Skip to main content

Free Music For Streamers (And Everyone Else) - Copyright, Public Domain, and The Commons

A comment on Alpha Gaming's discussion of copyright, relating to recent DCMA activity on the streaming site Twitch: "Why I Started My Own Record Label"

Man in white shirt applies fixative to a collage mural featuring the image of a woman taking a photo with her iPhone, at various rotations and scales.
Photo by mali maeder from Pexels

I'm surprised you didn't say anything about Creative Commons licensing (a specific kind of "some rights reserved" licensing similar to MIT and GPL), which uses all the proper legalese to prove those promises that you made regarding the music on your own label - and because all CC licenses are legally unrevokable, any rights a redistributor has to the music will only expand over time. Any issue that content creators may discover by using creative commons licensed works can also arise by using privately licensed work. The main issue seems to be when people redistribute content that isn't their creation or they don't have redistribution rights for sources/samples; and this can occur on any platform regardless of what license is used; for instance, consider most TV show streaming sites - they look legit, they charge you money, but when they get DCMAd you find out they were out for a quick buck. I've had something similar happen to me on a stock photo site, and that's one of the reasons I carefully read ToS of sites that provide content, and often refuse to use privately licensed material unless I know the content creator personally. In the cases where I'm basically expecting some corporation to come after a chunk of my pie no matter what I do, assuming I ever even get a pie (don't count your pies before they bake?), I'm not about to pay for the privilege.

IANAL but if you're looking for content to use in your videos that does not cost money, look for creative commons licensing that includes the terms
"derivative works allowed" (1) AND "commercial purposes allowed" (2),
OR "public domain" (aka CC-0, no rights reserved).

1: Videos where action is timed to music are legally defined as derivative works; videos with music playing in the background, to my knowledge, are not yet legally defined as anything at all; due to this, community praxis is to consider all videos that do not fall under "fair use" to be "derivative". 2: Streaming services make money from streamed and hosted content even if the streamer does not (remember, you are a product).

Make note of any "share-alike" content as you will need to use a CC-SA license for streams and VoDs containing content with that particular license; twitch in particular has exclusivity on videos released by affiliates and partners - if you have signed away the right to redistribute your own content then you do not have the rights necessary to release your content under a share-alike license at the time of initial posting; IANAL but this would violate the spirit of the share-alike license if not legally prohibit use of share-alike content entirely.

Also, these licenses can be recommended to indie musicians to protect both the musician and the content creators. Anything you declare as creative commons or public domain under the creative commons license, with a link to the creative commons legal text, is protected (from corporate control) by using those existing licenses. Creative commons and public domain licensing have legal documentation that states the license cannot be revoked and made more private; private licenses can often be revoked at any time. To reference the example used in the video, if an indie musician signs with a record label, the record label cannot legally copyright strike any music previously released under a creative commons license, as the right to restrict the license no longer belonged to the musician at the time of signing.

Here are the human-readable explanations of each license type, click on the license name to see the legal text that defines it.

Anything released under a creative commons license is properly licensed, rather than being copyright-free, which is why some people use the tongue-in-cheek term "copyleft" to refer to permissive licenses like these.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

interdependence and apples

》　It really saddens me that it only takes one bad apple to ruin a bunch for most people. The reason the saying is, "one bad apple ruins the bushel/barrel" is that because of the way apples rot, they emit a gas that causes all the apples around them to rot as well. When talking about how people interact, a person did not develop their personality by accident or by chance; they were enabled by so many people that there's almost no way of picking out any particular influence. For instance, if you read the book about Trump by his niece, she points out that nearly every troubling behavior he has was initially caused by the extremely high desire he had to earn his own father's affection, and was subsequently reinforced by celebrity-dom and the trappings of wealth. Similarly MLK Jr., who was a reverend for some time before he became a celebrity, was strongly influenced by his own understanding of the Word of God and the unconditional support of his loved ones, ev...
Post a Comment
Read more

the value of exploitation

》　 Income of black slaves? You clearly don’t realize slavery almost abolished itself because of hoe **nonprofitable** it was until the cotton jin Growing cotton has never profited from slavery. In fact, paid laborers were more profitable than slave laborers even after the cotton gin was created; although the question of whether the paid laborers were not also being exploited is certainly apparent. The country was divided on the matter of slavery from the very start - northerners, influenced by Quaker ideals, tended to express the belief that all men are equal under God, whereas white southerners, for what reasons I cannot fathom, tended to express the belief that the color of someone's skin displayed the color of their soul, or something to that poetic effect. Letters from 1775 show that white southerners *believed* slavery to be more profitable, to be a biological necessity, even held some kind of religious concern about it and definitely had concerns that the kingdom ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Unintentional Abuse

Questioner: [what do you mean by] Unintentional grooming? Questioner: explain further pls cuz i’ve thought about that but never like- processed it fully >> I am doing my best to avoid getting really psychological here, but the basis of the concept is that the human mind avoids thinking about things that threaten your sense of self and reality. This is a well-documented and extremely strong instinct. So like, people don't automatically assume that they are doing something bad. Nearly every person will seek out and find justifications for everything they do. A 40 yo isn't going to suddenly get up and say, "I've never had an interest in younger people before, but I suddenly want to take advantage of someone's naivety." Becoming an asshole like that is a process shaped by exposure to the abuse of others (not usually direct abuse, surprisingly) and being enabled by social expectations and unfettered access. They do not believe that they are doing anythin...
Post a Comment
Read more