sky lab

lone tree

Originally uploaded by jamtea

Had a great gig at the Duckbar.cz on the weekend, thanks Nina and Ivan for hospitality, great bar, someone told me that it was voted as the best bar in Brno, not so bad for a bar that looks to be made partly of recycled parts and spontaneous art. Think it kind of shows how people don’t want the clean cut bathrooms with well planned gimmicks, throw whats around the neighbourhood at the walls around a space and people feel at home. thanks Duckbar..

also: i found out something interesting, about being able to license through ASCAP, previously i had been contacting GEMA or AKM to license my music, i found out though that i would have to contact ASCAP to ensure that the license would be free. ASCAP would in effect issue the license as i would like it to be, this is kind of weird, yet seems the only way to ensure a direct license in a live environment where the venue does not have to pay a fee. Just to fill those in that are lost with what i’m saying, artists that join rights organisations in Europe are unable to license any aspect of what they create musically without charge, in the environment of the internet and also the amount of spaces that allow live music, this is not so practical anymore, esepcially for those without a publisher. One way around this “possibly”, well a way that i’m exploring at getting around this situation is to join ASCAP, as the contract is non-exclusive. Although, the news that i get from ASCAP is not so good for creative commons though, the reason being that in order for the creative commons license to function, the need of a rights organisation is supposed to be ruled out. This means artists (with ASCAP) would have to confirm licenses with ASCAP, for the license to work. What would be practical would be for ASCAP to create licenses similar to that of creative commons, yet more in the style of the artists needs. I’m still not 100 percent sure about any of this, so make sure you don’t act on what i say here. The license that i would probably take out with a venue, would be a license that would go for-ever, in effect i would deal direct with the space without Gema, AKM or partners. Established artists with publishers and long term touring acts that get paid well via Gema, ASCAP and AKM and all the rest, would probably not favor this, as it would create competition and exclude many acts. For the self publishing act unable to get music into the live space, yet sometimes getting paid, this is a practical solution. Maybe?

emi apra producers

The whole issue of APRA and EMI/producers music has errupted again, as i’m a member of ASCAP, i’m able to license the songs I write as I choose. As APRA is a monopoly the artist does not have this right.

APRA claims that their terms are not for-ever, yet as i’m the songwriter and was manipulated into giving co-write up to all my producers prior to being a full member and already previously having tittle to songs in my name, APRA persist through a net of lies/confusion.

Now i’m with ASCAP, APRA want go into dispute as I’m not one of their writers anymore, this has grid locked the song. It is a 10 percent share of the song, yet that 10 percent still hold’s true from APRA’s point of view and controls the other 90 percent. (even with no agrement to tie the threads together), as i don’t have a lawyer with a publisher and the rights organizations do technically work for the publishing industry, its not an easy situation to solve.

I’m a little down on myself, so its hard to protect licenses that don’t function in the old system. The internet is a copy machine and for the artist that wants to be heard the old system does not work, for the artist without a publisher that wants to get paid, i also don’t feel the old system works.

In my instance, the practical thing for me would be to side with EMI and get them to protect my rights and thus, get paid more and more quickly, i would hope. Yet I did write the songs and no co-write was ever created, APRA are supposed to protect rights of the authors not the producers that twist their way into publishing.

As the producers were signed to EMI music and one to mushroom, they should know to get the artist to sign a co-write agreement, yet producers (with publishers) and people already in the publishing business, know how the game goes and know how best to exploit the artist to their means, even if it means wasting years of effort. Bottom line is that getting a share of the song, is a big deal for the producer with a publisher. Artists with no manager, label, publisher on their first album are going to always be taken for a ride, yet if the producers don’t have their legal dice together, then why would/should the artist be cursed.

The system is not made for the innovator, yet what system ever is, at the end of all this, the song is what suffers, EMI or the producers put no effort into publishing the recording and the artist ends up taking it around the world on not ecomically viable terms. Then when i leave the rights organization to use creative commons licenses, i’m told i have all my rights back and the issue of co-write has nothing to do with APRA, when a major film company comes along and uses the song, sudenly EMI music wants to get in with the song.

I realize how these people that work in these rights organizations are extreamly protective of the territory that they lay claim over.

I sometimes want to direct license the songs i play and write direct to venues, so its imperative that the song belongs 100 percent to me, as it does, cause i wrote it and paid for the whole production.

to finish: The reason why this has all come up is that i created a license that gave 2000 dollars for the use of the song “How Far”, that i paid to a chairity project called unculutred, APRA agread that i could do this, i checked with them prior to license going out.

to finish this::: Sure their are problems with creative commons licenses, as they are a broad license and music and publishing industry is very specific about what it wants. Yet how to create something in the middle?

One big problem with the creative commons license is that 90 percent of works go out under a non-commercial license, yet almost everything can be considered a commercial use, as the law makes no destinction between what a non-commercial/ commercial. The NC license looks good to the public, yet its kind of wierd for the artist, as most artists don’t get to consider the freedoms from copyrights point of view, and even understand what a fully free license is, different laws rules, rights, and regulations are in place in all countries for copyright, some of this is very cultural.

Who can know what the solution is, yet i’m feeling very steam rolled and stressed, and this is for sure very taxing on my own personal life.

who cares about the artist in the license… i tried 2 do that and look what happend when i thought in the process of thinking.

post on CC forum & new idea
October 20, 2008 by jamyoung

link to post
The NC license looks to be a better license for software developers and artists that don’t want their songs, code or graphic being used in a commercial way. It seems strange for me that Buma/stemra, coda & APRA have gone for these licenses within their system. Artists that join these organizations give exclusive permissions for the use of their copyright to these organizations. This means the NC license is not able to flex or move at all. In the US the CC license can flex as artists with ASCAP and BMI have not signed exclusive contracts. Most artists that sign with a rights organization outside the US probably don’t know that the contract they have with their rights organization is exclusive, most artists in the US probably don’t know that the contract they sign is non-exclusive. As the contract is non-exclusive in the US, artists can join ASCAP via the net. As what difference is it if the artists is a member or not, they still have their exclusive right.

It seems clear from recent mails with rights organization AKM, that the non-exclusive right of an artist that has issued the right for their media to be used via ASCAP/bmi, is unable to translate outside the US on any level. This in turn means that the commons license as far as audio works licensed by artists that are members of ASCAP or BMI are only able to go as far as the boarders of the US, from the information i have so far.

AKM write:::

your “case” has been discussed thoroughly. Our position is that in reference to the reciprocal representation agreement AKM has concluded with ASCAP we have the right to license the right of public performance of your musical works. No evidence is shown in the IPI-database that your membership agreement with ASCAP excludes live-performances. Given the fact that the membership agreement between ASCAP and its members is on a non-exclusive basis you too have the right to license the right of public performance of your musical works.

Our contracting partner is ASCAP. As long as we do not have a written information from ASCAP that we shall no longer license live-performances or public performances as a whole of your musical works we will proceed as before. So, please contact your contracting partner ASCAP:::

If all rights organization (outside the US) stand on the same ground as AKM its hard to know (yet if its upto a board run via corporations, its probably yes), what does that tell the artist that puts a creative commons license on their songs, be it non-commercial or commercial?

The other consideration that the audio creator might want to take into view is that no law exists (that i know of), that defines commercial or non-commercial. The rights organization have the ability to decide what a non-commercial or commercial use is, yet as the rights organizations voting system, is built in such a way that the more an artist or publisher gets the more power the artist or publisher has, this ultimately means that a definition of non-commercial or commercial is going to be created in favor of the corporation affiliated NGO’s or the artists, that get the most revenues.

This in turn means that creative commons has to bend to the wills of the corporations and governmental institutions rather than the artists. No artists or regular publisher is on the board of creative commons or icommons and i do feel that creative commons has understood the situation as i do now for some time.

The artist who is signed with ASCAP does have the right to defend her or his right to issue a license in the court of law, if they have signed a non-exclusive contract with a rights organization. Consider though, as non-commercial is not defined and share alike easily mis-understood, this means that a license that allows commercial use with attribution is probably the better choice for the artist that wants to stay self publishing.

From this view it seems joining ASCAP and defending the space/media that the artist issues the license 2, is a smart way to go. http://www.setlist.CC

I’m not a lawyer, so maybe i have it a little mixed up. Yet getting things mixed up might open up some other ways, that don’t just help the corporations, government and NGO’s.

response to post in Italy

if you visit this link, you can see some info about the use of the song in x-files film. i wrote this response bellow.

hello, its interesting to see all this here. i want to make the point about the use of my song and ASCAP.

“Licensor will not collect, whether individually or via a performance rights society, royalties for Your communication to the public, broadcast, public performance or public digital performance (e.g. webcast) of the Work.”

What’s good about the CC BY license 2.5 is that it allows commercial use of content for “you” or “your” work. Keep in mind for a blanket to keep someone warm that blanket does not have holes in it. Publishers are in the ones that maintain the temperatures of those blankets. The CC BY license from my veiw is great sync licenses for artists, it also means if a venue/webservice uses all content under the CC BY license that the venue does not have to pay a bill to rights organizations for the use of that content.

These are good conditions for the self-publisher. Yet possibly upsetting for an established publishing industry.

Both Youtube and myspace might be considered commercial uses, from some points of view. Most artists want their content remixed and put with these services.

My thoughts are for now that artists that are not with a commercial publisher are best to put a creative commons license on their work that allows commercial use and join ASCAP. Its not the job of rights organizations to police attribution, it also seems logical that for someone to use a creative commons license they need to be sure that an artist is a member of ASCAP, as most of the rights organizations outside the US don’t list who their members are. So how can the user of CC content be sure that a new name has not been created for the band or artist. And who knows the future of technology with music and the web.

What i don’t agree with about both Jamendo and Beatpick is that they are based in Europe/UK, its not possible for content of artists with rights organization outside the US to be with these services. It seems only possible for artists to be with ASCAP and use a creative commons license. Both Beatoick, Jamendo or Magnitune don’t list this on their sites. Why not? Why is creative commons not letting artists that find out about the license know about this?

The ASCAP bill of rights states.

“We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free.”
“We have the right to license our works and control the ways in which they are used.”

No other rights organization that i know of allows member artists to do this.

http://www.jamoon.org blog
http://www.jamyoung.net download the tunes free

interview with Jamendo www.jamendo.com

-You’re an Australian living in Europe, why did you make the move, its all beaches why spend a winter here?

I moved from Australia about four years ago, and i’m mostly based in Prague. I made the move because i wanted to be performing more tunes rather than just a guy with a recording. I lived mainly in the inner city of Sydney and out of a 150 potential spaces to perform tunes, music happens in about two. The scene is not that much different in Europe, yet more cities, more people, and a better understanding of what art means, makes life more interesting. We have it good in Australia, more space, less people, yet its not really that great a place for someone a little off-beat. Its a great inspiration, yet hard to figure out a way to connect that inspiration.

-Recently you had a song go out in the now showing x-files film “i want to believe”, how did this happen and what does it all mean for you?

The director of the film Chris Carter found out about the song and Beatpick licensed the recording to fox. I was shocked to find out about it. The use of the song in the film has changed a lot of things for me, an industry that has left me out of things for so long has taken an interest. That’s not a bad thing, yet i’m still not sure how to react. Its going to take time to re-adjust and i’m in no hurry.

-What creative commons license do you use and why do you use that license?

I use a creative commons license that allows commercial use, i use this license as it offers more flexibility to the user than a non-commercial license. Consider though that although a song might have gone out as part of a major film production, look into the commercial avenues where artists can have their music used and gain a revenue and I don’t see many “self published” works being used. Mostly the rights organizations issue blanket licenses, for the use of content that is owned by publishers. The system is set up in favor of the publisher not the artist. To me it seems its best to license content with as little restrictions as possible, as there are already a heap of restrictions in place as things are.

-Do you think this could be the first major released film to use a song that is also licensed with a creative commons license?

I hope so. Its interesting to consider all the people in the past that gave their songs up, many maybe taken or given away in the hope of getting a name for themselves, or some songs maybe just in the hope that people would get it. The thing i really appreciate about a Creative Commons license that allows commercial use, is that a regular publisher could possibly use a song that is licensed with a creative commons license, yet probably wouldn’t as someone else could use that song as well. This might be the reason why publishers are putting bad vibes out about Creative Commons.

-How did you hear about Jamendo?

I found out about creative commons through an open source guy in Vienna, at first i was skeptical about Creative Commons, it took me a while to even get what open source meant. Then i struggled with understanding my situation. In the heat of the moment i told APRA in Australia to cancel my membership, at the same time i went along to the Icommons isummit in Croatia. I sat on the plane next to the CEO of Jamendo with a project.

-You joined ASCAP to collect for the use, are you worried about not being included in any revenues from the film?

I can’t see much reason for a self publishing artist to join with any rights organization, unless they are sure they are going to collect something. Sure its a family of artists, yet its a family of artists that is represented mostly by the artists and publishers that collect the most revenue. As soon as an artist joins a rights organization other than ASCAP or BMI it seems that they are removing themselves from the market place. Self published artists look to be better off with ASCAP and publishers in Europe might even be better to transfer their artists memberships to ASCAP/ harry fox. Less equals more. Most publishers and labels based in Europe are using Myspace anyway. I’m still trying to figure it all out, yet it seems this way.

I was not so worried about not collecting revenues through the screen actors guild as I did not write the song for the film. Its just the way it works and i can’t change that. I respect competition and the right for the artist to be able to choose. I’m told a small residual is paid when the song gets to TV though.

Consider though, artists, web services, film makers and the consumer are left in the cold as a result of how the rights organizations look after their authors copyright outside the US. Its just not fair. For me its important that people get to hear the song, looking for ways for people to get the song I’ve gone active against the system. I’m not sure if one side is better than the other, it seem as if both sides don’t care much for the art though.

Interview with X by X is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at jamyoung.wordpress.com.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.jamyoung.net.

Paul Kellar talks about creative commons

song not included in x-files “I want to believe” official sound track yet in the soundtrack

My song did not make the cut for the x-files soundtrack. Its interesting how it all works.. and to see that it really is the way that the worst nightmare explains to you how it is.

why am i saying this?
About 3 years ago i decided i would not be a part of the music industry, and so i went on that path. i bumped into creative commons and then saw the potential of making whats created free. if i’m in a place far away from something and people demand i’m in another place, is it worth it? you do what you do and you are what you say you are.

its interesting how people say how great it is that your song is in a major flick. its interesting that the song does not make the soundtrack, especially as i would have licensed it to the soundtrack label for next to nothing for use. maybe the production quality was sub standard from decca records point of view, yet the soundtrack did include remixes of songs and final track in the film. Universal music had previously licensed my song for free goto this link. the film use is great, yet the reality seems that the people that are going to find out about the use of the song are the people that i bump into or if i blog or tag it. i can pay a publicity person to promote me, yet where are the sales going to come from to pay the publicity person if the tunes are free? if i was included on the sound track it would be different.

As the song was not on the soundtrack, i started on the path of posting a single of of the tune on i-tunes, via cdbaby. Although the tunes are free anyway. some would say, well why post it on i-tunes…if people expect something to be somewhere, its a good idea to put it there… that’s the way i see it. if something is worth something, its cool that they pay for it… keep in mind that the reason the songs are free is partly also because the industry gave the songs no value…

The orchard who i paid 150 dollars 4 years ago to promote the album listed it next Jerry Seinfeld in their catalog and in that time i’ve sold less than 25 dollars worth of downloads, at least it was not exclusively next to Jerry Seinfeld. What was i supposed to do? wait for the big wave and remain loyal to the music business, i made it free cause i wanted people to get the tunes.

as a result of my songs being with a creative commons license people do get to hear the tunes, the intro music in this youtube clip shows the potential of the license.

A couple of hundred million people are going to hear about a minuet of recorded music i created in cinemas, cable, TV, yet still only 5-10 people are going to arrive to see a live performance sometimes. i have not sold one cd since the film has been out.

to go on…
i put this single together for i-tunes, i was not able to use the word “soundtrack” in the tittle of album as “soundtrack” and “x-files” is owned by Decca records/fox, i would have to create a license for that to happen… to go on further.. can i use an image from the fox film with the release of the single to i-tunes…? no fox’s images are under a strict copyright…can i make a license with fox to use their image in conjunction with a cd single?.. no response yet.

i best be more happy about the use. maybe i had some expectation of something, yet even when i sent an email to fox here in Prague, they did not respond. If i was in the soundtrack they might have.

anyway, i reckon its worth saying all this. maybe i’ll get back from that far away mountain sometime. artists and musicians best understand this about the music business though. if you do want to get your music onto a popular soundtrack released by the likes of Decca in conjunction with a popular film. best that you remain with a business model that integrates into the current system. If you go against that union of publishing corporations that put a block on all culture, be prepared for the consequences.

The big corporations do not work on terms that relate to market conditions it seems, its appears as if a mafia from the smallest amount pirated from the business to the largest dollar sucked from the consumers pocket. Don’t be worried about corporations using tunes or photo content free via a creative commons license. Putting a CC license on whats created, that allows commercial use is good way to fight back and allow new business to evolve, that does have a fair spirit. Don’t expect to find to much humanity in the entertainment industry as it is.

For universal music to put you on a compilation with a global release, they would have to own you. Its just the way it is, i sent my cd to universal music in Australia and it was rejected. I would never sign with this kind of company. I gave them a free license to distribute my songs in Poland. They could have negotiated a free license to use my song on the soundtrack. Its sad that art that is part of a film soundtrack can’t make the released film soundtrack, even the use could have be negotiated for free.

 

*** to add to this blog, i found out that i was not able to send out a single as i did not read the fine print on the contract when i paid the Orchard 150 dollars to release my songs through i-tunes. You see according to the Orchard what is non-exclusive has changed in the last years. They claim i have a non-exclusive exclusive. Anyway the result is that my songs have been taken down from the Orchard. I no-longer distribute the tunes through i-tunes or any paid digital networks. The tunes are available for free on my site and a couple of other services where i can make them free for download.  Even if self published artists do really sell music through i-tunes/Orchard, my thoughts are at the moment that these funds are being tunneled into the pockets of executives that work within the Orchard and labels around the catchment area.

creative commons and rights organizations

its interesting that last.fm are now collecting royalties for self published artists not with rights organizations. This really shows where things might be headed. With all the abuse that CC get from the rights organization, i wonder why CC should help them integrate the license. If the rights organizations are forced to adapt the license without CC, then they have to use the legal framework of the license as it is. In Australia APRA is already wanting government radio/schools to be excluded. Thats the kind of pressure that they are putting on CC au. My view is that unless the rights organization adapt the license under terms of a non-commercial use that the CC community agree is a non-commercial use, then CC should not help the rights organizations in any way.

APRA create conditions to suit their needs

Although i can find many artists to agree to copy and paste on my myspace “i support reforms for APRA” (with very little effort) not one alternative radio station that I am aware of has mentioned issue’s that relate to APRA and Creative Commons. I have contacted many alternative and public radio stations around Australia to raise the issue, with no result. I started to wonder why, the issue of creative commons licenses and rights organizations is quite interesting for artists and public.

PBS is a radio station based in Fitzroy Melbourne that uses mostly alternative music content. PBS are able to stream content globally under the license fee they pay. PBS possibly get much of the revenue to run their organization through subscriptions from abroad. If PBS started to collect content from artists that were not members of APRA, under something similar to the ownterms contract idea at this link, http://ownterms.pbwiki.com/contract-2 (to lower operating costs and introduce new media to their listeners) APRA who have a monopoly would see this as a threat.

APRA are easily able to manipulate market conditions. APRA create conditions that force “self published” artists to join a network of rights organizations so that media can use that content (without the artist being a member of APRA the media is not legally able to use that artists content) APRA supply content at one price. APRA want recognize Creative Commons licenses. Creative Commons licenses provide a legal platform for use of self published content without the rights organization.

I’m not sure how APRA work out how much users of content pay to be able to stream content, as APRA do not list prices for use of content on their website. Does this create unfair conditions for business? The market is not able to use other content in conjunction with APRA’s content to the users advantage. Its quite simple for content to be tagged and identified as a different media. New technology means that media and creators of media need to be able to innovate. APRA’s blanket license prevents innovation to occur from both the creators and users perspective.

Without all price variables for use of content being listed in an easy and understandable way online, how can users be sure they are being treated on equal terms? How are artists able to judge if they want their content provided at this price? If i had a venue or was running an event i would want the details of how the price for use of content is construction. I would want security that my competitors were paying the same price. Listing the variables used to calculate prices for use of content on APRA’s website (however complex they may be) seems like something the business community would want. A regular audit by the ACCC would ensure consumer comfort. Under the current conditions it appears that APRA are able to create conditions that suit the board.

APRA are able to lock use of non APRA content out of the market and their is clear evidence that they do this. I’m quite sure that I am not the first person to bring these issue’s up with the ACCC, what i want to know is why the ACCC continues to allow APRA to maintain their license in such unfair conditions. Members of the business community are simply not able to go against the rights organization because they stand to loose so much.