[cc-community] CC needs a default form of attribution?
Kevin Phillips (home)
tacet at qmpublishing.com
Tue Apr 29 20:22:17 EDT 2008
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamison Young" <jam at iarts.cc>
To: <cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:01 AM
Subject: Re: [cc-community] CC needs a default form of attribution?
>
>> From: "Mike Linksvayer"
>>
>> "Attribution. You must credit the author and/or designated
>> organization by name; note the title of the work; and give the URI
>> and/or text of any copyright notices. If you change the work, you must
>> note the changes."
>>
>> vs the current
>>
>> "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)."
>>
>> Including the non-endorsement stuff would obtain something like
>>
>> "Attribution. You must credit the author and/or designated
>> organization by name (but not in any way that suggests that they
>> endorse you or your use of the work); note the title of the work; and
>> give the URI and/or text of any copyright notices. If you change the
>> work, you must note the changes."
>>
>> Any feedback on that? I'll see what is thought of it internally.
>
> Attribution.
> for radio station?
> -straight after the track was played or prior the station would
> mention the artist's song and website.
No chance, presenters do this on commercial radio out of choice sometimes
because either they're pushing a certain artist, or label, or they're doing
it to seem knowledgeable. But they never do it for every song, that would
probably be the most listener-un-friendly radio station in the world :)
"and that was Over and Over by sn33k3rb()Yz...brought to you by Creative
Commons, a subsidairy of the Brevity Brothers Corporation." ;)
Reading aloud the attribution list I've seen associated with some creative
commons music remixes would almost take as long as playing the darned song.
I really don't think the whole enforced-attribution thing would sit well
with the listening/dancing masses. For me CC needs to work like Copyright
in the sense that you should respect the author and owner, and the license,
within an appropriate framework. I wouldn't want a radio station to be
lumbered with reading out my attribution and urls every time they played one
of my songs because I fully understand their need for musical continuity,
but I would like folks who visit the stations website to be able to track me
down via their playlist - that's really where the attribution belongs.
Btw "note the changes" is an interesting part of the license which passed me
by previously. I've never seen a remix website which requests you do this
when remixing a track. ccMixter has a "how I did this" optional entry, and
Kompoz has notes associated with a project, but nothing specifically for
tracking changes in order to meet the license terms......did I miss
something?
> for a night club/event?
> -the song/tittle/website might be on a list that was part of a ticket.
> -songs might be on a website from the night.
> -after or prior to each song the DJ would announce the song.
> -after each song was played the creator/producer/writers of the songs
> names might glow above the DJ's head.
No chance, DJs would never go for that. Consider how DJs tend to work songs
into each other, and in some cases are quite protective and secretive about
the sources of some of their breaks and loops, you may conclude this to be a
non-starter too. Again, the web site could provide a part-way solution and
at a push you might get your name mentioned on the flyer. Again, as an
artist I'd have no expectation of a DJ mentioning my nic no more than I'd
expect him to pause and announce "this loop is from a 1984 Prince CD
entitled Purple Rain - all rights reserved".
> for someone that sang someone else's song and recorded it?
> -the performer could announce that this was someone's song with
> website prior to singing the song, make it part of the recording.
Of the three so far this is the most likely to be carried out, but more out
of respect for the artist covered than a legal premise. Covering another
artists work is a big complement anyway.
I think if the licenses cause too much hassle for folks, in that they
disrupt the flow, or cause vast amounts of extra work or effort to implement
compared to ARR materials, then the ARR materials will continue to be
dominant ear-space.
> Do you think a link from the license might suggest different ways to
> attribute for different uses?
I think uses should be explored and described. I think expectations, if
there are indeed expectations as you suggest, need to be aired.
> A problems with rights organizations (from the self publishers point
> of view) is that the rights organizations give the venue/radio/club
> the right to use content as they choose (at a cost), the user of
> content is under no obligation to attribute the artist. If good
> attribution conditions were attached to the license, self publishing
> artists that are not commercial- might be more inclined to use a
> creative commons license.
Not true, if all the red tape mentioned caused CC materials to become less
desirable to stations and podcasters. Self publishing artists who release
ARR music are probably less likely to use CC if the feedback from stations
and podcasters is negative or has tiresome "obligations".
It's really simple. If I hear some music I really like I go out of my way
to find out what that music is, who made it and where can I buy/get it from.
I think it's at that point the attribution expectations kick in, and it
should be easy to locate the artist and their music, and ultimately buy/get
more of it.
So as we've already agreed, an associated web site, or what about this for a
whacky idea, you could ask the DJ/performer or call the radio station....I
know it's a bit 1973, but hey.....
> Also: If an artist is not a member of a
> rights organization- then the cafe/bar/radio station/non-profit
> organization has no platform to use a song. A lot of songwriters
> would like attribution attached to a song that included -a website
> link/ tittle of the track/ performer and writer of songs name, maybe
> even producers.
Who are these songwriters and artists you speak of? I don't know any CC
musicians who are willing to impose additional expectations on radio
stations and clubs. Most appreciate the need for reasonable applicability
and would really be happy with the airplay.
> Attribution can be a sensitive issue. Could
> attribution conditions be built into the license, if the artist would
> choose? Could a couple of different defaults exist? Is a default
> possible with so many variables?
I don't think it's sensitive, I just think it's confusing. There are
probably areas where I'd be even more insistant than you that attribution
needs to be done "correctly". As a for instance, I'm not happy with
attribution on most web sites. I think web sites are the domain for
attribution, and yet it's sometimes difficult to figure out who created what
and when. ccMixter for instance allows me to remix a remix of a remix etc.
The more levels the more "distant" the attribution becomes, to the point
that it's impossible to see who contributed as a whole without following
every stage/thread manually.
Remix attribution can quickly grow into a full tree, at the moment most
sites show only a single outer branch. It could be argued that this goes
against the spirit of the license, because all contributors are not
attributed equally.
I think it's important that ccMixter et al display the complete attribution
(if I click to expand it). Its up to CC sites to set the example, then DJs
and radio stations can see it's not so terrible, and understand the
obligation. Adding further bothersome expectations will almost certainly
interfere with their general karma imho, so lets get the balance right.
Kevin
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
>
More information about the cc-community
mailing list