| Only CC-BY-licence on Youtube |
I found this article on "Neumusik.com" , written by Wolfgang Senges on June, 6. 2011 in "Business News,
Creative Commons" , and tried to translate the text for Bandamp.
http://neumusik.com/2011-06-youtube-bietet-creative-commons-lizenzierung-vorerst-nur-unter-cc-by/
"Since June, 2. 2011 on you tube is a licensing on Creative Commons possible . Reuse must be allowed but also commercially, and without further restriction. Therefore is currently the sole attribution license (CC BY 3.0) to choose from, which provides for mandatory re-naming of the author alone.
To start, YouTube more than 10,000 licensed CC-BY-videos from various sources for further use, currently primarily from news agencies like Al Jazeera and the Voice of America.
Users may remix videos directly on the editor platform, and any video that is created using CC BY-licensed content will automatically display the linked source videos’ titles underneath the video player.
New, from our own sources, with videos can either be placed under the standard YouTube license or a CC-BY-3.0 license.
GigaOm points to the possible motives for the restriction on CC-BY licenses:
Creative Commons has in the past been struggling with the fact that the majority of users tends to adopt more restrictive licenses. The organization estimated that two out of three Creative Commons-licensed works can’t be reused commercially, and one out of four can’t be reincorporated into a new work at all.
Considering the options, the use of YouTube compared to Vimeo is severely limited - there are all CC versions accepted. On the other hand, the benefit to the community is not to be underestimated. Putting one on YouTube a CC license, which comes from the local fund, so you can be sure of the availability (if the content provider has correctly licensed). In addition, the adjusted and labeled to YouTube via YouTube editor used material. That will leave the processor at Vimeo."
This could be a good thing for youtube and many users who search background music for their videos. But what is about musicians who do not want to make their music available without limitation for every possible contents?
What is about videos of, for instance Denis or other bandamp members, which may be used now also for Youtube channels filled with advertisements or suspect contents?
Or somebody works on the videos and produces Remixes?
U.L.I.
Creative Commons" , and tried to translate the text for Bandamp.
http://neumusik.com/2011-06-youtube-bietet-creative-commons-lizenzierung-vorerst-nur-unter-cc-by/
"Since June, 2. 2011 on you tube is a licensing on Creative Commons possible . Reuse must be allowed but also commercially, and without further restriction. Therefore is currently the sole attribution license (CC BY 3.0) to choose from, which provides for mandatory re-naming of the author alone.
To start, YouTube more than 10,000 licensed CC-BY-videos from various sources for further use, currently primarily from news agencies like Al Jazeera and the Voice of America.
Users may remix videos directly on the editor platform, and any video that is created using CC BY-licensed content will automatically display the linked source videos’ titles underneath the video player.
New, from our own sources, with videos can either be placed under the standard YouTube license or a CC-BY-3.0 license.
GigaOm points to the possible motives for the restriction on CC-BY licenses:
Creative Commons has in the past been struggling with the fact that the majority of users tends to adopt more restrictive licenses. The organization estimated that two out of three Creative Commons-licensed works can’t be reused commercially, and one out of four can’t be reincorporated into a new work at all.
Considering the options, the use of YouTube compared to Vimeo is severely limited - there are all CC versions accepted. On the other hand, the benefit to the community is not to be underestimated. Putting one on YouTube a CC license, which comes from the local fund, so you can be sure of the availability (if the content provider has correctly licensed). In addition, the adjusted and labeled to YouTube via YouTube editor used material. That will leave the processor at Vimeo."
This could be a good thing for youtube and many users who search background music for their videos. But what is about musicians who do not want to make their music available without limitation for every possible contents?
What is about videos of, for instance Denis or other bandamp members, which may be used now also for Youtube channels filled with advertisements or suspect contents?
Or somebody works on the videos and produces Remixes?
U.L.I.
Sorry, you do not have access to post...
Wanna post? Join Today!