[cc-licenses] Non Commercial CC Licensing and Royalties
bmz
bmz at mezurashii.net
Wed Mar 21 16:52:29 EDT 2007
Hi Everyone,
I am a DJ and music producer and I am looking at releasing some of my
own original compositions under a Creative Commons license. The two
licenses I am considering are Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike
(by-nc-sa) and Attribution Share Alike (by-sa).
The reason I am looking at these is that I don't want to stop people
either remixing my work or including my work in a DJ mixed set of music
(which I consider to be a derivative work). I don't want to stop people
being able to hear my music but at the same time I don't want anyone
selling it without my permission. I'd like to keep the option of
licensing my work for commercial release.
My interest in this from the DJ perspective is that I currently have a
regular unpaid gig where I play a lot of Non-commercially licensed CC
music released on various netlabels. If I were to get a paid gig, my
understanding is, I would no longer be able to play Non-commercially
licensed CC music, which I feel would be a great loss due to artists
getting less exposure.
From my perspective Non-commercial is too restrictive and Commercial is
too free.
The license deeds contain the words "Any of the above conditions can be
waived if you get permission from the copyright holder." but there isn't
any "standard" way to grant additional rights. Has anyone discussed the
concept of standardised CC waivers, a kind of CC plus?
A standardised waiver that I think would be useful is a Commercial
Public Performance and Royalty waiver (CC plus DJ). This would allow for
the commercial performance of a by-nc-sa licensed work but not further
distribution for profit (e.g. on a commercially released CD).
I have gone with the idea of a standardised waiver as not to cause a
proliferation of CC licenses nor make the existing ones any more complex.
Although the licensing conundrum above is my own and I can get legal
help to construct my own waivers, I feel that the issues of public
performance and royalties will keep coming up.
There was a post to this list by Eric Garner on Saturday March 10
([cc-licenses] CC music and webcasting) that raises the issues of
mandatory royalties being paid to Soundexchange for all webcast music
regardless of label affiliation
National Public Radio (NPR) in the US has also recently spoken out about
the new internet royalty structure in less than positive terms. The
communication VP from NPR, Andi Sporkin, said the following;
"This is a stunning, damaging decision for public radio and its
commitment to music discovery and education, which has been part of our
tradition for more than half a century. Public radio’s agreements on
royalties with all such organizations, including the RIAA, have always
taken into account our public service mission and non-profit status.
These new rates, at least 20 times more than what stations have paid in
the past, treat us as if we were commercial radio – although by its
nature, public radio cannot increase revenue from more listeners or more
content, the factors that set this new rate. Also, we are being
required to pay an internet royalty fee that is vastly more expensive
than what we pay for over-the-air use of music, although for a fraction
of the over-the-air audience."
The quote above is from the following article.
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/technology_internetcritic/2007/03/npr_may_lead_fi.html
Call me cynical but I'd hate to see non-mainstream music effectively
priced out of the marketplace just to protect the business model of an
established industry. This sort of action seems quite protectionist.
Sorry for such a long winded post and sorry if this sort of thing has
been discussed a thousand times before but I want to do the right thing
by artists and what good is a commons that cannot be accessed by everyone.
Cheers,
bmz
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list