it.)

I think it's a realistic way to handle what is a really outdated copyright system which simply can't function properly given how easy it is to copy/disseminate stuff today online.

**stuff about Creative Commons licensing**

Good info SSC.

The SOCAN website gives a good breakdown of the slightly negative side of it. I.e. can never get paid from something under CC license; can never cancel it...

Your Copyrights and the

Irrevocable, yep. That's also on the CC site quite clear and plain. You can re-release it under other licenses, whatever, but if you released something under CC, whatever you released is going to be stuck with that licensing no matter if you later pull it.

And though there are downsides like in everything, there are also some really nice bonuses for using something like this. For one, if anyone digs your work they can always commission you and THAT would not need to be released under CC if you and your commissioner don't want to, etc etc.

There's a lot of smart ways to go about it where you can both get some boost in getting your music/whatever going around and at the same time make sure that it's a front to other stuff you do which people can pay you for. It's not a bad idea, IMO.

PS: Oh, it wouldn't also be a stretch to think that SOCAN has its reasons for speaking against CC, so some criticisms aren't really that valid, like how it may reduce the value of future works. It seems very "scare-tacticish" and all of what they "warn about" is already detailed in the CC website as well.

Bump with some reading material this time on the subject:

== Free Culture / Free Content ==

:>

Exactly what Robin says. CC licenses are NON revocable. Once there, it's done! You can still charge for it, at a later time, but you still cannot offer exclusivity and people will ALWAYS and legally download your stuff.

The problem is this: By default copyright you own ALL rights. End of the story. THey CANNOT redistribute, they CANNOT put on a database, they CANNOT share, they CANNOT perform, they CANNOT make money, they CANNOT... without asking you first. CC license exists in order to give legal ground and give solutions and explanations: You CAN redistribute, but not make money. You CAN use, but only if you credit. You CANNOT make money, you CANNOT... etc. It just seperates various cases and puts them under different licenses.

You don't really need, UNDER LAW, to state what form your rights take. You hold ALL rights and YOU loving decide what you do with your music. Right now, I CANNOT stop anyone from exchanging files with other people, for those 5 scores. Even if I'd like to make them better, I'd like to take them down, etc. Even if the rights ARE mine. The right to cancel has flown away.

So CC license are simply NOT for me.

_____________________-

Of course all the above applies for "concert hall" music. Cause the rest are licensed to my clients (like Nathan says), or there is a complete buy out, so there is the pre arranged aggrement that THE CLIENT holds the copyrights!

Simple!

... Well, good luck trying to enforce total copyright if you ever become moderately famous. It doesn't really work.

I mean you can have it in principle, but in practice it doesn't really matter because unless you're rich and you have a lawyer team to fight for you, chances are thousands of copyright infringements are going to fly right by you and you can't do much about it (either because you don't know or because you can't simply pretend to be able to fight them all in court.)

In essence, it's unmanageable. That's why CC exists, simply to adapt to that reality and try to reform the copyright system as to account for IP ownership being something rather different than what it once was, no matter if you want to admit it or not.

But if I even become slightly famous I won't be the one to worry about copyrights anymore! :D That's the whole point! :D

But if I even become slightly famous I won't be the one to worry about copyrights anymore! :D That's the whole point! :D

WELL but to get famous there are many ways, is all I'm sayin'.

Good info SSC.

The SOCAN website gives a good breakdown of the slightly negative side of it. I.e. can never get paid from something under CC license; can never cancel it...

]

Actually, you can make money from something you put under a CC license. If you license a composition as Non-commercial, it means that users cannot use your work for commercial gain. It does not mean that you, the licensor, cannot use the work for commercial gain.

From the FAQ of Creative Commons:

Can I still make money from a work I make available under a Creative Commons licenses?

Absolutely. Firstly, because our licenses are non-exclusive which means you are not tied down to only make a piece of your content available under a Creative Commons license; you can also enter into other revenue-generating licenses in relation to your work. One of our central goals is to encourage people to experiment with new ways to promote and market their work.

Secondly, the noncommercial license option is an inventive tool designed to allow people to maximize the distribution of their works while keeping control of the commercial aspects of their copyright. To make one thing clear that is sometimes misunderstood: the "noncommercial use" condition applies only to others who use your work, not to you (the licensor). So if you choose to license your work under a Creative Commons license that includes the

Then what is the CC for? If it's a noncommercial, nonexclusive license, why not just draft up a quick blurb that says "Don't steal my music. I'll kill your family" and upload a picture from rotten.com with a snide caption and be done with it? Is there any difference?

Another point that can be confusing for many people is that a CC license is NOT a copyright.

At least in the US, whenever you compose a piece of music (by notating it down) it is automatically copyrighted by the author, in this case the composer. If you wish, you can register your copyright with the Library of Congress to obtain additional benefits - this is probably something a professional composer would be wise to do (my profs. have recommended this to us).

The CC licenses are not alternatives to copyright - they apply in addition to an existing default copyright, not in place of.

Then what is the CC for? If it's a noncommercial, nonexclusive license, why not just draft up a quick blurb that says "Don't steal my music. I'll kill your family" and upload a picture from rotten.com with a snide caption and be done with it? Is there any difference?

Of course, I am not a CC expert by any means, but CC license is as much for the licensor as it is for the licensee.

If you obtained the most restrictive CC license, someone who came across your work would be able to distribute it and use it for non-commercial purposes, but they would be infringing your copyright by modifying the work, using the work for commercial gain, or distributing/using it without giving credit to you. What this license allows basically, is the legal dissemination of your work by individuals other than yourself, with several restrictions (those mentioned previously).

It removes certain restrictions on the distribution of your work across the internet (or through any other medium). Without the CC license, people cannot legally distribute your music without your permission unless it falls under the domain of 'fair use', of course.

A CC license is enforceable in court also (and was done so in 2006).

I guess it all depends on how you want your works distributed - how much 'freedom' you are willing to give them out in the real world.

Without the CC license, people cannot legally distribute your music without your permission unless it falls under the domain of 'fair use', of course.

Good to remember however that CC is just beginning to have international traction, and that a lot of countries have different copyright laws. "Fair use" for example isn't recognized in Germany and I'm not sure there's even an analogue at all.

As for dropping the license, you can't remove the license from the works already licensed through a CC license. You can stop licensing your works in CC at any time, but it won't apply to the ones you already did license under CC, that's all. IE: It's non-revocable, but you can always just stop licensing stuff with it at any time in the future.

Then what is the CC for? If it's a noncommercial, nonexclusive license, why not just draft up a quick blurb that says "Don't steal my music. I'll kill your family" and upload a picture from rotten.com with a snide caption and be done with it? Is there any difference?

The point is that CC is defensible in court in the countries where it applies, you can take legal action for breach in a CC license. It's designed for this.

Contact the recording company you're using music from and ask for permission to use such-n-such a piece for such-n-such a show... specify exactly what you are using the music for, and when it'll be heard. Depending on the producer you may or may not be required to pay royalties and provide a note in the program... something along the lines of "Music used with special permission of..."

Of course, if you have a composer attached to your theater, you could always have him/her underscore your productions.

Contact the recording company you're using music from and ask for permission to use such-n-such a piece for such-n-such a show... specify exactly what you are using the music for, and when it'll be heard. Depending on the producer you may or may not be required to pay royalties and provide a note in the program... something along the lines of "Music used with special permission of..."

Of course, if you have a composer attached to your theater, you could always have him/her underscore your productions.

?

Have you actually READ the thread you're posting in?

Bump:

Arguably one of the last lectures Lessig will give on it, and it raises as always some very important points. Specially about the responsibility of youtube and such other "hybrids" and communities such as this forum.

I would love to see a Wiki article here on YC that deals with copyright... even after reading this thread and some of the things on the CC website, I still don't understand a bunch of things. I think we should keep some document page of "what's going on" and "how to's" and things like that, I.E. a Wiki page.

So as I understand it, if I write a String Quartet No.3 in E major by James H. Householder IV, Op.66, and I created it in Finale software on my personal computer (possibly with handwritten drafts on tangible paper) that work, my string quartet, is automatically protected by US law the moment I write it? So if I post a thread on YC about it, link to the score and an Mp3 rendering on Box.net, all those files, and my music, are protected by U.S. copyright laws without me doing anything whatsoever? So if people take my piece, and use it for background in a promotional movie/commercial and make money off it, how do I enforce my rights as the composer? What keeps people from using my music?

And furthermore, if I put a CC notice on the bottom of my page of my composition, how does that change anything? I registered several works under CC website, and it seemed that all it was was picking what rights you wanted, then it gave you a little tag you put on your work to say it was registered. But how's it registered? Where? Just because I put that little text on it?

I read a lot on this... and I still don't get it. Would anybody mind explaining this all in layman's terms?

I read a lot on this... and I still don't get it. Would anybody mind explaining this all in layman's terms?

Depends greatly on what country you're in.

And, what happens is, if you release a piece of music under a license (you attach that license to the music, be it in print or in your website you post the CC code they give you) it means that you can legally enforce that license should anyone break it.

It gives you a degree of control over how people use your stuff.

But otherwise, copyright law differs depending on jurisdiction.

But point is, I just put some text on the page that says that. Somebody could print the PDF of my score after having removed this text and say it's theirs. Even more easily if they just alter it by putting their name on it with an earlier date than I had, making it look like *I* was trying to steal it.

So how does CC have an impact in that simple case? Or must you have published the work through a publisher before it really makes a difference? (even then, somebody could still try and pull the date and name swap trick).

I just don't get how it is supposed to offer any protection.