discussion: the creative commons ND license (Page 2 of 3)

That's true, but CC is trying to be all-inclusive and contain the common sense that traditional copyright enforcement lacks.

While I applaud the effort I have a couple of fundamental issues with CC. First it feels a bit toothless, even assuming it gives me a robust legal platform from which to ask someone not to do whatever with my songs I still need the time, money and effort to make said someone stop doing it. It doesn't seem better than traditional copyright in that way.

I tend to put my stuff up as cc-by-nc, basically "go head and do whatever with this music just dont use it in commercial ventures" but it isnt like I could stop Disney using my music in a movie. I feels cc is just a defacto expression of the creators preferences which they cant practically enforce.

CC seems very vauge on a couple of salient points, most notable cover versions and samples. No idea at all what it covers there.

Lastly quite a few people dont understand what the licenses mean, i have seen numerous cc-nc-nd works on  weeklybeat for example which contain large samples of commercial music and movies which surely cant be right.

But as for nd being evil, I think it is a bit naive to expect your work to be exempt from people creating remixes or whatever but I assume it is to avoid alienating creators living in that bubble?

As long as I am credited, I do not care what my music is used for.

Now, I am sure there is considerably less demand for my music than most of you, but the fact remains that I have nothing to lose if it is free in the first place. I love hearing remixes of my work, I would like to make it as APPEALING and as EASY as possible for an artist to remix my work.

The only thing is that I would like to be asked before using my music to promote a special interest (political group, religious group, etc.). a very rare occurrence.

what should I be looking for in a license?

I don't think the creative commons licensing system is perfect, but I think for the most part it does what it sets out to do — to give people creating things an easy means of stating, in a clear and up-front way, what permissions they are comfortable granting.

The creative commons licensing system is not an alternative to "traditional" copyright. It's just a nicely-packaged, digestible, template-ized set of licenses presented in a way that is easy to use online (or wherever).

The practicalities of Person B using Person A's music (or other types of creative works) has always been something managed via two things: an up-front recognition / acknowledgement of ownership (Person B recognizes Person A made the work, and therefore it's theirs) and a negotiation of permissions and terms of use (a license).

Creative commons licenses are just a very, very stripped-down set of licenses presented for people to use if they like, because it very, very, very much streamlines the communication of intentions and conditions between rightsholder and the party interested in using the work.

The ND option is not meant, I think, to placate copyright conservatives, but instead is presented simply because different people have different levels of comfort with how their creative work is used and by what parties. (This, in my view, is something that's worth being selective about, lest one day you find your music has ended up as the soundtrack to some neo-Nazi video or something maybe less implausible but similarly abhorrent to you personally.) And it's worth keeping in mind that the ND option doesn't prohibit anything at all — it just doesn't explicitly grant permission up-front. For parties interested in using a piece of music in their game, remix, funny cat video, etc., the option always remains for them to contact the artist directly to arrange for permission.

This concludes my report on the Creative Commons licensing system.

Also,

I think that ND is useful when the integrity of the work is very important to you, but you explicitly want to grant the consumer some other right that CC provides a clear legal definition of (in the case of ND-BY, probably the right to commercially distribute and perform the work). Maybe you have written and recorded a political speech and don't want half of it cut out, reassembled and used to your disadvantage, but you want commercial radio stations to be able to play it back freely.

YO i just realised that when i asked if share alike was similar to no derivatives i meant "share music" not SA

i don't think i've seen the SM license in aaaages though. it was an option on this other music (now defunct) community.

Well, imagine someone sees the ND for first time. He goes here to learn what this mean and reads:

Sounds quite negative to me. I didn't ever see that someone would add a not that someone who wants to get a permission, he may try to contact the author, and I doubt it is that obvious. If it would be worded like 'you need to get direct author permission to alter, transform, or build upon this work' (with 'don't need' for non-ND licenses), that would be much better.