Over at the blog “A Month Full Of Wednesdays” I noticed a post describing a recent Minneapolis call for music and video to play in stations and a recent call for artwork for Cleveland’s public transit. The post mentions an idea to extend Cleveland art requests to include audio for use in stations and the transit authority’s hold system.
The author mentions that Creative Commons licenses would be a good idea to level the playing field and allow the municipal companies to share the music with others on their site freely. We can’t help but agree; these projects calling for artwork, music, and video for public transportation ask creators to contribute their work for the good of the community, much like our licenses do for the good of a greater culture.Comments Off
As we announced last week, we’re getting ready to roll out Version 2.0 of the eleven original Creative Commons licenses. Review a draft of v2.0 of the by-nc-sa license (from which all other licenses are composed) and let us know what you think. It’ll be up until Feb. 15, and we may make updates in the meantime — we’ll let you know.
A review of the changes, with directions to the relevant section:
- Warranties will now be a matter of choice for the licensor. See Section 5a.
- The attribution clause will include a link-back requirement simliar to the one previously discussed here. Licensees will only be required to link back to licensors if (1) it’s reasonably practical to do so; (2) the licensor actually specifies a URI; (3) that URI actually points to license information about the work. See Section 4d.
- The Share Alike provision will be more flexible. The provision will allow licensees to license resulting derivative works under Creative Commons licenses that feature the same license restrictions/permissions, including future and iCommons versions of the same license. The Share Alike provision will also be clearer about what happens when different kinds of Share Alike content is mixed together (e.g., How to license a collage made from an SA photograph combined with an NC-SA photograph). See Section 4b.
- Ideas for creating compatibility between our SA license and the GNU FDL are coming soon. We’ll post here and to the cc-licenses list when it’s ready.
The New York Times Magazine mentions Creative Commons in a long piece about copyright reform this week. The article seems to be aimed at a general overview of the movement and forgets a few key details, like Richard Stallman being the man behind Copyleft.Comments Off
He also recently launched a site dedicated to sharing tips and reviews of the software he uses when creating music. A post definitely worth sharing here is the one about sampling, aimed at other turntablists: “Where the Samples Are.” He covers the legal way to acquire rights to use commercial samples, how and where to find Creative Commons licensed samples and what benefits they provide, and lastly how to simply pilfer commerical samples and what the consequences might be.1 Comment »
Stanford is bringing back its popular Discovering Dickens community reading project — another example of what’s possible with a healthy public domain. (In other words, don’t try this with anything much more modern.)
1 Comment »
In December 2002, Stanford’s Discovering Dickens project began with the serial release of Charles Dickens’ novel Great Expectations. By the time the project concluded in April, 2003, it had enjoyed success far beyond what we had anticipated. Interest in the project, which has attracted participants from around the country and around the world, has remained keen, and we are happy to announce our next project: Discovering Dickens 2004.
Between January 9 and April 16, 2004, Discovering Dickens will rerelease the facsimile of Dickens’ famous novel of the French Revolution, A Tale of Two Cities. In April, 1859, the first serialized part of A Tale of Two Cities provided the lead piece for Dickens’ new periodical All the Year Round. On the strength of this weekly serial, contemporary Victorian readership had swollen to 100,000 before the novel concluded in November, 1859.
Take an entertaining and compelling soundbite, easy to use digital audio tools, and cheap bandwidth, what do you get? Spontaneous remix culture.
DeanGoesNuts.com has in a few days collected dozens of remixes of Howard Dean’s 2004 Iowa Caucus concession speech culminating in the infamous “yeagh!” utterance.
While the curator (a Dean supporter) has licensed the site using the Creative Commons Attribution license, permissions associated with the remixes themselves are uncertain. The site’s upcoming submissions policy should include a licensing requirement to clear this up.Comments Off
Independent musicians looking for a way to get paid for their work might want to check out Pump Audio. They serve as a marketplace of independent music for film, tv, and radio, representing thousands of independent artists. The thing that really makes them stand out is that they don’t assert control of an artist’s copyright, instead signing non-exclusive licenses that last for a year or two. [via Scott Andrew]Comments Off
This week’s featured content is Nomads’ Land, a site for photographs taken by Jean-François Maïon during travels around the globe. A great place to start exploring the site is the map on the main page. All 1000+ photos are licensed under a Creative Commons license and we can wait to see where Jean-François travels to next.3 Comments »
We’ll be posting drafts of the new versions of our licenses later this week. About a month of review time will follow, and then we’ll revise as needed and turn the new licenses on. Throughout the next couple of weeks we will explain how the process of versioning will happen.
Meantime, here’s a preview of the highlights:
- Warranties will now be a matter of choice for the licensor. The new licenses will disclaim warranties, but licensors will of course be free to negotiate warranties with licensees who demand them. (We’ll also work on a protocol to help people add warranties if they want to — but that will come later on.) Special thanks to Karl-Friedrich Lenz and Dan Bricklin and many more for persuading us on this point. More explanation in a separate post soon.
- The attribution clause will include a link-back requirement simliar to the one previously discussed here. Licensees will only be required to link back to licensors if (1) it’s reasonably practical to do so; (2) the licensor actually specifies a URI; (3) that URI actually points to license information about the work.
- The Share Alike provision will be more flexible. The provision will allow licensees to license resulting derivative works under Creative Commons licenses that feature the same license restrictions/permissions, including future and iCommons versions of the same license.
- The Share Alike provision will also be clearer about what happens when different kinds of Share Alike content is mixed together (e.g., How to license a collage made from an SA photograph combined with an NC-SA photograph).
- We’re still looking into the issue of compatibility between our SA licenses and the GNU FDL. Compared to the above improvements, this potential tweak came on our radar pretty recently. We’ll do our best to address it. Thanks to the many of you who’ve written in on this point.
- Other minor tweaks.
More soon.Comments Off
Participatory creativity is hot, hot. The Lollapoola Mash-Up Contest. Our Own GET CREATIVE! Moving Images Contest (winners to be announced next month). MoveOn.org’s Bush in 30 Seconds advertisement contest. And now even the New Yorker has announced the winner of its own analog-version of an open-source creativity contest, which was more interactive than contests past. (Devoted New Yorker fans will want to watch the great slide show explaining the judging process.)
I don’t remember the New Yorker’s ever explaining the copyright policy for this. Who gets to keep the rights to the final cartoon? Can we re-use those little screwdriver or dog cut-outs for other purposes? And given that it’s cut-outs we’re talking about, how does first sale doctrine tie in to all this?
Clearly the average New Yorker reader — or editor — isn’t as persnickety about their IP as some of us. Maybe next year they’ll go CC.Comments Off