![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My Creative Commons License
Jun. 18th, 2008 07:47 amIn case you were wondering what the heck I meant by a Creative Commons License, here what's up.
First of all, this disclaimer. I am not a lawyer, though my nephew is. This article is based on my own experience and is not meant to take the place of official legal advice. Please consult your own attorney, or at least learn how to read and comprehend legalese while suppressing the urge to click the "Agree" button like most people do when they download new software.
Creative Commons is a means by which an artist of any stripe and concentration can define, in very specific terms where, why, when, and how their craft is to be shared, and in some cases, reinterpreted. This tool has proved itself quite powerful in the hands of independent artists.
Quite literally, CC represents a happy medium, a moderation between "all rights reserved" and "no rights reserved", more famously known as "copyleft".
Take for example, Phoenix Door. When I was preparing the album for release, I considered the possibilities of sharing my music with as many people as possible for the sole purpose of "getting my music out there". I decided that at the very least, I wanted credit for my music, no matter what. Not so much due to pride, but to make sure that there was no question that the song you like (or didn't like) was written by this guy and not that guy.
Another thing I felt important is that people have the right to copy and share Phoenix Door as many times as they want. A smart move, in my opinion, because:
1.) That aforementioned "getting my music out there" reason, and;
2.) We're all gonna do it anyway. This is the age of the internet, after all.
Which then begs the question, what if some enterprising remixer wants to sample the "doot-doot" part from "Destination Zero" for his project? I think that as long as he or she uses the music, they should at least credit me as the source of that sample. Besides, people will know or ask anyway where this and that sample came from. I'm fine with that on the condition that if they plan to make money off their venture they should, at the very least, get my express written permission.
All of that sounds reasonable right? As long as I think so, CC has the right license for me. And they do. I clicked this link to Choose A License and found the right license:
And they gave me a link to to point online visitors to:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/
A version of the code written in very fluent Lawyerese so that jam will stand up in court:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/legalcode
As well as a snazzy badge:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Perfect. I've created my work and given fans and consumers a means of how to share and interpret Phoenix Door among each other. Additionally, the international copyright laws already in place that protect my intellectual and moral rights as well as my right to seek royalties unless I specifically waive them further protect me and my work. I am now my own licensor. I have paid nothing to do this. This is liberating. I wish Prince had this at his disposal back in the day.
In the digital age, it is important that artists know what rights they have. Too many reactionaries to copyright laws flaunt and attack those laws due to a misreading of Copyright. Those people think that the concept of Copyright -- as it is -- is a way that extorts money for the sole purpose of lining the pockets of big business. In truth, the big four record companies misused copyright for nefarious purposes. (yes it used to be 10, then seven, then five, thanks to corporate merger deregulation -- a whole 'nother article, my friend)
Creative Commons and other independent forms of licensing justify the power of the artist to defend their legal and moral rights to their work and allows the artist to define boundaries of how to share and attribute their work. That's the reason why I got my CC.
http://creativecommons.org/
First of all, this disclaimer. I am not a lawyer, though my nephew is. This article is based on my own experience and is not meant to take the place of official legal advice. Please consult your own attorney, or at least learn how to read and comprehend legalese while suppressing the urge to click the "Agree" button like most people do when they download new software.
Creative Commons is a means by which an artist of any stripe and concentration can define, in very specific terms where, why, when, and how their craft is to be shared, and in some cases, reinterpreted. This tool has proved itself quite powerful in the hands of independent artists.
Quite literally, CC represents a happy medium, a moderation between "all rights reserved" and "no rights reserved", more famously known as "copyleft".
Take for example, Phoenix Door. When I was preparing the album for release, I considered the possibilities of sharing my music with as many people as possible for the sole purpose of "getting my music out there". I decided that at the very least, I wanted credit for my music, no matter what. Not so much due to pride, but to make sure that there was no question that the song you like (or didn't like) was written by this guy and not that guy.
Another thing I felt important is that people have the right to copy and share Phoenix Door as many times as they want. A smart move, in my opinion, because:
1.) That aforementioned "getting my music out there" reason, and;
2.) We're all gonna do it anyway. This is the age of the internet, after all.
Which then begs the question, what if some enterprising remixer wants to sample the "doot-doot" part from "Destination Zero" for his project? I think that as long as he or she uses the music, they should at least credit me as the source of that sample. Besides, people will know or ask anyway where this and that sample came from. I'm fine with that on the condition that if they plan to make money off their venture they should, at the very least, get my express written permission.
All of that sounds reasonable right? As long as I think so, CC has the right license for me. And they do. I clicked this link to Choose A License and found the right license:
Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States
You are free:
* to Share — to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
* to Remix — to make derivative works
Under the following conditions:
* Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
* Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
* Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
* Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
* Apart from the remix rights granted under this license, nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights.
And they gave me a link to to point online visitors to:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/
A version of the code written in very fluent Lawyerese so that jam will stand up in court:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/legalcode
As well as a snazzy badge:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Perfect. I've created my work and given fans and consumers a means of how to share and interpret Phoenix Door among each other. Additionally, the international copyright laws already in place that protect my intellectual and moral rights as well as my right to seek royalties unless I specifically waive them further protect me and my work. I am now my own licensor. I have paid nothing to do this. This is liberating. I wish Prince had this at his disposal back in the day.
In the digital age, it is important that artists know what rights they have. Too many reactionaries to copyright laws flaunt and attack those laws due to a misreading of Copyright. Those people think that the concept of Copyright -- as it is -- is a way that extorts money for the sole purpose of lining the pockets of big business. In truth, the big four record companies misused copyright for nefarious purposes. (yes it used to be 10, then seven, then five, thanks to corporate merger deregulation -- a whole 'nother article, my friend)
Creative Commons and other independent forms of licensing justify the power of the artist to defend their legal and moral rights to their work and allows the artist to define boundaries of how to share and attribute their work. That's the reason why I got my CC.
http://creativecommons.org/
