Free cultural works license for publishing

[chombee]

I think that forest records and forest publishing should release stuff under a free cultural works license like this one:

You are free:

* to Share -- to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
* to Remix -- to make derivative works

Under the following conditions:

* Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
* Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one.

* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
* Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.

[dan]

I think that forest records and forest publishing should release stuff under a free cultural works license like this one:

You are free:

* to Share -- to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
* to Remix -- to make derivative works

Under the following conditions:

* Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
* Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one.

* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
* Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.

Sounds great. I would just change one bit: For any reuse or distribution, you must get permission from the copyright holder. Or this could be only in relation to for-profit distribution? Hmmmm?

[chombee]

It's usually considered bad, in the land of free licensing, if the license makes you have to do something before you can redistribute, like getting permission. That would not be either a 'free cultural works' license or a 'creative commons' license.

If you want to stop people from using stuff for profit, you could consider using the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike Non-Commercial license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/):

You are free:

* to Share -- to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
* to Remix -- to make derivative works

Under the following conditions:

* Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
* Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
* Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one.

* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
* Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.

This is a creative commons license, but doesn't qualify as a 'free cultural works' (http://freedomdefined.org/Definition) license because of the non-commercial restriction. Personally I'm fine with this restriction.

[dan]

that sounds good to me. Anyone else?

[beev]

Creative Commons is good cos they have a range of different licenses and you can choose the one that suits you most. This is really something for the artist to decide on, though, and all we can do is point them towards the CC website so they can read more.

Should we make it compulsory that people choose what they want to do about permissions stuff? Could avoid possible legal crap coming up one day...

[chombee]

I agree we should probably try to put some sort of license on anything we publish, to clarify both our legal and social intent.

You're right that this is ultimately up to the artist, the copyright holder. But we could say 'if we publish your stuff, it has to have some sort of copyright license, we recommend you use this one [creative commons attribution share-alike non-commercial] or choose one of these [creative commons licenses], but it's up to you.'

I agree it is good to present the whole range of creative commons licenses, because some artists might be happy with others making derived works, some might not, some might want to allow commercial uses, some might not. All of the creative commons licenses at the least allow the work to be freely redistributed with attribution and without modifications for non-profit. If we had an artist that didn't want anyone to be able to make copies and distribute their work without permission or without paying, then they'd have to use a non-creative commons license. We couldn't stop them. Well, we could refuse to publish work under such a license. Probably we should just make clear that the artist should choose a license, and by default we'll use one of these creative commons ones.

[dan]

Here's the release guidelines for Earth Monkey, some fine folk from the lake district:

Guidelines for Earth Monkey Productions/Talking Monkey releases:

* All tracks will be available free to download on Earth Monkey Productions via The Internet Archive with full artwork.
* The tracks will be licensed under the Creative Commons License
* The artist can withdraw their tracks at any time.
* The artist will have full control of their art.
* Earth Monkey will not release hard copies of the tracks (unless for promotional purposes) without first contacting the artist and asking permission, then a suitable profit share will be discussed.
* The artist may press any number of hard copies and keep the money for themselves.
* Earth Monkey will try and get good exposure for all artists equally.

http://www.earthmp.com

Something like this for Forest Records maybe?

[ravanwin]

dan: that sounds good. same for forest publishing me-thinks.
ryan

[chombee]

Looks pretty good to me :)