Licensing something as free and then going around and making backroom deals with platform holders so it cannot freely be used is misleading and unethical. If I use CC-BY music in a game I make, I don't want to discover after the fact that you will insert ads in my YouTube trailer.
I don't entirely get the OP, if it is CC-BY then I think you could add ads to your trailer and collect money on his music. Perhaps he chose the wrong license..
If it is CC-BY-NC then he should be able to prevent you from adding ads in combination with his music (though youtube can't settle whether the larger point of the video is commercial), but he doesn't have any rights to add ads nor should youtube act as a music agent to broker deals with video producers as he asserts at the end.
My buddy Ryno - http://rynothebearded.com/ has a weekly podcast that focuses on music under a CC license. There are many great tunes available free of charge, and it's very strange that music falling under this license doesn't get more traction.
if your tastes extend to classical. Classical artists have it easier as they can release a sound recording of a particular performance under the CC licence and then release another recording commercially. Leon Fleisher springs to mind.
I don't think it's strange, really. Music is generally publicised by large labels on purpose and at great expense. It would be incredibly rare for an unsigned (not to mention a CC no one is getting paid for) track to get on the A playlist of a national radio station without someone actively pushing it with all the usual PR that comes with a record release.
Surely part of the problem is that content-id is a bit far-reaching for CC-licensed content? That is, as my understanding goes: if I release music under CC then you use that music, per its license, to make a derived work and stick it on YT, now I get paid for (and get to stick adverts on) your fully-licensed work! That seems a bit unfair.
So I can see that there would be benefit to a creator being able to monetise their own works on YT, but surely there needs to be a mechanism in place to protect legitimate licensees from an over-reaching licensing grab? And at the moment it seems like that mechanism is just not letting people into the monetisation system at all.
Often the people monetizing the CC licensed stuff aren't even the real owners. I've heard of quite a few people whose own work got monetized without their consent.
There are NC Creative Commons licenses that would be reasonably monetizable on YouTube, though. (But it would require a human to actually figure out if it's a commercial work.)
Huh. I run a Creative Commons record label - http://recordsonribs.com - we distribute our music through an online distributor and have never even had a hint of a problem with it. We use CC SA-NC. This for us is a pragmatic question of distribution, making sure the music is out there and available to people who might want to listen, rather than an attempt to monetize. I can tell you know, the money received from streaming services is so unbelievably low that is most is either insulting to artists to redistribute to them or only covers operational costs (and then barely covers them). We are talking in the pennies here.
Yes, the NC part is important here. I don't understand this author's complaint -- if they released it without the NC, it is definitely permissible for other people to monetize their work, and Content ID would be inappropriate!
This post seems pretty confused to me. The idea is that you tell YouTube "I own this, people can't use it without my permission, but I'm ok with it as long as you give me a cut of the ad revenue". But with CC-licensed music you have already given people that permission.
It sounds like the author wants to give people the right to use their music freely anywhere but YouTube, which CC and YouTube understandably don't support.
Disclaimer: I work for Google, on open source software that doesn't have anything to do with YouTube.
I was considering releasing some music under the CC SA-NC for exactly this purpose. I want people to share it, but I don't want it expoited without permission (which I'd gladly give, I just want to know by who).
To avoid the distribution issue, is it possible to use a CC licence for music downloaded from your website, while using a RR licence when providing to the distributors? (On the same song).
Any reason why the licence can't be dependent on the distribution channel?
The problem isn't a distribution issue, the problem is that he wants to be able to tell other people that they're allowed to use his music for free, then turn around and tell YouTube that they need to redirect all the ad revenue from videos using it into his pockets as payment for using it, adding ads if necessary. That's a sleazy, dishonest thing to do. (Even for CC-BY-NC as you're adding ads to non-monetized videos against the creator's wishes - and possibly in violation of the license of other elements of the video.) Also, what matters to the distributors is whether any of the music was ever released under Creative Commons. Releasing a slightly different version probably won't help either for this reason.
If you own the material, you can choose as many different licenses as you want, for any reason you want. Some distributors may not be happy about this, though.
> I want people to share it, but I don't want it expoited without permission (which I'd gladly give, I just want to know by who).
The purpose of Creative Commons licenses is that people know what they are allowed to do - exactly so that they don't have to go to the tedious process of asking each artist for permission.
Actually I think this just stems from simple economics.
Monetization under online content-ID schemes (including relatedly serving takedowns under DCMA where required) all require the content usage rights to unambiguously be established AND verifiable in an automated fashion. Before an ad can be placed on a piece of content or served a DCMA takedown, the right to do so needs to be veirfied (eg. DCMA requires "good faith effort"), or they may get conter-sued.
With normal licenced content, that is easy to determine in an automated fashion - audio signatures will identify the potentially infringing content & then possibly some algorithms will check for fair-use - eg. length of the original song used, audio quality to eg. indicate it it's a production video or you recording your kid dancing, maybe even a human in the loop at the very end.
With CC licensed content, every piece of potentially infriging content needs to be human verified for usage rights & even then it may not be clear quickly. It is too expensive to hire an army of humans - so you would not support it at all.
Cc is the open source of creation. I'm fascinated by the power of open source. capitalism pushed to its extream is harmful to humanity. Just look at junk food to convince yourself if you aren't yet. By its incremental enhancement, it leads to exponential growth. It is slow in the start because incremental steps are small, but it leads to a tsunami.
I believe we are on the verge to see a fundamental change in the way the worlds economy is working. This may still take 100 years, but capitalism is doomed because it leads to unstable economical states and it's harmful for humanity (e.g speculation on food).
Lets keep pushing on the snowball and extend that model to other domains. I think that scientists pioneered that model, hence the exponential scientific progress.
I kind of hope YouTube gets mad and tells those distros to eat shit.
Aside from rights management do these "distros" do ANYTHING anymore? And they are too lazy to do any rights management work that YouTube isn't performing semi- or fully-automatically?
YouTube should not allow them to simply be gate keepers.
I expect YouTube is the one imposing these requirements on the distributors. Licensing your content under the Creative Commons, then going around and telling YouTube that anyone who uses it is infringing your copyright and they need to pay you to keep it up is dishonest and damaging to the YouYube ecosystem as a whole.
> Aside from rights management do these "distros" do ANYTHING anymore?
Yes - getting physical media manufactured and distributed worldwide, promotion, and organizing world tours. All that needs massive financial firepower, you're not going to get e.g. prime-time TV ad spots as an indie label.
As someone who isn't at all familiar with music distribution, is YouTube really the best way for indie artists to distribute, and monetise, their music? The audio quality seems a lot lower compared to Spotify, and I don't really want to waste bandwidth on a video just to listen to music while I'm working. On the other hand I've noticed some mainstream music is blocked for me on Spotify, but available on YouTube.
I don't know about monetization, but for distribution, youtube has a huge audience. A lot of people just listen to music on youtube because it's free and accessible. So I think it's fair to say you can have great reach on youtube. At the same time, I don't know about discoverability; if you're a small artist (nobody heard of you), your video is going to have very few views, and it's unlikely to be recommended for random people listening to popular music. I don't know if other services fare any better in this regard though.
Bandwidth isn't a consideration for most people as long as it just works, and quality is good enough.
Cc its really pretty nuanced you can have tunes you give away for free for people to enjoy but a commercial company would have to license it to use it in their film. I think CC Music is the future, not these crummy middle men services. Think about it, if you band is able to get shows where you have a $4,000 minimum per night off of "giving away" your music then you've won without having to sell a single song.
slavik81|9 years ago
languagewars|9 years ago
If it is CC-BY-NC then he should be able to prevent you from adding ads in combination with his music (though youtube can't settle whether the larger point of the video is commercial), but he doesn't have any rights to add ads nor should youtube act as a music agent to broker deals with video producers as he asserts at the end.
voidz|9 years ago
keithpeter|9 years ago
http://www.gardnermuseum.org/music/listen/music_library?filt...
if your tastes extend to classical. Classical artists have it easier as they can release a sound recording of a particular performance under the CC licence and then release another recording commercially. Leon Fleisher springs to mind.
chillydawg|9 years ago
conatus|9 years ago
shams93|9 years ago
asimuvPR|9 years ago
Esau|9 years ago
andrewaylett|9 years ago
So I can see that there would be benefit to a creator being able to monetise their own works on YT, but surely there needs to be a mechanism in place to protect legitimate licensees from an over-reaching licensing grab? And at the moment it seems like that mechanism is just not letting people into the monetisation system at all.
Natsu|9 years ago
eropple|9 years ago
conatus|9 years ago
phyzome|9 years ago
cbr|9 years ago
It sounds like the author wants to give people the right to use their music freely anywhere but YouTube, which CC and YouTube understandably don't support.
Disclaimer: I work for Google, on open source software that doesn't have anything to do with YouTube.
eropple|9 years ago
That's literally the opposite of true with -nc.
RileyJames|9 years ago
To avoid the distribution issue, is it possible to use a CC licence for music downloaded from your website, while using a RR licence when providing to the distributors? (On the same song).
Any reason why the licence can't be dependent on the distribution channel?
makomk|9 years ago
daeken|9 years ago
keithpeter|9 years ago
wolfgke|9 years ago
The purpose of Creative Commons licenses is that people know what they are allowed to do - exactly so that they don't have to go to the tedious process of asking each artist for permission.
rangibaby|9 years ago
sfifs|9 years ago
Monetization under online content-ID schemes (including relatedly serving takedowns under DCMA where required) all require the content usage rights to unambiguously be established AND verifiable in an automated fashion. Before an ad can be placed on a piece of content or served a DCMA takedown, the right to do so needs to be veirfied (eg. DCMA requires "good faith effort"), or they may get conter-sued.
With normal licenced content, that is easy to determine in an automated fashion - audio signatures will identify the potentially infringing content & then possibly some algorithms will check for fair-use - eg. length of the original song used, audio quality to eg. indicate it it's a production video or you recording your kid dancing, maybe even a human in the loop at the very end.
With CC licensed content, every piece of potentially infriging content needs to be human verified for usage rights & even then it may not be clear quickly. It is too expensive to hire an army of humans - so you would not support it at all.
chmike|9 years ago
I believe we are on the verge to see a fundamental change in the way the worlds economy is working. This may still take 100 years, but capitalism is doomed because it leads to unstable economical states and it's harmful for humanity (e.g speculation on food).
Lets keep pushing on the snowball and extend that model to other domains. I think that scientists pioneered that model, hence the exponential scientific progress.
hueving|9 years ago
tarancato|9 years ago
I've always seen McDonald's regarded as one of the heralds of capitalism, and I still can't find out why.
tribby|9 years ago
https://creativecommons.org/2009/01/21/bandcamp-integrates-c...
tehwebguy|9 years ago
Aside from rights management do these "distros" do ANYTHING anymore? And they are too lazy to do any rights management work that YouTube isn't performing semi- or fully-automatically?
YouTube should not allow them to simply be gate keepers.
makomk|9 years ago
mschuster91|9 years ago
Yes - getting physical media manufactured and distributed worldwide, promotion, and organizing world tours. All that needs massive financial firepower, you're not going to get e.g. prime-time TV ad spots as an indie label.
lucaspiller|9 years ago
clarry|9 years ago
Bandwidth isn't a consideration for most people as long as it just works, and quality is good enough.
tormeh|9 years ago
shams93|9 years ago
a3_nm|9 years ago