If it is CC-BY-NC then he should be able to prevent you from adding ads in combination with his music (though youtube can't settle whether the larger point of the video is commercial), but he doesn't have any rights to add ads nor should youtube act as a music agent to broker deals with video producers as he asserts at the end.
I would recommend anybody not to license in a CC license that includes "NC" as long it is not clearly defined what you mean by "commercial".
- Is using the music in a private YouTube video commercial (probably not)?
- Is using the music in a private YouTube video that, say, some 3D-Designer rendered for a classroom project commercial?
- Is using the music in a YouTube video that some 3D-Designer rendered for a classroom project but with the potential of showing his skills to potential employers commercial?
- Is using the music in a YouTube video that some 3D-Designer rendered for some funny private side project with the potential of showing his skills to potential employers commercial?
- Is using the music in a YouTube video that some 3D-Designer released for free to show his skills to potential employers commercial?
- Is enabling ads on such YouTube videos commercial? What if you enable ads because you had costs?
- Is using the music in an advertising video that is distributed only freely commercial (rather yes)?
- Is using the music in a commercial film commercial (clearly yes)?
If you say something is commercial if you get paid for it, what other types of compensation makes it commercial/non-commercial: YouTube clicks, Facebook likes, Bitcoins (when they had no value), attention for other (advertized) videos in your YouTube channel, awareness among potential employers?
http://www.gardnermuseum.org/music/listen/music_library?filt...
if your tastes extend to classical. Classical artists have it easier as they can release a sound recording of a particular performance under the CC licence and then release another recording commercially. Leon Fleisher springs to mind.
So I can see that there would be benefit to a creator being able to monetise their own works on YT, but surely there needs to be a mechanism in place to protect legitimate licensees from an over-reaching licensing grab? And at the moment it seems like that mechanism is just not letting people into the monetisation system at all.
It sounds like the author wants to give people the right to use their music freely anywhere but YouTube, which CC and YouTube understandably don't support.
Disclaimer: I work for Google, on open source software that doesn't have anything to do with YouTube.
That's literally the opposite of true with -nc.
* Person A composes some music, releases it as CC-NC
* Person B uses that music as the background to a home video, uploads it to youtube
It seems like B is following the CC-NC license? So then A goes to YouTube and, via Content ID, says "I own the music B used in their video, they didn't have permission to use my music, but I'm willing to let them use it if you put ads on their video and give me a cut".
(Again, I do work for Google, on unrelated stuff.)
To avoid the distribution issue, is it possible to use a CC licence for music downloaded from your website, while using a RR licence when providing to the distributors? (On the same song).
Any reason why the licence can't be dependent on the distribution channel?
Could this also get around channels demanding "exclusives"
The purpose of Creative Commons licenses is that people know what they are allowed to do - exactly so that they don't have to go to the tedious process of asking each artist for permission.
Monetization under online content-ID schemes (including relatedly serving takedowns under DCMA where required) all require the content usage rights to unambiguously be established AND verifiable in an automated fashion. Before an ad can be placed on a piece of content or served a DCMA takedown, the right to do so needs to be veirfied (eg. DCMA requires "good faith effort"), or they may get conter-sued.
With normal licenced content, that is easy to determine in an automated fashion - audio signatures will identify the potentially infringing content & then possibly some algorithms will check for fair-use - eg. length of the original song used, audio quality to eg. indicate it it's a production video or you recording your kid dancing, maybe even a human in the loop at the very end.
With CC licensed content, every piece of potentially infriging content needs to be human verified for usage rights & even then it may not be clear quickly. It is too expensive to hire an army of humans - so you would not support it at all.
I believe we are on the verge to see a fundamental change in the way the worlds economy is working. This may still take 100 years, but capitalism is doomed because it leads to unstable economical states and it's harmful for humanity (e.g speculation on food).
Lets keep pushing on the snowball and extend that model to other domains. I think that scientists pioneered that model, hence the exponential scientific progress.
https://creativecommons.org/2009/01/21/bandcamp-integrates-c...
Aside from rights management do these "distros" do ANYTHING anymore? And they are too lazy to do any rights management work that YouTube isn't performing semi- or fully-automatically?
YouTube should not allow them to simply be gate keepers.
Yes - getting physical media manufactured and distributed worldwide, promotion, and organizing world tours. All that needs massive financial firepower, you're not going to get e.g. prime-time TV ad spots as an indie label.
Bandwidth isn't a consideration for most people as long as it just works, and quality is good enough.
Which have significant problems. One of the smartest aspects of modern open source software licenses that's allowed them to become really widespread is that there's very little restriction by usage (e.g. only for educational use).
There have been attempts to better define NC in the context of Creative Commons probably going back a decade. But, in addition to the fact that it makes it a non-free license under OSI guidelines, it's really hard. The problem is that you either create hard and fast rules based on non-profits under US tax code or whatever (which allows some very large and potentially controversial orgs to use non-commercially) or you make essentially all non-trivial uses commercial. (Amazon referral links on your blog? Commercial.)
My personal belief is that CC should just eliminate ND and NC. ND prohibits remixing which was one of the rallying points around CC in the first place. And NC is essentially a feel good license that lets you be warm and fuzzy about contributing to the commons--while trying to make sure no one can make money from your work.
Let's face it. Looking at what happens in science, we see that there is junk science and there are cheaters. So this would probably still exit in a pure open source economy. However, the incentive to create junk things just for the profit would be much smaller. The main reason, in my opinion, is because the reward of junk food creation is unrelated to its added value to humanity. With open source, the succes is more strongly related to the real added value of the product.
Note that the apparent success of junk food is not only due to people liking them. It's also because of strong marketing efforts, manipulating health tests and reports and organisations that should establish health rules, etc. It's also difficult to find healthy food because they saturate the market with it which leaves hardly any room for healthy food.
I've always seen McDonald's regarded as one of the heralds of capitalism, and I still can't find out why.
I think I wrote that because classical artists think in terms of performances of a score, and I perceive that pop/rock musicians think in terms of tunes that they have composed.
The only problem with music on youtube is the variability of the quality and the ability to find good-quality versions of the songs you want.
What is this intrinsic quality, and why does it correlate better with the fun during creation than with the decision by people to buy it?
(Though I'm pretty sure that this hypothetical Open Source McDonald's would exist. It, and other fast food joints, solve a legitimate consumer problem - getting hot and actually tasty food quickly.)
I don't think it's the cost of the food/ingredients that get's people to eat junk/fast-food. Maybe when it comes to stuff such as sugary-drinks, yes. But for food, it's often the convenience that trumps the cost. I'd say that it's actually cheaper to buy fresh ingredients, and cook it yourself, than it is to go out and binge on fast-food.
That said, fast food solves an important need, IMO. It's usually a very tasty hot meal you can get quickly. Which is exactly what I want every time except when I'm taking my SO for a romantic evening.
In the 3D-Designer examples above, could you define what taxes everyone involved is paying? I rather sure that no person has every paid taxes for the production of their own CV, unless they create a sole proprietorship, in which case its very likely that they are doing something commercial.
> what other types of compensation makes it commercial/non-commercial
The Swedish tax office define income as work done under compensation. Gifts, in contrast, is valuables given with no expectation of compensation. Income is taxed, gifts are not. In your list, YouTube clicks, Facebook likes, attention and awareness is not taxed as income. Bitcoins were not taxes either when they had no value, but are now when given as form of compensation.
At least for German websites you have to add an imprint (Impressumspflicht - there is no proper English translation of this that I know of since this is a concept that to my knowledge only exists in Germany). What content this has to contain depends on whether the website is to considered as commercial or not. What remains to be said is obvious: There are court decisions that say that there are completely different criteria for a website to be commercial (in the sense of the content of the imprint) than the criteria tax authorities apply.
Maybe you have less uptake from people in the grey areas and less spread through for profit use. Looking at OSS today, maybe that is what you want.
The issue with NC isn't so much around the fact that it prohibits commercial use--though in the views of some that makes it a non-free license and therefore something to avoid for that reason alone--but that defining what constitutes commercial use in the general case is essentially impossible and very much in the eyes of the beholder.
Such a method seems quite typical to protect ones work while sharing it with end users and seems to be what the OP expected from using CC.
I don't like the state of NC, but the point of copyleft is harvesting the irony that licensors get to state the terms and aren't particularly penalized for much of anything they do wrong (their unenforceable clauses are simply ignored). So why not take NC if you want CC with a commercial chilling effect? You don't have to sue anyone, yet that chill is still there. A resolution in one US court wont even change that chill much.
The GPLv3 defines rather exactly what is allowed and what is not. That's what a license is for: defining exactly what is allowed and what isn't (which does not contradict that there are purposes for which the GPLv3 is suitable and ones for which it is not). NC for Non-Commercial in Creative Commons on the other hand is some wishy-washy term that does not clearly define where the boundary between commercial and non-commercial is.