Thanks for joining the discussion about this important topic (licensing and artist rights).
I wanted to take an opportunity to clear up what I think are some misconceptions in your post about my viewpoint and what we are doing at Viralifier.
First of all, we have no intentions of being any sort of a gatekeeper. What we want to do is give individual content creators *more control* over what happens with their work, and the ability to earn royalties from it *should they choose to*, while still letting it be *as free as they want it to be*.
The problem, I think, is that we are living with the two copyright extremes that are currently available to artists and authors of work.
1) The locked-down, corporate, confusing, legal world of copyright that we have lived with for the last hundred years
2) Free-wheeling, blunt-force, take my art and give me nothing when you use it licenses like Creative Commons and public domain.
I imagine a third road ... which we believe is inevitably where this industry will go ... which allows artists to *retain* rights to their art (as easy as customizing your privacy settings on Facebook) while still *encouraging and facilitating* widespread use and enjoyment of it. I want to protect artists, not stifle them. I believe that a happy medium can be found, where you as an artist can leverage the incredible network effects of today's technology without giving up essentially all rights to how your work is used.
Just as you say art is not a zero-sum game, I believe that licensing rights are not an either-or game.
I also happen to be an artist myself - I play bass in a garage rock band called The Baketones. So, I am very familiar with what it's like to create art, and create it for the love of it, not for money. That said, if some big corporation wants to use our music for a TV commercial, damn straight we want to get paid for it! Even more than that, have some say in how it's used! If we were to license our work under Creative Commons, any corporation could use it without our approval, perhaps in a way which we are morally opposed to - completely undermining us and our art. From that perspective, Creative Commons licenses could be very harmful to artists who care about how and what context in which their art is used. (which, I dare to assume, would be most)
I think the last commenter, dwg, makes the best case for a new way to look at licensing moving forward - "Man, just because I make it for free doesn't mean that you get to use it for free. I can let you or I can not let you, but please don't expect it just because someone else (or even I) let you do that some other time.
...
My free make doesn't equal your free use."
I found the article and comments very interesting. Thanks for taking on this subject and helping move this very important discussion forward. I'm probably going to turn this comment into a follow-up blog post.
Thanks for joining the discussion about this important topic (licensing and artist rights).
I wanted to take an opportunity to clear up what I think are some misconceptions in your post about my viewpoint and what we are doing at Viralifier.
First of all, we have no intentions of being any sort of a gatekeeper. What we want to do is give individual content creators *more control* over what happens with their work, and the ability to earn royalties from it *should they choose to*, while still letting it be *as free as they want it to be*.
The problem, I think, is that we are living with the two copyright extremes that are currently available to artists and authors of work.
1) The locked-down, corporate, confusing, legal world of copyright that we have lived with for the last hundred years
2) Free-wheeling, blunt-force, take my art and give me nothing when you use it licenses like Creative Commons and public domain.
I imagine a third road ... which we believe is inevitably where this industry will go ... which allows artists to *retain* rights to their art (as easy as customizing your privacy settings on Facebook) while still *encouraging and facilitating* widespread use and enjoyment of it. I want to protect artists, not stifle them. I believe that a happy medium can be found, where you as an artist can leverage the incredible network effects of today's technology without giving up essentially all rights to how your work is used.
Just as you say art is not a zero-sum game, I believe that licensing rights are not an either-or game.
I also happen to be an artist myself - I play bass in a garage rock band called The Baketones. So, I am very familiar with what it's like to create art, and create it for the love of it, not for money. That said, if some big corporation wants to use our music for a TV commercial, damn straight we want to get paid for it! Even more than that, have some say in how it's used! If we were to license our work under Creative Commons, any corporation could use it without our approval, perhaps in a way which we are morally opposed to - completely undermining us and our art. From that perspective, Creative Commons licenses could be very harmful to artists who care about how and what context in which their art is used. (which, I dare to assume, would be most)
I think the last commenter, dwg, makes the best case for a new way to look at licensing moving forward - "Man, just because I make it for free doesn't mean that you get to use it for free. I can let you or I can not let you, but please don't expect it just because someone else (or even I) let you do that some other time.
...
My free make doesn't equal your free use."
I found the article and comments very interesting. Thanks for taking on this subject and helping move this very important discussion forward. I'm probably going to turn this comment into a follow-up blog post.
Thanks for joining the discussion about this important topic (licensing and artist rights).
I wanted to take an opportunity to clear up what I think are some misconceptions in your post about my viewpoint and what we are doing at Viralifier.
First of all, we have no intentions of being any sort of a gatekeeper. What we want to do is give individual content creators *more control* over what happens with their work, and the ability to earn royalties from it *should they choose to*, while still letting it be *as free as they want it to be*.
The problem, I think, is that we are living with the two copyright extremes that are currently available to artists and authors of work.
1) The locked-down, corporate, confusing, legal world of copyright that we have lived with for the last hundred years
2) Free-wheeling, blunt-force, take my art and give me nothing when you use it licenses like Creative Commons and public domain.
I imagine a third road ... which we believe is inevitably where this industry will go ... which allows artists to *retain* rights to their art (as easy as customizing your privacy settings on Facebook) while still *encouraging and facilitating* widespread use and enjoyment of it. I want to protect artists, not stifle them. I believe that a happy medium can be found, where you as an artist can leverage the incredible network effects of today's technology without giving up essentially all rights to how your work is used.
Just as you say art is not a zero-sum game, I believe that licensing rights are not an either-or game.
I also happen to be an artist myself - I play bass in a garage rock band called The Baketones. So, I am very familiar with what it's like to create art, and create it for the love of it, not for money. That said, if some big corporation wants to use our music for a TV commercial, damn straight we want to get paid for it! Even more than that, have some say in how it's used! If we were to license our work under Creative Commons, any corporation could use it without our approval, perhaps in a way which we are morally opposed to - completely undermining us and our art. From that perspective, Creative Commons licenses could be very harmful to artists who care about how and what context in which their art is used. (which, I dare to assume, would be most)
I think the last commenter, dwg, makes the best case for a new way to look at licensing moving forward - "Man, just because I make it for free doesn't mean that you get to use it for free. I can let you or I can not let you, but please don't expect it just because someone else (or even I) let you do that some other time.
...
My free make doesn't equal your free use."
I found the article and comments very interesting. Thanks for taking on this subject and helping move this very important discussion forward. I'm probably going to turn this comment into a follow-up blog post.
(untitled comment)
"Man, just because I make it for free doesn't mean that you get to use it for free"
Thanks for joining the discussion about this important topic (licensing and artist rights).
I wanted to take an opportunity to clear up what I think are some misconceptions in your post about my viewpoint and what we are doing at Viralifier.
First of all, we have no intentions of being any sort of a gatekeeper. What we want to do is give individual content creators *more control* over what happens with their work, and the ability to earn royalties from it *should they choose to*, while still letting it be *as free as they want it to be*.
The problem, I think, is that we are living with the two copyright extremes that are currently available to artists and authors of work.
1) The locked-down, corporate, confusing, legal world of copyright that we have lived with for the last hundred years
2) Free-wheeling, blunt-force, take my art and give me nothing when you use it licenses like Creative Commons and public domain.
I imagine a third road ... which we believe is inevitably where this industry will go ... which allows artists to *retain* rights to their art (as easy as customizing your privacy settings on Facebook) while still *encouraging and facilitating* widespread use and enjoyment of it. I want to protect artists, not stifle them. I believe that a happy medium can be found, where you as an artist can leverage the incredible network effects of today's technology without giving up essentially all rights to how your work is used.
Just as you say art is not a zero-sum game, I believe that licensing rights are not an either-or game.
I also happen to be an artist myself - I play bass in a garage rock band called The Baketones. So, I am very familiar with what it's like to create art, and create it for the love of it, not for money. That said, if some big corporation wants to use our music for a TV commercial, damn straight we want to get paid for it! Even more than that, have some say in how it's used! If we were to license our work under Creative Commons, any corporation could use it without our approval, perhaps in a way which we are morally opposed to - completely undermining us and our art. From that perspective, Creative Commons licenses could be very harmful to artists who care about how and what context in which their art is used. (which, I dare to assume, would be most)
I think the last commenter, dwg, makes the best case for a new way to look at licensing moving forward - "Man, just because I make it for free doesn't mean that you get to use it for free. I can let you or I can not let you, but please don't expect it just because someone else (or even I) let you do that some other time.
...
My free make doesn't equal your free use."
I found the article and comments very interesting. Thanks for taking on this subject and helping move this very important discussion forward. I'm probably going to turn this comment into a follow-up blog post.
Scott Burke
Viralifier
"Man, just because I make it for free doesn't mean that you get to use it for free."
Thanks for joining the discussion about this important topic (licensing and artist rights).
I wanted to take an opportunity to clear up what I think are some misconceptions in your post about my viewpoint and what we are doing at Viralifier.
First of all, we have no intentions of being any sort of a gatekeeper. What we want to do is give individual content creators *more control* over what happens with their work, and the ability to earn royalties from it *should they choose to*, while still letting it be *as free as they want it to be*.
The problem, I think, is that we are living with the two copyright extremes that are currently available to artists and authors of work.
1) The locked-down, corporate, confusing, legal world of copyright that we have lived with for the last hundred years
2) Free-wheeling, blunt-force, take my art and give me nothing when you use it licenses like Creative Commons and public domain.
I imagine a third road ... which we believe is inevitably where this industry will go ... which allows artists to *retain* rights to their art (as easy as customizing your privacy settings on Facebook) while still *encouraging and facilitating* widespread use and enjoyment of it. I want to protect artists, not stifle them. I believe that a happy medium can be found, where you as an artist can leverage the incredible network effects of today's technology without giving up essentially all rights to how your work is used.
Just as you say art is not a zero-sum game, I believe that licensing rights are not an either-or game.
I also happen to be an artist myself - I play bass in a garage rock band called The Baketones. So, I am very familiar with what it's like to create art, and create it for the love of it, not for money. That said, if some big corporation wants to use our music for a TV commercial, damn straight we want to get paid for it! Even more than that, have some say in how it's used! If we were to license our work under Creative Commons, any corporation could use it without our approval, perhaps in a way which we are morally opposed to - completely undermining us and our art. From that perspective, Creative Commons licenses could be very harmful to artists who care about how and what context in which their art is used. (which, I dare to assume, would be most)
I think the last commenter, dwg, makes the best case for a new way to look at licensing moving forward - "Man, just because I make it for free doesn't mean that you get to use it for free. I can let you or I can not let you, but please don't expect it just because someone else (or even I) let you do that some other time.
...
My free make doesn't equal your free use."
I found the article and comments very interesting. Thanks for taking on this subject and helping move this very important discussion forward. I'm probably going to turn this comment into a follow-up blog post.
Scott Burke
Viralifier
http://www.viralifier.com/
http://signup.viralifier.com/
"Man, just because I make it for free doesn't mean that you get to use it for free"
Thanks for joining the discussion about this important topic (licensing and artist rights).
I wanted to take an opportunity to clear up what I think are some misconceptions in your post about my viewpoint and what we are doing at Viralifier.
First of all, we have no intentions of being any sort of a gatekeeper. What we want to do is give individual content creators *more control* over what happens with their work, and the ability to earn royalties from it *should they choose to*, while still letting it be *as free as they want it to be*.
The problem, I think, is that we are living with the two copyright extremes that are currently available to artists and authors of work.
1) The locked-down, corporate, confusing, legal world of copyright that we have lived with for the last hundred years
2) Free-wheeling, blunt-force, take my art and give me nothing when you use it licenses like Creative Commons and public domain.
I imagine a third road ... which we believe is inevitably where this industry will go ... which allows artists to *retain* rights to their art (as easy as customizing your privacy settings on Facebook) while still *encouraging and facilitating* widespread use and enjoyment of it. I want to protect artists, not stifle them. I believe that a happy medium can be found, where you as an artist can leverage the incredible network effects of today's technology without giving up essentially all rights to how your work is used.
Just as you say art is not a zero-sum game, I believe that licensing rights are not an either-or game.
I also happen to be an artist myself - I play bass in a garage rock band called The Baketones. So, I am very familiar with what it's like to create art, and create it for the love of it, not for money. That said, if some big corporation wants to use our music for a TV commercial, damn straight we want to get paid for it! Even more than that, have some say in how it's used! If we were to license our work under Creative Commons, any corporation could use it without our approval, perhaps in a way which we are morally opposed to - completely undermining us and our art. From that perspective, Creative Commons licenses could be very harmful to artists who care about how and what context in which their art is used. (which, I dare to assume, would be most)
I think the last commenter, dwg, makes the best case for a new way to look at licensing moving forward - "Man, just because I make it for free doesn't mean that you get to use it for free. I can let you or I can not let you, but please don't expect it just because someone else (or even I) let you do that some other time.
...
My free make doesn't equal your free use."
I found the article and comments very interesting. Thanks for taking on this subject and helping move this very important discussion forward. I'm probably going to turn this comment into a follow-up blog post.
Scott Burke
Viralifier
http://www.viralifier.com/
http://signup.viralifier.com/
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Scott Burke - Viralifier.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt