Response to unculutred blog, use of song in chairty project.

visit the uncultured project at this link

Hey Shawn,

A pleasure to be a part of your project. This film use was great news for me as i’m self publishing my art. Part of the problem is that the large charity organizations all want to deal with the big stars like u2, yet there is heaps of art that sounds great that can be used in so many ways and create such a great result for the organization. I started a project a long time ago called hungry artists feed hungry people on myspace http://www.myspace.com/hafhp i started to gradually understand the reality of many of the charity organizations. They are interested in the rock gods. Yet the reality to my mind is that these media stars are a big part of the problem and part of the reason for poverty. When people are hearing the song “one love” “one world” written via the likes of U2, some might think that problems are being solved. Yet part of the reality is that a publisher is collecting something. Creative commons is part of the solution and its great that i inspired you to use the licenses. I bumped into the CC licenses through the hafhp project. I hope that more artists go with the hafhp idea. I just wanted to be true to my word,

its great work your doing shawn, keep going. thanks a lot.

One thing i should add, is that i only gave up the funds that fox gave me for the use of the song, i did not give up the Author rights that would be paid for the use of the song’s public performance, my view is that self publishing artists giving revenues to charities is a good way to promote the sound recording of the song. Many business models could evolve out of a similar situation, yet the charity organizations have to want to work with these types of business models.

Beatpick how it works, maybe ???

After reading the italian blog after google translation.

A problem i see with the beatpick contract is that when the artists signs with beatpick, the artist signing is signing that she/he warrants to protect beatpick from any kind of problems that the law might throw at BP. Beatpick also claim to be acting as a contractor not an agent. This is not the way sync licensing normally works.
Why don’t beatpicks present more information on their website explaining how their business model works to artists that are not members of ASCAP?

Why has beatpick not presented their contract that they ask artists to sign to ASCAP for feedback?

It seems that the beatpick contract is not compatible with any of the rights organizations outiside the US, yet beatpick do not make this known on their website. It seems also that once beatpick has cut a deal for an artists work that the only rights organization that the artist can join is ASCAP. Yet this info is not on their website.

Beatpick look to be exploiting rights that would normally belong to publishers and a recording labels via use of the NC license. Yet then they take the compatible commercial rights, to the NC license. This might not be a problem for some artists, yet other artists need the information on the effects. 

Including information like i mention above on beatpicks website, is what is going to make beatpick a fair play music label. 

I take my content from beatpick site and go alone. I thank the fan of my tunes that gave a copy of the cd “shifting sands of a blue car” to the director of the x-files movie…

James King talks about Sabam

James King from Sunshine concert talks about SABAM, SABAM basically put a block on culture and artists being able to work on any reasonable terms without a publisher. European/Australian culture is being decimated as a result of the inequality of the media system in Europe and media system in the US.

In the US the entertainment industry is driven by efficient market condtions. In Europe the rights organizations make sure everyone is paid equally, as a result all the Belgium culture is controlled by the government, and the commercial media dominated by the US/california. Europe has no market for the use of media. Myspace don’t pay for the use of content, yet small venues and up and coming web services providers have to always pay.

In the US Cdbaby does not have to pay for the right to stream music from artists with rights organizations outside the US (even though the rights organizations could do a take down by law). In Europe every person that has to sell music, has to play for even a 10 second sound clip of an artists music that is with a rights organizations. A belgium server that tries to create a contract like myspace has, they are going to be sued in a flash.

Big music services like IODA, The Orcahrd, i-tunes, all based in the US are getting a free ride for the cost of content, or US bands are getting exposure outside the US, because they can give sound clips away for free use.

The US media has no competition from anywhere else, unless the government can fund it, make a movie in Europe, que up for a cultural fund. with the cost for use of content going up outside the US because artists like Madonna are not able to collect through selling cds anymore and her empire needs to be fed, the media is more more easily dominated via the US. Global distribution points have been bought up by the major players. If these rights organizations are not deregulated, what happens next?

Its not the big corporations fault, their job is to make the most amount they can for their shareholders. With no sub-culture in the arts industry combined with torrents creating a free situation for use of what is created. What is the future of entertainment? 1984.

The answer is not to stop piracy, from my view its in the deregulation of the rights organizations outside the US like SABAM. The media needs fresh competition. Members of ASCAP and BMI can use a creative commons license, artists that are members of rights organizations not within the US can’t use a creative commons license.

ioda alliance and itsaboutmusic a digital nightmare

digital disaster story. around the digital block.

When the web got going with digital distribution, i found this site on the net called itsaboutmusic. i allowed this site to put the tunes up on mp3.com through a digital click and paying some money via credit card.

MP3.com shut down because of legal problems with the way they were dealing with music. After MP3 shut down, itsaboutmusic signed a deal with IODA alliance to distribute all the artists they had previously had with mp3.com, yet did not tell the artists. Prior to this happening I sent a mail to itsaboutmusic saying I wanted to be in control of digital rights. i then put the songs with cdbaby for digital distribution.

itsaboutmusic did not take down the songs from IODA, so the songs are with 2 distributors, this created digital distribution problems. tunes were available on the JJJ website in Australia, yet cdbaby could not tell me how. Then started to think that the distributor of cds in Australia must be digitally distributing, more confused? canceled digital distribution through cdbaby, figured no-one has the rights to the tunes.

The songs still remained on JJJ site, lots of emails latter found that the songs were being distributed through IODA, never heard of before. Contacted IODA and they took the tunes down. Asked IODA if i could maintain my tunes with them, they said NO.

Confused by everything, yet still wanting to make the songs available, i put the tunes with the Orchard via amphead in Australia. Paid extra dollars to get a promotional push. Nothing happens. Even with the current use in the film, the orchard are not interested in doing promo.

.This has all been refreshed in the last days, because of an upload to cdbaby. after all this i thought to go and check out the itsaboutmusic site.

what they say on their website.

We have distribution deals with 130 download stores, kiosk companies, retail music streaming companies and cellular companies around the world including all iTunes sites – USA, Japan, UK, etc., Rhapsody, MusicMatch, Napster, MSN, Wal-Mart, AOL – and we work feverishly to reinvent this new digital wheel every day so that more and more music fans will purchase our artists’ music.

The problem is that IODA distribute to these stores not itsaboutmusic. And on IODA’s site itsaboutmusic is not listed as a partner, how would any artist that has an issue with itsaboutmusic be able to complain? How many other labels is IODA allowing to claim that they are the distributor?

itsaboutmusic is also saying
13. No Contracts to sign except one to specify that the music you are delivering to us will only be distributed digitally by us until you terminate the deal.

The worst thing seems that the artist that sign up have to pay 250 dollars up front to IAM, cdbaby is only 30 dollars and take 9 percent. I can’t see that itsaboutmusic is really doing much for the artist, other than passing it onto another distributor. It seems this kind of arrangement works well for both IODA and itsaboutmusic.

i sent emails to IODA asking them that itsaboutmusic service be represented as it is, no response yet. Yet would it not create problems for artists with IAM if they found out what is happening, or are they happy with this? 15 percent to IODA and 10 percent to IAM. With the Orchard and cdbaby I’m able to login to their system and see where digital downloads might happen, even though not much happens with either of these services.

Most artists want to get as close to the big distributor as they can, when a guy is running a business alone from home is claiming to be big distribution, yet another company is really doing the distribution. Is the distributor responsible for this happening? Is it a problem that this guy who is making a false claims about his service is also distributing royalties to artists.

Maybe this kind of thing is standard business practice in the US, yet with the web crossing all boundaries, its strange for a big distributor like IODA, to leave room for such potential abuse. Why is itsaboutmusic not listed on IODA’s website as a distributor? How many other sites online are doing the same thing through IODA? Is this fair for artists trying to find a way for their tunes to be heard?

are these apples and carrots?

I have been looking at the non-commercial commercial use issue for a bit with creative commons, for me its a fault within the license. the non commercial license stands to benefit the larger corporations that only pay the majors when content is used. the way i see a non-commercial license is different to someone who works in software. people that make software often want to generate more income for themselves by the way they license what they create. people that make art for the most (from my view) just want people to experience that art. a lot of people that make art, don’t want that art surrounded by google banners. a similar way to look at it might be, some people don’t want to sit on a park bench next to river where the bench is sponsored by a corporation.

Its easier when things are made that fit in with a corrupt system, its hard to build anything that does not fit in with the engine already constructed. For me its going to be interesting if creative commons supports the solar energy space vessel, or the regular fuel motor. At this point it looks like creative commons are going with the slightly more efficient regular fuel motor.

Even if the world has not caught upto the machine, it does not mean that the machine can’t be built. If you build something else that cancels the possibility of that machine, how is the future going to judge that machine, if conditions get worse because of that machine.

i have been watching DR who lately.

Both these uses bellow (*-) currently look to be non-commercial uses through the view of the CC license (often). I notice a lot of video clips have used creative commons non-commercial licensed content within the clip, where they have not created the music content and uploaded that content to sites that have google banners. Two clips that have used my tunes under the creative commons BY license, yet both clips contain other tunes licensed with non-commercial licensed content. Clip A Clip B

The problem for me is that few artists use the BY creative commons license, yet it seems Non-Commercial works of all kind are being used in BY conditions. I’m not sure if this is because of bad information or this is the intention of the license.

read CC non-commercial guidelines here

*-Songwriter makes song and puts that song on their website with a non-commercial creative commons licenses. Video maker finds the song and makes a video using the songwriters song. Video maker puts the video onto a web service that generates its income through advertising revenue. In the terms and conditions that the video maker agrees to when they upload that video to that web service. The video maker agrees that no royalty shall be paid to the video maker when the web service uses the video makers video in conjunction with advertising.

*-Songwriter makes song and uploads the song to a web service that splits proceeds from the advertising revenue received 50/50 between the song and the web service. Songwriter licenses the song using a non-commercial creative commons license on that website. A performer hears the song and records their version of that song, the performer then uploads that version of the song to the same site under the same license. Revenues are split 50/50 with the performer and the web-service.

Are these uses non-commercial?

I sent the above questions out to the creative commons community mailing list

I received this comment when i posted the question to the CC mailing list from Lloyd.

“You can use this so long as in doing so *you* aren’t trying to make money from it”

This response via the same mailing list from Nic.

“Clearly not non-commercial”

“Not non-commercial, in breach of the licence”

Niaal works in the Bar at Vamoose and is in a band

done

Niaal works in the bar at Vamoose. Over the past 3 years performing in Venues around Norway.

Niaal Performs in

The low Frequency In Stereo

The Megaphonic Thrift

The Alexandria Quartet

http://www.rawmedia.tv 

Serg from Antwerp

done

http://www.rawmedia.tv

James King talks about SABAM

done

http://www.rawmedia.tv

norway film maker

done

http://www.rawmedia.tv

cultural folk or folk as in punk folk

response to person who thought decentralized folk is not a good idea.

what do you suggest- centralize the tunes- put ‘em on a shelf /i-tunes? pay to put your music on i-tunes and get people to pay for it- when 99 percent of what is consumed is owned by labels and the only people that pay for your music are your own fans that you develop at live gigs anyway?

cultural money supports the folk scene in most countries. take away the funding that controls the scene and the resource of the community might create the entertainment that is needed. that’s why its best for artists to pay bookers in Europe up front when they book live performance of shows, cause the scene is totally political. Almost every aspect of the music scene is funded. So punk and i see folk as being punk, is not able to happen while artists are judged on their ability to fill out forms rather than what they create. Yet once you
have bureaucracy in place, its not really possible to get rid of it. So i spose musical bureaucrats are always going to laugh at the idea of decentralized folk. look at u-tube! look at myspace, they don’t pay the rights organizations (osa) , look how successful they are when they use content for free.

Contracts for artists & physical spaces.

Recently i was in Belgium, home of rights organization SABAM. It seems that the cost for use of music content is going up via the rights organizations, yet the interest in self published content is going down.

Venues funded by the government are often promoting published and label acts, while self published artists and bands are being asked to perform no cost. This funding combined with a strict regulation for use of music content by the rights organizations, make things not so easy for the self publishing artist. What to do?

The contract ideas bellow might give venues an incentive to play music from self publishing bands and artists that are in contact with that physical space.

1)-Contract that the artist signs to tell the venue that the artist is not with rights organization and shall perform only original content at the venue.

2)-Contract that the artist signs that allows the venue to use the recorded music of that artist in that venue free of charge. It would be up to the artist to let the venue know if in the future the artist joined a rights organization.

Myspace and youtube do not pay for use of the artists or bands content, yet venues do. Venues are not beaming soap commercials above performers heads during the show.

Contracts for artists & physical spaces.

Recently i was in Belgium, home of rights organization SABAM. I spoke to both venue owners/promoters and artists about SABAM. It seems that the cost for use of musical content is going up (via the rights organizations), yet interest in quality “self published” content via commercial and non-commercial media streams is going down.

Culturally funded venues/festival/theaters in Europe are promoting published and label acts mostly. Self Published acts are often asked by culturally funded spaces to perform at no cost. This bureaucracy of cultural funding combined with a strict regulation of music rights, makes it mostly impossible for “self published” artists to get exposure in Europe. Cultural funding is creating conditions that often ensure “self published” artists join rights organizations when possibly they don’t have to. What to do ?

Could Creative Commons create contracts that help “self published” artists and venues/spaces? The two contract ideas bellow might give venues an incentive to play music from bands/artists that were in direct contact with that space. It could also give physical spaces an incentive to invite bands to tour when they created new music.

1)-Contract that the artist signs to tell the venue that the artist is not with rights organization and shall perform only original content (that the artist her or himself created) at the venue on that particular night.

2)-Contract that the artist signs that allows the venue to use the recorded music of that artist in venue free of charge. It would be the obligation of the artist to let the venue know if in the future the artist joins a rights organization. The rights organizations might in the future provide a list of artist’s that are registered with a rights organization(s)

Myspace & youtube do not pay for use of the artists or bands content, yet venues & spaces mostly are (even when the artist is not with a rights organization). Venues mostly are not beaming soap commercials above performers heads as they perform their tunes. Physical spaces might welcome the opportunity to be able to collect works that the venue could use free of charge. Many artists would give their content freely to a venue that would give them the opportunity of a paid performance combined with regular exposure in that space.

article in progress “Some reasons why artists don’t use CC license”.

Most artists when they get started on their path mostly seem interested in distribution of ideas, rather than revenue. I spoke to a blues guitar player recently, when talking about money and music. “The music is free, what your paying for is the strings, the amp, the petrol and all the rest of it; but the music its free”. Its not easy for some artists to license their art with a CC license, Creative Commons is difficult to explain to an artists having a hard time. The void within the publishing system creates a magnet to almost every idea, creative commons is the only . I’m convinced that CC creates a better flow of culture within culture, yet getting that message through is not easy.

License:
The most effective distribution tool (i reckon) is an open license, yet for a commercial organization to use an open license can create problems. Recently virgin mobile in Australia used images, licensed with an open license without a model release. This resulted in legal action against virgin mobile and creative commons by the person that licensed their image using a creative commons open license. If the person using a license can sue the organization that creates the license, what is the future of that license ?

Publishing:
The publishers have created difficult circumstances for “self publishing” artist with new ideas. As publishing industries grow smaller, exploitation of the “self published artist” grows. Organization have sprung up all over the net that offer artists the opportunity to get through the wall at a cost. Its easy for an artist with little understanding of the publishing industry to be sucked into this system. Even when artists create ideas compatible with contemporary ideas, unless publishing industries have nurtured these ideas the ability to distribute the idea is not easy. One of my favourite artists “beck”, was related to the business when he started out. Publishing good ideas has less to do with the idea and more to do with who you know, even with

icommons

articles on icommons site

myspace & collection society

what is art to icommons

article Dominick Chen wrote about me at the summit. thanks