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.

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”

streamline monopoly of APRA

A problem I see with APRA (and the rest of the rights network) seems partly simple to me, what is not free is dependent on what is free, to maintain a healthy creative environment, free things need to be shared to make things that are great. This is why creative commons is part of the solution.

If all the culture needs to be paid for yet everyone has the ability to create the same culture at home. Then the old system is obsolete, lawyers can argue all they want about it. Bottom line is that the consumer has become the creator of media.

The reason why the community can’t and don’t seem to respect copyright laws (i feel) is because the media does not provide entertainment of the community to the people. The media provide content owned by publishers. Publishers that provide content of the community need to be funded by the government and often end up publishing content like that of the published content anyway. Crazy system of culture. Until consumers are able to provide their content at a competitive rate to media (=free) organizations like APRA are going to destroy any culture that would manifest itself. APRA is not a practical solution anymore.

Its not APRA’s fault, its the ACCC fault (i reckon) for not placing further regulations on this monopoly and not getting a community perspective on APRA’s impact. The ACCC look towards the business community and established artists for feedback, not the self publishing community. Every consumer is now a self publisher with the internet and new technology. I have spoken to the ACCC and they don’t appear to be able to comprehend this simple idea. They see the way APRA is set up as a legitimate form of exploitation of the consumer.

APRA do not disclose the cost for use of its media to the public and do not allow self publishing artist members to deal with their art directly with any form of media at a competitive rate. Internet radio is not possible in Australia, yet is possible in the US.

The price of well published content like Madonna is the same price as content made at home for fun when played in a cafe, bar, cinema (all public performance places). APRA consider almost all use of music a commercial use (outside personal use) and have no exceptions to this policy. APRA offer no platform for the home creator to publish to media at no cost, in fact if a bar or cafe play your cd and you are not a member of APRA, they have broken copyright law and you could sue them for not having a contract with you.

Was/is the intention of the art you created dollar signs, or did you just want it to be heard. Is it fair that the right to copy should always include a financial transaction when used by media? It seems like some things created were intended to gain financial rewards, yet other art is creative and fun. Surely both free and non-free are dependent on each other. If they are not dependent on each other, where is the need for the publishers to interact with the community?

If a space, place, network does incorporate open licensed content into regular media, how can they be sure that they will be treated equally among their competitors unless the way that content is priced is made clear to all? Consider that the board of directors of APRA is made up by music industry professionals, never has a self publishing independent artist (that has not been published at some point) been on the board of any rights organization that i’m aware of.

Consider also that the authority that advises the consumer on how to deal with copyright the (copyright council) has one board member that is also the Chief executive of APRA. link link

From what i understand, the consumer and self publishing artists in Australia would be better off if APRA was dissolved and commercial rights were administered via ASCAP in the US. Thats the unfortunate reality from my view. ASCAP allow the artist members to license their content as they choose and remain a member.

As stream line as APRA’s collection system is, it still suffocates the art and creativity within the community. The situation can only get worse while APRA exist as they do. Organizations like myspace and you-tube not paying for content, yet the live venues having to pay, this makes the situation more extreme within the community for self publishing of art and effects every consumer. Under these conditions, councils best make graffiti legal.

Brett Cottle responds to paper on creative commons.

Brett Cottle Cheif executive of APRA says
“What can be said, I think is that there is surely nothing inherently undesirable about non-Government IP licensing initiatives, nor indeed anything inconsistent in such developments with a proper legislative role being taken by Government.” quote from this link

Would the rights of “self published” artists be better managed by the government or APRA? Much of the cultural funding of art seems to be associated with APRA, is this how tax dollars are best spent?

Indra from Antwerp

done

http://www.rawmedia.tv

Talking to Indra from a family based in Antwerp that run events in the lounge room for local artists. Although the doors are open to the public they do not do any advertising through any off line channels. The result is that they get a great bunch of people to listen to artists from the community. Although the event is free and most of the artists that play music are not with any form of publishing, SABAM have the right (by law) to fine AMPER elders for use of music. SABAM view all use of music content as commercial. The events have become so popular that well known artists within the Belgium arts scene that are with cultural/commercial publishers see this as an event that they want to perform at. The over regulation of the scene by organizations like SABAM not only effect artists at a grass routes level. They effect artists that are at higher up the food chain. The reality is that the board of the SABAM wants to see more karaoke/cultural music than anything else, as they represent shareholders of corporations or cultural funds. SO what about PUNK culture? The only way that this can change is through these monopoly organizations being forced into deregulation by the authorities run by the government. The Belgium government is quite aware of the corruption within the system, however they want force change. Partly because so many non-profits are funded. Why are the funded? because of the over regulation. What to do? This same or similar situation exists in all of the developed world except in the US, in the US artists are able to work out agreements as they choose and remain with BMI ASCAP rights organizations. One solution would be to change the way that the common law is structured. Yet i’m still trying to get my head around that.

Interview with Steinar

done

Steinar works at Kunsthall art gallery in Bergen, it seems that the art created in Norway that is not attached to some kind of cultural publishing stream, finds it difficult to get any kind of platform. Although US artists have little cultural funding, they do have a very much less regulated art world. If this creates a more real art environment or not who can say. Most US artists seem happy to make their way over to Europe and tour through the cultural landscape if they can. It does seem that few acts tour Europe that are self published. the ones that are self published are most likely going to be performing art that others created.

My experience of Norway is that almost every artists from outside Norway that does a show here is with a publisher. The conclusion in Norway seems to be a little like this: if you can’t find a publisher in your own country then why should we allow you to perform here.

For artists in Norway it seems: we can give you money to make what you want, yet if you want to get exposure for what you create, your at the mercy of the publishers and cultural funds. If you (as an artists) create content without a cultural publisher or commercial publisher then your only (most likely) going to be able to show this to your friends. You can play for free in a bar and your friends can drink lots of beer. Conclusion: oh yeah, its unfortunate that we don’t create any public spaces for these kind of events, if we did we would be under minding the well organized cultural publishing system that we have in place. So that is just not going to happen.

Punks, keep on filling in forms. Artists in central and western Europe might have an easier task at getting content out than any artists based in Norway. Although its not really possible to pay a professional in Europe to book a self published artists shows in Euopre. Yet i am finding that this also apllies in the US. DIY is the only way and those that don’t deal with DIY artists, well they are the enemy.

please find the truth for yourself, this could be more science fiction.

Torbranda from Bergen

done

Torbranda from bergen talks about rights organizatio Tono and getting the pop art out and about where ‘es based.

http://www.rawmedia.tv 

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 

David Venue owner in Bergen Norway

done

David run’s a venue called vamoose in Bergen. The venue is popular and is doing ok. Being a fan of live music Vamoose puts on a live act when it can. The reality is that the venue often looses money even when the band is playing for free. Stage space use and sound of artists means a night of live music can mean less money. Tono regulates the use of content in this venue even though much of the music comes through unpublished sources. David says that most bands would rather collect anything he pays to Tono direct from him. Myspace don’t pay for use of content, yet Vamoose does. Vamoose does not have soap commercial running over the artists head when they are playing their tunes to the public. What to do?

Ideas i have brought forward to the university of Oslo have been knocked back, as i have no proof that the projects i offer have a use in the community. I was not able to talk to students about ideas that relate technology and art. (you visit the projects at this link. Why? it would be un-ethical for me as my opinion is un-qualified. So the artist press kit idea gets shelved, intellectuals advise students what project they should do. The interesting thing is that few people within the intellectual community have much experience in the art world beyond a theory of understanding. Most universities promote types of art that have already been established in the media/publishing.

Every which way you loose, be sure to copyright everything and put it in a freezer and then present it as a paper and get a better salary. If your also able to merge a couple of those corrupt organization with your findings (TONO), better still and more points to you.

Anyway: excuse my cynical way here, meanwhile another person starts to write a song- cause they figured that song was better than the one they heard on the radio. They buy a guitar/amp, software for the computer, eventually an artist press kit, they sign their rights with a rights organization, they create a myspace, they try to tour out of their town, they can’t- no infa structure.

Who is going to build that infa structure. Lets wait and let myspace get around to doing that, rather than using any of that public money. The more advertising space the better, we like it best also when the artist gets none of that money that myspace get for the use of the artists content. That way the artist is sure to never be able to tour beyond the doors of her/his home, or if they do for sure its with an established publisher. We also like it that soon myspace are going to be selling stages to live venues with soap commercials above it. Yes mypsace sponsored by the rights organizations making sure that live music stays within the home for 99.9 percent of content created.

Now with the added bonus of knowing that a possibility to innovate did exist, however the idea did not have a PHD attached to it.

For sure if your good enough one of the major publishers is going to find you. Live performance skills are not needed with all this technology! Make sure you work on your online smile size, respect those building your cyber home. If we are all nice enough the walls of the future may not be all google adds.

http://www.rawmedia.tv

Serg from Antwerp

done

http://www.rawmedia.tv

James King talks about SABAM

done

http://www.rawmedia.tv

Paul Keller Creative Commons Netherlands

done

Talks about a commercial, non-commercial, creative commons, rights organizations, myspace and youtube.

On last tour to Belgium I was able to meet up with Paul Keller from CC.nl .

Questions sent out to CC mailing list: even if a site is set up as a non-profit is it fair that they run google adds with content licensed under a non-commercial license? I understand that often the non-profit makes very little from the adds, yet how do creators view this use? Are most artists ok about that art being associated with any product that google choose for ever and not participating in any part of that revenue? If a creative commons non-commercial use did not allow any kind of associated advertising, would the license work better? Is there a demand for a non-commercial license that does not allow advertising?

http://www.rawmedia.tv

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.

blanket license suffocation, care of APRA

Currently the media in Australia including JJJ basically use only published content. Media is given no incentive to use works licensed with creative commons, this is due to the blanket license system that APRA issue to all forms of media; including live venues. APRA do not offer artists the ability to license back. This means artists not with APRA can’t license direct to media as they choose. The arts council don’t even encourage use of creative commons licensed works, even though its public money that is funding the creation of the works. All the problems point to APRA. APRA also have the right to refuse an artist joining their organization if they have used a creative commons license, creative commons licenses are in conflict with the APRA contract.

Buma/Stemra Pilot

Recently I called up Buma/Stemra (Dutch collection society) to find out more information about the Creative Commons pilot project. Read the press release here. The project was initiated by the Creative Commons team in the Netherlands. This mail thread explains more.

What I understood after the conversation was this: its as difficult to change what a commercial use is for art licensed with Creative Commons licenses (for members of rights organizations) as it is to create a ‘license back situation’ for all artist members. From what I understand a license back situation would allow the artists to deal with their rights as they choose, yet still participate in the collecting system where the artist wanted to. The reason why Buma/Stemra would not create a license back situation (according to BS) is that it would cost its members to much and there would be nothing to collect if they did this anyway.

Consider: Buma/Stemra see little difference between what a commercial use is for art licensed with a CC NC license and art not licensed with one (for members that participate in the pilot). Buma/Stemra see almost everything as a commercial use. What is going to happen if in the future rights organizations adopt the NC CC license under Buma/Stemra conditions? Would this give the rights organizations the ability to charge non-profit organizations for the use CC NC licensed works in that territory ? Consider also: even a small flow from one rights organization might effect what is developing through CC licensing.

A way around this problem might be to add a feature to the license to let the user of the license know that this music art is with a collection society/system, by doing this creating a new license and less confusion. In time the rights organizations might work towards a NC use that resembles the CC NC use. For the rights organizations to build a new system they would have to dismantle/rebuild the old one. What incentive is there for a board of directors that are involved mostly with large publishers to do this?

Buma/Stemra knew that the conditions of a commercial use could not be changed. Were the Creative Commons team in the Netherlands aware of this ?

Why would BS treat online users of content any differently to off line users ? Consider also: If BS do treat a NC use differently online, then what is the effect of creative commons on spaces outside the net now and in the future (where the pilot might be introduced) ? Is two separate conditions for the use of content a good future to grow up in ?

If this pilot continues, users of Creative Commons licensed works and artists that license using Creative Commons licenses are going to be confused.

Who am I to make any assumptions about Buma/Stemra? Although I am from Australia and was previously a member of APRA. Over the last months I have had the opportunity to tour music through the Netherlands. In this time I was able to get feedback from venue owners on how Buma/Stemra deal with people.

Here’s an article with more thoughts on CC Non Commercial use.