DJ Vadim Samples under Creative Commons

[tetsuneko]

@tetsuneko: dunno where you're from so http://creativecommons.org/worldwide (or check here: http://creativecommons.org/about/licens ... e-licenses)

Thanks a bunch! "CC-by" is just the license type I was looking for

[DWb]

http://creativecommons.org/license/

Very simple, you just say "YES" or "NO" to "Allow commercial usages of your work."

I strongly recommend AGAINST CC. What's the point? It's just a simplified way of telling the general public "I'm giving you some of my rights!" It's unnecessary and potentially bad for you, as you might end up letting some schmucks steal your song and make tons of money off it.

Well, you might if you allow that option. But the point is that it's for people who would like to see their music make people happier rather than make sure they wring every last penny out of it.

That said, I can see a couple of options that would make it more useful:
- they don't seem to have various options - I'd quite like to use "I want to distribute this commercially (so I don't want commercial or non-commercial reproduction to be allowed) but I don't mind people sampling it as part of a new piece of music," for instance.
- some definition of 'semi-commercial use' would be nice, to allow you to charge people for records to cover the manufacturing costs, or charge people for entrance to your performance to cover the cost of the venue. (There is a get-out in the non-commercial thing for live performances or being played by DJ's though - it only counts as commercial use of that work if samples of that work form a substantial part of what people are paying to see. Arguably one tune in a ninety minute live / DJ set using samples from a given work isn't a substantial part of the whole performance that people paid to see.

[fourstones]

Speaking as someone who has been working with (and for) CC licenses for about 5 years and worked in the music industry (Columbia, Epic, Rhino and others) starting in 1978 I can tell you the following:

1. Taking career advice from a musician's forum should be done with a large grain of salt.

2. Taking legal advice from a musician's forum is downright dangerous.

3. Adopting a well known license allowing sharing (and in many cases remixing) without further notice to the artist has proven extremely effective for "unknown" artists in terms of getting their music out there in a legal, sane way. For example, 100s (1,000s?) of ccMixter, Magnatune and Jamendo music tracks have been used in YouTube video totalling literally millions of downloads and the kind of exposure that any publicist at major label would kill for (I speak from first hand knowledge)

4. Adopting a well known license allowing fans to share and remix without further notice to the artist has proven a safe and sane way for "established" artists to give back to the music community. This is why Fort Minor, Beasties, Morning Jacket, DJ Vadim, Coldcut, Eno, Chuck D, Danger Mouse, etc. etc. have released material under CC.

5. Is CC necessary? Of course not, you are welcome to come up with your own legal license including "All Rights Resevered" or giving up all your rights by donating your work to the Public Domain or something in between. However, by adopting one of the CC licenses you save yourself the legal fees of constructing your own license and you save your fans as much effort because once they understand the CC license in question, they can apply that knowledge to the literally millions of like-licensed pieces of music already on the Web.

6. Many artists (about half on ccMixter) have chosen to retain their commercial rights by choosing a NonCommercial CC license. In the case of DJ Vadim that means if you plan to use the samples in a commercial setting you need to contact the label. A draft of a common definition of non-commercial can be found here along with use cases but quite frankly I don't bother with that. If there is a question I would contact Ben at BBE Music, Vadim's label. I've been working with him in releasing Vadim and others' music under CC and he is very open, fair and highly supportive of emerging artists, in other words, the opposite of an old school label. If enough folks ping him, he might be inspired to amend and relax the CC-NC license with the DJ club case for these samples, similar to what Magnatune did with podcasters.

7. Many other artists have chosen to release the commercial rights to their music using the BY license. You might be surprised to learn that these are the most financially successful independent artist I know. See Brad Sucks for a case that exemplifies the philosophy that giving your music away is good for your career. This hypothetical case of someone coming along and 'stealing' your music and making 'millions' is the ultimate fantasy propaganda perpetuated by the major labels who feel it is their god given right to do exactly that - get artists to sign over 100% of the rights to them.

In my experience that thing that kills music careers (other than signing with a major label) is "obscurity, not piracy."

Hope this helps,
VS

[DWb]

Great post, thanks!

[zircon]

1. Taking career advice from a musician's forum should be done with a large grain of salt.

2. Taking legal advice from a musician's forum is downright dangerous.

Common sense doesn't have to come from someone you're paying $600 an hour.

3. Adopting a well known license allowing sharing (and in many cases remixing) without further notice to the artist has proven extremely effective for "unknown" artists in terms of getting their music out there in a legal, sane way. For example, 100s (1,000s?) of ccMixter, Magnatune and Jamendo music tracks have been used in YouTube video totalling literally millions of downloads and the kind of exposure that any publicist at major label would kill for (I speak from first hand knowledge)

And plenty of insanely popular YouTube videos have been created based on illegally used content. Plenty of great, extremely popular music has arisen from illegal sources as well. Frankly, I think it's the quality of the source and not the rights surrounding it that influences how popular it becomes... at least when it comes to the internet.

4. Adopting a well known license allowing fans to share and remix without further notice to the artist has proven a safe and sane way for "established" artists to give back to the music community. This is why Fort Minor, Beasties, Morning Jacket, DJ Vadim, Coldcut, Eno, Chuck D, Danger Mouse, etc. etc. have released material under CC.

5. Is CC necessary? Of course not, you are welcome to come up with your own legal license including "All Rights Resevered" or giving up all your rights by donating your work to the Public Domain or something in between. However, by adopting one of the CC licenses you save yourself the legal fees of constructing your own license and you save your fans as much effort because once they understand the CC license in question, they can apply that knowledge to the literally millions of like-licensed pieces of music already on the Web.

Or one could do a little research into music law and write one a license that *exactly* fits their needs, instead of a mostly inflexible one. Not saying CC isn't right for some people, but you make it sound like you have to be a lawyer (or hire one) in order to write up a legally binding document that can work to your advantage... it's really not that hard.

7. Many other artists have chosen to release the commercial rights to their music using the BY license. You might be surprised to learn that these are the most financially successful independent artist I know. See Brad Sucks for a case that exemplifies the philosophy that giving your music away is good for your career. This hypothetical case of someone coming along and 'stealing' your music and making 'millions' is the ultimate fantasy propaganda perpetuated by the major labels who feel it is their god given right to do exactly that - get artists to sign over 100% of the rights to them.

I have no problem with people giving their music away for free. I do it myself, as a matter of fact! I just don't believe in restricting myself to a rigid license when I can write one with the exact specs that I want. Moreso than in any other industry, I really don't believe in "one size fits all" when it comes to music.

[fourstones]

Or one could do a little research into music law and write one a license that *exactly* fits their needs, instead of a mostly inflexible one. Not saying CC isn't right for some people, but you make it sound like you have to be a lawyer (or hire one) in order to write up a legally binding document that can work to your advantage... it's really not that hard.

Well, what can I say, this and your previous post about CC doing "harm" to your music release strikes me as more than just incorrect, it borders on irresponsible. Considering an RIAA lobbying group made up of lawyers representing 4 huge multinational corporations, each with dozens of lawyers racking up 21,000 lawsuits and counting (this from 2 days ago) I stand by my assertion that taking legal advice from a random Internet forum is bad practice.

For example the idea that CC licenses are "mostly inflexible" or "rigid" is 100% wrong. People amend and merge CC licenses all the time. Magnatune relaxes parts of the BY-NC-SA license to fit the needs of their artists and consumers and yes, they hired a lawyer to do it. That's a big reason why the artists on the label (including myself) are happy to share the revenue from our sales and licenses with the label, exactly because the idea that licensing music in today's environment has any relation to "common sense" is, well, naive.

And plenty of insanely popular YouTube videos have been created based on illegally used content. Plenty of great, extremely popular music has arisen from illegal sources as well. Frankly, I think it's the quality of the source and not the rights surrounding it that influences how popular it becomes... at least when it comes to the internet.

I think it's possible you missed the point of my original post (or more likely I don't understand your response). The CC music used in those videos were picked because it was legally safe to do so giving exposure to the artists who never would have otherwise been heard. Not to mention in several cases the CC music was licensed for $$$ when the videos were used in commercial DVD sales.

Now it's totally conceivable these producers might have picked music licensed under the "zircon Common Sense Music License" (once their lawyers have looked it over) but my impression from conversations with them is that they were drawn to the music at ccMixter and Magnatune precisely because they understand the CC license. If I'm right then the "one size fits all" (or at least the CC brand) can have its advantages too.

Peace,
VS

[stk]

1. Taking career advice from a musician's forum should be done with a large grain of salt.

2. Taking legal advice from a musician's forum is downright dangerous.

Copywrong kills whales, slaughters seals and makes baby Jesus cry.
CC is good stuff.

(But really, who the hell wants to use Vadim's old samples anyways?)

/sk

[puffer]

http://creativecommons.org/license/

Very simple, you just say "YES" or "NO" to "Allow commercial usages of your work."

I strongly recommend AGAINST CC. What's the point? It's just a simplified way of telling the general public "I'm giving you some of my rights!" It's unnecessary and potentially bad for you, as you might end up letting some schmucks steal your song and make tons of money off it. I would create your own license that fits your needs, instead.

This displays a profound misunderstanding of what a CC license is and what it offers independent artists and other creative enterprises. Fourstones more pointedly and with more insight shows why. But I have to ask...

Have you even read the language behind the *various* CC licenses? Those little icons and FAQ pages are just the front-end of the legal framework behind them; framework that was drafted and revised by lawyers & copyright experts. So, writing your own licensing agreement is more sensible than using one that has been vetted and road-tested by a large community of legal experts, companies and users? Really?

CC licensing is not giving away your music any more than releasing it on a major label with very strict licensing. You can use a very restrictive CC license if you wish, and this will give you the coverage you need if anyone is violating the terms. Or you can use a very liberal license that allows users to do what they like but still allows the creator to be recognized.

What CC takes into account is that users want to share and test music, and that all such activity is not criminal, and often has a desirable outcome for the licenser (i.e. more people are turned on to your work, high name recognition). CC is there for people who want some protection from being ripped off by others but don't have the resources to otherwise protect themselves (i.e. the money to hire lawyers) - and it takes into account that there are a lot of interpretations of what being "ripped off" is.

If none of the various CC licenses suits you, and you feel you can draft one that is more legally sound, than go to it. But let's be honest, even if you know what you're doing, that's not giving you any more protection when it comes down to it. And to steer people who might otherwise benefit away from it because you don't really understand it is ridiculous.

[zircon]

My initial post might have been a bit extreme - I'll admit I post a bit hastily sometimes - but I think several of you are seriously misconstruing what I'm trying to say. Here's an example of where CC does not work at all:

www.ocremix.org - a website where fans of video game music create arrangements ("ReMixes") of video game tunes from hundreds of composers. All non-profit. All the composers we've talked to are supportive of this. However, much like 'fan art' and covers of popular music on MySpace, we don't go through the licensing process because it would not be feasible... we don't really have the money. BUT, the fan-made arrangements have their fair share of non-derivative original material. We needed a license where we could protect our *original* work and inform listeners what they can and cannot do with the arrangements.

CC did not work for our situation. We were told this directly by the creator, as I recall. They said you have to own 100% of the copyright for the license to apply. We had to create our own agreements instead, which has been holding up under scrutiny of legal professionals thus far.

Now, how many electronic musicians do you know actually clear EVERY SINGLE sample that they use in their songs? How many could say that if someone went down each part of the song, that absolutely ALL of it would be completely pre-cleared and legal? If the topics on sampling here at KVR are any indication, hardly anyone actually does this. According to CC... if you don't have 100% copyright ownership, the license doesn't work and you have to use something else. Don't you think this fact is relevant to many musicians here at KVR?

Like I said, my first post about getting 'ripped off' was a bit silly. I simply want to point out that CC does not work for everyone.

[fourstones]

Your latest post continues the inaccuracies the worst probably

According to CC... if you don't have 100% copyright ownership, the license doesn't work and you have to use something else.

This is according to the Constitution of the United States, there's no such thing as a license that relaxes ownership on someone else's works.

There are several points in the thread worthy of response but I can't let this go:

Now, how many electronic musicians do you know actually clear EVERY SINGLE sample that they use in their songs? How many could say that if someone went down each part of the song, that absolutely ALL of it would be completely pre-cleared and legal?

Three years ago we initiated something called the Creative Commons Sample Pool. We are now approaching 50,000 samples that are part of the pool. Not a huge number compared to "the rest of the world" but I think it makes a good jump start and I can tell you the quality of many are at least as good as expensive standard non-CC libraries.

Most of these samples are congregated at 3 sites: freesound, ccMixter and Magnatune. I'm the admin at one of these and I'm close friends with the other two and I can tell you that we are extremely vigilant (sp?) about only hosting cleared samples. I have personally pissed off more than a few remixers at ccM who assume the same attitude that you do (which, btw, is nothing but understandable) and tried to upload copyright material. But the cost of being called names and cleaning hate mail out of my inbox is negligible compared to the goal of creating an environment where music production and remixing specifically is not, a priori a federal crime.

Are our sites fool proof? No. Do things sneak by? Yes. But the vast majority of artists playing in the Sample Pool "get it" and are working toward the same end and our communities are big enough now that eventually we get just about everything.

So the answer to your question "How many musicials do you know actually clear EVERY SINGLE sample...?" is:

I happen to know thousands personally.

Peace,
VS