Jamendo album to incude

Joshua Judson Rosen rozzin at geekspace.com
Mon Mar 28 17:59:36 EDT 2011


David Reyes Samblas Martinez <david at tuxbrain.com> writes:
>
> yuri was right, we can't include albums with the non-comercial clause,
> I's a pity due some ones are really cool ,  but I can't even use them
> on my videos :(

I gather that a lot of people releasing things under CC licenses with
non-commercial clauses actually do so basically because they don't
understand all of the implications of what "non-commercial" means;
part of it is that they think "commercial" means something much more
specific than it does (e.g.: "charging fees for relicensing content"
or "charging fees for selling copies on CD", vs. "receiving money
for any activity that is in any way related to conveying the work"),
and the rest is that they think that "non-commercial" means that
people will come and talk to them if they need some other license-terms.

As such, if you find something that's CC-*-NC that you want to
redistribute, it might be worthwhile to try to contact the
copyright-holder (presumably the artist, for most stuff on Jamendo),
explain the issues to them, and ask them if they'd be willing
to re-license without the NC clause.

I thought that this was a pretty good, concise explanation of
why creators are actually better-off *not* applying the
`non-commercial use only' restriction:

    http://questioncopyright.org/cc-pro

e.g.:

    ... more and more, we've seen professional artists choose
    Creative Commons licenses that consign their works to a
    non-professional ghetto. We're referring to the Creative Commons
    "Non-Commercial" family of licenses: licenses that essentially say
    "Do what you want with this, as long as you don't make money from it."
    While that might at first seem like it simply reserves to the artist
    the right to use the work professionally, it has the much larger
    effect of removing the work from most professional contexts entirely.


Also, this `Power to the Pixel' talk that Nina Paley gave in 2009:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eazIth4orfM

(or her very similar HOPE 2010 talk, which was targetted more at hackers,
 where the `Power to the Pixel' talk was targetted at artists).

At about 2:55 into the `Power to the Pixel' talk, she explains:

    So, I freed the film. And by "free" I mean "freed it in the most
    radical way I could", which is under what's called a `share-alike'
    license--a Creative Commons Share-Alike license. I'm actually doing
    a presentation tomorrow about Free Content where I'm hoping to
    demystify all the different Creative Commons licenses, because
    people say, "Oh, I have a Creative Commons license!", but
    Creative Commons has *free and unfree* licenses and, in my opinion,
    the Share-Alike license is the free-est license available, where you
    can do *anything* with this film, *including commercial uses*,
    which was *essential* because almost all outlets for films cost money:
    for example, cinemas cost money to run, 35-mm cost money to make,
    and I wanted it to be shown on 35-mm and I wanted it to be shown
    in cinemas, so... you can do anything with this film except
    copyright it.


If you watch through the whole thing, she's even got a lot of figures
demonstrating just what a wild financial success the Share-Alike
(*without* any `non-commercial' clause) allowed her work to be;
she also posted updated figures (and some other stuff, in FAQ format
for quick reference), on her blog:

    http://blog.ninapaley.com/2010/11/15/frequently-asked-questions/


Maybe all of these things will be useful references, if you do decide to
approach someone about relicensing.


> 2011/3/26 Yury Bushmelev <jay4mail at gmail.com>:
> > 2011/3/26 Yury Bushmelev <jay4mail at gmail.com>:
> >> 2011/3/26 Jane Andreas <JaneAndreas at gmx.com>:
> >>> According to a part of our wiki, it was thought that we should include some
> >>> oggs from Jamendo(which I now am acquainted with) On the Nanonote. I suggest
> >>> we use the following album, provided there are no legal issues.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.jamendo.com/en/album/79408
> >>>
> >>> A short but very cool album.
> >>
> >> You can copy, distribute, advertise and play this album as long as you:
> >> 1) Give credit to the artist
> >> 2) Don't use this album for commercial purposes
> >> 3) Distribute all derivative works under the same license
> >>
> >> I'm sure we will have problem with (2), because distributing NN with
> >> preloaded album is commercial pupose I'm sure :)
> >>
> >> We should look for some public domain music for this.
> >
> > There is possible to find music that may be used with commercial
> > purposes via search (checkbox "Find content I can use for commercial
> > purposes"):
> > http://www.jamendo.com/en/tag/Enter%20a%20tag...?license_minrights_c=1
> >
> > --
> > Yury Bushmelev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Qi Hardware Discussion List
> > Mail to list (members only): discussion at lists.en.qi-hardware.com
> > Subscribe or Unsubscribe: http://lists.en.qi-hardware.com/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Reyes Samblas Martinez
> http://www.tuxbrain.com
> Open ultraportable & embedded solutions
> Ben NanoNote, Arduino, Openmoko
> Hey, watch out!!! There's a linux in your pocket!!!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Qi Hardware Discussion List
> Mail to list (members only): discussion at lists.en.qi-hardware.com
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe: http://lists.en.qi-hardware.com/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> 

-- 
"Don't be afraid to ask (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr))))."




More information about the discussion mailing list


interactive