I think an example would more clearly explain what I am talking about. Say I write some software that is central to a performance and the performers have a commodity skill. So if I release this project under the GPL, someone could download the software, hire some people, and perform the piece and call it their art, leaving all the Copyright notices intact on the code, just not telling anyone about it. This wouldn't violate the GPL since they would be claiming credit for the performance, not the software.
But I want people to build upon my idea just as I have built upon the ideas of so many others, that is why I insist on releasing everything I write as free software. But I would like to get paid for my work so I don't have to do other bullshit jobs. The main funding stream that I see for code/media art is getting paid to show your art at festivals. I am currently finishing a stint at the Lille 2004 European Cultural Capital festival and the level of sleaze and backstabbing is pretty appalling. This is what triggered this question: I could totally see someone in a festival like this not wanting to pay to put on a piece, so once they find out its GPL'ed, they just do it themselves, without giving me even credit (while leaving the GPL copyright notices intact with my name on them).
The other side of the question is the troubles that the BSD attribution clause caused. Basically, as the software spreads the number of attributions needed becomes large and unmanagable. So I think the comprimise would be to cover the instrument parts of the code under the GPL, so people will develop it and make it better, while putting the score and other performance aspects of it under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license, then just hope that people will actually want to pay me rather than just give me credit :).
.hc
________________________________________________________________________ ____
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from scarcity." -John Gilmore
The label "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hathe been affixed to this message,
I think an example would more clearly explain what I am talking about. Say I write some software that is central to a performance and the performers have a commodity skill. So if I release this project under the GPL, someone could download the software, hire some people, and perform the piece and call it their art, leaving all the Copyright notices intact on the code, just not telling anyone about it. This wouldn't violate the GPL since they would be claiming credit for the performance, not the software.
To some extent it would be their art. Just like the Boston Symphony Orchestra's art is their art. I'm not one of those folk that sees things as being "all in the interpretation" but I do see it as having much validity on its own. {Depending on just how much folk do put into it}
Why wouldn't they just call it a performance, acknowledge that it was written by you and make arrangements to pay you whatever fees and royalties are due you? That is a standard operating procedure, no?
Seeing as you're talking a bit of software though... folk don't generally acknowledge the maker of their saxophones... I suppose it would depend on the role it played in the performance.
But I want people to build upon my idea just as I have built upon the ideas of so many others, that is why I insist on releasing everything I write as free software. But I would like to get paid for my work so I don't have to do other bullshit jobs. The main funding stream that I see for code/media art is getting paid to show your art at festivals. I am currently finishing a stint at the Lille 2004 European Cultural Capital festival and the level of sleaze and backstabbing is pretty appalling. This is what triggered this question: I could totally see someone in a festival like this not wanting to pay to put on a piece, so once they find out its GPL'ed, they just do it themselves, without giving me even credit (while leaving the GPL copyright notices intact with my name on them).
Is the value of this in the code itself or in the ideas conveyed? If the software's simply a saxophone-like tool... I'd not worry about it... I'd probably just go with the gpl by itself... If the software makes the statement... I think you may have a sticky wicket to ummm... "wicket" with {If you're going to GPL it {Tho' I've always had the impression that was covered by the GPL anyway. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html }}. Why don't you just append whatever license with the stipulation that... in order to use the software as a basis for further software folk need to give you credit?
It does give you something legal...
The other side of the question is the troubles that the BSD attribution clause caused. Basically, as the software spreads the number of attributions needed becomes large and unmanagable. So I think the comprimise would be to cover the instrument parts of the code under the GPL, so people will develop it and make it better, while putting the score and other performance aspects of it under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license, then just hope that people will actually want to pay me rather than just give me credit :).
Maybe you should just offer it for sale. You might specify that in your license as well.
{"This product is for sale. ...$39.00 a box."}
There are two pieces to this, one like the saxophone, which I have no problem putting out under the GPL for people to use however they see fit, like any other software 'tool'. The other is like the score, which I also want to release as open-source. This is the untested realm: open-source art. I plan on releasing the source to everything I do, including the score, source samples, etc. I have mostly dealt with the music realm where this is more clear cut. Its the art realm that I am trying to figure out.
I don't want to write my own license for so many reasons, especially since there are great ones already out there, like the GNU GPL and Creative Commons licenses. What I want to do is to be able to release the entire source to everything I do so that its more than just the conveyance of the idea that gets out there, but my actual implementation of that idea. Art, as with basically everything else, is a process of building upon what others have done. Now with digital art, artists can directly build on top of what's already there in the form of the actual files that made a given piece of art. This means that the ideas can be more fully communicated.
My one issue is how to prevent unscrupulous use of work that is released freely. If the score to a piece of music is released under the GPL, then someone, take the Boston Pops for example, could play that music without giving the composer credit, except for leaving the copyright intact on the score itself. This is the crux of the issue. Since art is so much about building a name for yourself, credit is very important. This is in many ways the same as writing free software, but I trust the art world far less than I do the software world. And also, the ways in which software is distributed allows someone to find out the copyright info much easier than in a concert.
So I guess I am thinking whether the potential for abuse in the art world is big enough to warrant the problems caused by attribution clauses in open-source licenses.
.hc
On Tuesday, Dec 16, 2003, at 11:44 Europe/Brussels, RTaylor wrote:
The label "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hathe been affixed to this message,
I think an example would more clearly explain what I am talking about. Say I write some software that is central to a performance and the performers have a commodity skill. So if I release this project under the GPL, someone could download the software, hire some people, and perform the piece and call it their art, leaving all the Copyright notices intact on the code, just not telling anyone about it. This wouldn't violate the GPL since they would be claiming credit for the performance, not the software.
To some extent it would be their art. Just like the Boston Symphony Orchestra's art is their art. I'm not one of those folk that sees things as being "all in the interpretation" but I do see it as having much validity on its own. {Depending on just how much folk do put into it}
Why wouldn't they just call it a performance, acknowledge that it was written by you and make arrangements to pay you whatever fees and royalties are due you? That is a standard operating procedure, no?
Seeing as you're talking a bit of software though... folk don't generally acknowledge the maker of their saxophones... I suppose it would depend on the role it played in the performance.
But I want people to build upon my idea just as I have built upon the ideas of so many others, that is why I insist on releasing everything I write as free software. But I would like to get paid for my work so I don't have to do other bullshit jobs. The main funding stream that I see for code/media art is getting paid to show your art at festivals. I am currently finishing a stint at the Lille 2004 European Cultural Capital festival and the level of sleaze and backstabbing is pretty appalling. This is what triggered this question: I could totally see someone in a festival like this not wanting to pay to put on a piece, so once they find out its GPL'ed, they just do it themselves, without giving me even credit (while leaving the GPL copyright notices intact with my name on them).
Is the value of this in the code itself or in the ideas conveyed? If the software's simply a saxophone-like tool... I'd not worry about it... I'd probably just go with the gpl by itself... If the software makes the statement... I think you may have a sticky wicket to ummm... "wicket" with {If you're going to GPL it {Tho' I've always had the impression that was covered by the GPL anyway. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html }}. Why don't you just append whatever license with the stipulation that... in order to use the software as a basis for further software folk need to give you credit?
It does give you something legal...
The other side of the question is the troubles that the BSD attribution clause caused. Basically, as the software spreads the number of attributions needed becomes large and unmanagable. So I think the comprimise would be to cover the instrument parts of the code under the GPL, so people will develop it and make it better, while putting the score and other performance aspects of it under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license, then just hope that people will actually want to pay me rather than just give me credit :).
Maybe you should just offer it for sale. You might specify that in your license as well.
{"This product is for sale. ...$39.00 a box."}
-- Could you be the one they talk about? Hiding inside, behind another door? Is it only happiness you want? Does wanting a feeling matter any more? {Mould}
PD-ot mailing list PD-ot@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-ot
Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
My one issue is how to prevent unscrupulous use of work that is released freely.
You know this: The catch in the GPL to prevent unscrupulous use is, that all derived works have to be GPL again (the "Share Alike" in some CC licenses). So even if someone takes your work and builds upon it (which is something you probably want to encourage), it will flow back into the free code or art world.
If you want attribution as well, there are ways to ensure this, in the CC Attribution license this is made very clear, but I guess, this is possible with GPL'd work as well.
ciao
On Tuesday, Dec 16, 2003, at 13:24 Europe/Brussels, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
My one issue is how to prevent unscrupulous use of work that is released freely.
You know this: The catch in the GPL to prevent unscrupulous use is, that all derived works have to be GPL again (the "Share Alike" in some CC licenses). So even if someone takes your work and builds upon it (which is something you probably want to encourage), it will flow back into the free code or art world.
If you want attribution as well, there are ways to ensure this, in the CC Attribution license this is made very clear, but I guess, this is possible with GPL'd work as well.
No, the GPL specifically does not have an attribution clause because of the problems that such a clause caused with the BSD license. RMS is in fact opposed to attribution clauses, and I agree totally for software projects. For software, attribution clauses give a minor benefit to the authors, but with major problems. Imagine if RedHat had to give credit in all of their materials (books, software boxes, ads, etc.) to every person who has contributed to RedHat GNU/Linux? It would be totally unmanagable. Also, if they left someone out, they could be sued for damages.
But with parts of art projects that are not 'tools' (i.e. the score, etc.), the reasons for attribution clauses might be compelling enough to warrant their use. But you could take the example of music built with samples to be a similar case as with RedHat. Looking say 20 years into the future, where art is made from samples of samples of samples..., then the attribution list is going to be in the thousands, if not more. This is the problem with attribution clauses that makes them almost as bad as regular copyrights in the long run; you would have to spend so much time/money to make sure you are giving all of the correct attributions.
I bring up this issue because I want to expand the idea of copyleft as far as it can go. I believe that is a much better model that what exists today. I just want to try to make a living doing the work that I am inspired to do. Hopefully these two things can coexist.
.hc
________________________________________________________________________ ____
There is no way to peace, peace is the way. -A.J. Muste
The label "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hathe been affixed to this message,
On Tuesday, Dec 16, 2003, at 13:24 Europe/Brussels, Frank Barknecht
If you want attribution as well, there are ways to ensure this, in the CC Attribution license this is made very clear, but I guess, this is possible with GPL'd work as well.
No, the GPL specifically does not have an attribution clause because of the problems that such a clause caused with the BSD license. RMS is in
How do you display a copywrite notice without an attribution?
You're thinking just the ©?
On Tuesday, Dec 16, 2003, at 19:30 Europe/Brussels, RTaylor wrote:
The label "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hathe been affixed to this message,
On Tuesday, Dec 16, 2003, at 13:24 Europe/Brussels, Frank Barknecht
If you want attribution as well, there are ways to ensure this, in the CC Attribution license this is made very clear, but I guess, this is possible with GPL'd work as well.
No, the GPL specifically does not have an attribution clause because of the problems that such a clause caused with the BSD license. RMS is in
How do you display a copywrite notice without an attribution?
You're thinking just the ©?
For a more complete explanation of what I mean, check out the old BSD license with the attribution clause. If I released a score to a piece of music under the GPL, then anyone could perform it without giving credit in the program, advertising, etc. An attribution clause, says that whenever the piece of work in question is mentioned, or anything that uses it, attribution must be giving in ads, published materials, etc. This is very different than just leaving the copyright intact with the name on it.
.hc
-- Could you be the one they talk about? Hiding inside, behind another door? Is it only happiness you want? Does wanting a feeling matter any more? {Mould}
PD-ot mailing list PD-ot@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-ot
________________________________________________________________________ ____
Man has survived hitherto because he was too ignorant to know how to realize his wishes. Now that he can realize them, he must either change them, or perish. -William Carlos Williams
The label "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hathe been affixed to this message,
You're thinking just the ©?
For a more complete explanation of what I mean, check out the old BSD license with the attribution clause. If I released a score to a piece of music under the GPL, then anyone could perform it without giving credit in the program, advertising, etc. An attribution clause, says that whenever the piece of work in question is mentioned, or anything that uses it, attribution must be giving in ads, published materials, etc. This is very different than just leaving the copyright intact with the name on it.
In other words you want CREDIT. ... Like "Nigel Rathbone's Tales of Trailers" or "Marimba Freidkiens Kitchen Sexuality".
Somehow that just doesn't seem to be in keeping with the concept of open source. It also strikes me as being overly pretentious... Like I'd be much more likely to simply use your idea and write my own code. {Like most everyone else would.} If I were to attribute someone that heavily it would be out of respect... not because of some clause in a contract...
I've always seen that sort of thing as a sort of way of sucking off of the authors reputation in order to advertise a product, anyway. Why don't you wait until you have one and then re-negotiate your contract?
I mean... Take a look at the posters here...
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, RTaylor wrote:
In other words you want CREDIT. ... Like "Nigel Rathbone's Tales of Trailers" or "Marimba Freidkiens Kitchen Sexuality".
Somehow that just doesn't seem to be in keeping with the concept of open source. It also strikes me as being overly pretentious... Like I'd be much more likely to simply use your idea and write my own code. {Like most everyone else would.} If I were to attribute someone that heavily it would be out of respect... not because of some clause in a contract...
attribution is very important. I've started a pure software project before, where I came up with the idea and design, sat and coded this project from the ground up side-by-side with another guy for two straight years. eventually, as the software became better and better, the guy wanted all of the recognition. after a break-up, my code (mostly gui stuff) was just tossed to the side and my name was nowhere to be found on the website (his server) or in the copyright anywhere. It sucks to loose two years like that. And, this was not even 'art'.
Richard Stallman is another example. How many times have you heard him say "It's GNU/Linux" not "Linux". He's bitter that some dopey finnish lad is getting most of the limelight for something into which he put most of the grunt work.
attribution is not to be underestimated, especailly in creative fields such as software development or art, where your livelyhood is based on what YOU do. Assuming you want to make a living from what you do (as apposed to programming on the side as a hobby). you will need to take the attribution thing seriously.
-august.
I've always seen that sort of thing as a sort of way of sucking off of the authors reputation in order to advertise a product, anyway. Why don't you wait until you have one and then re-negotiate your contract?
I mean... Take a look at the posters here...
The label "august" hathe been affixed to this message,
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, RTaylor wrote:
In other words you want CREDIT. ... Like "Nigel Rathbone's Tales of
Trailers"> or "Marimba Freidkiens Kitchen Sexuality".
Somehow that just doesn't seem to be in keeping with the concept of open source. It also strikes me as being overly pretentious... Like I'd be much
more> likely to simply use your idea and write my own code. {Like most everyone else> would.} If I were to attribute someone that heavily it would be out of
respect... not because of some clause in a contract...
attribution is very important. I've started a pure software project
Of course it is... Anyone with any intelligence whatsoever understands that.
before, where I came up with the idea and design, sat and coded this project from the ground up side-by-side with another guy for two straight years. eventually, as the software became better and better, the guy wanted all of the recognition. after a break-up, my code (mostly gui stuff) was just tossed to the side and my name was nowhere to be found on the website (his server) or in the copyright anywhere. It sucks to loose two years like that. And, this was not even 'art'.
If your code is "tossed to the side"... what are you wanting attributed?
Richard Stallman is another example. How many times have you heard him say "It's GNU/Linux" not "Linux". He's bitter that some dopey finnish lad is getting most of the limelight for something into which he put most of the grunt work
I think most folk understand that Linus wrote the kernel, the idea that it's GNU means its "free", etc, etc... You're thinking no one reads the documents?
attribution is not to be underestimated, especailly in creative fields such as software development or art, where your livelyhood is based on what YOU do. Assuming you want to make a living from what you do (as apposed to programming on the side as a hobby). you will need to take the attribution thing seriously.
Where above does it say that I don't?
On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 04:36 Europe/Brussels, RTaylor wrote:
The label "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hathe been affixed to this message,
You're thinking just the ©?
For a more complete explanation of what I mean, check out the old BSD license with the attribution clause. If I released a score to a piece of music under the GPL, then anyone could perform it without giving credit in the program, advertising, etc. An attribution clause, says that whenever the piece of work in question is mentioned, or anything that uses it, attribution must be giving in ads, published materials, etc. This is very different than just leaving the copyright intact with the name on it.
In other words you want CREDIT. ... Like "Nigel Rathbone's Tales of Trailers" or "Marimba Freidkiens Kitchen Sexuality".
Somehow that just doesn't seem to be in keeping with the concept of open source. It also strikes me as being overly pretentious... Like I'd be much more likely to simply use your idea and write my own code. {Like most everyone else would.} If I were to attribute someone that heavily it would be out of respect... not because of some clause in a contract...
I've always seen that sort of thing as a sort of way of sucking off of the authors reputation in order to advertise a product, anyway. Why don't you wait until you have one and then re-negotiate your contract?
I mean... Take a look at the posters here...
Before you launch into minor tirades, I suggest you read what I have been writing a little more closely. I have said all along that all of my software is released under the GPL, therefore no attribution clause. What I am trying to get at is to apply free software ideas to other realms, like a musical score for example. A musical score is not software so there is a good chance that the license issues will be different.
.hc
-- Could you be the one they talk about? Hiding inside, behind another door? Is it only happiness you want? Does wanting a feeling matter any more? {Mould}
PD-ot mailing list PD-ot@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-ot
________________________________________________________________________ ____
There is no way to peace, peace is the way. -A.J. Muste
The label "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hathe been affixed to this message,
On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 04:36 Europe/Brussels, RTaylor wrote:
The label "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hathe been affixed to this message,
You're thinking just the ©?
For a more complete explanation of what I mean, check out the old BSD license with the attribution clause. If I released a score to a piece of music under the GPL, then anyone could perform it without giving credit in the program, advertising, etc. An attribution clause, says that whenever the piece of work in question is mentioned, or anything that uses it, attribution must be giving in ads, published materials, etc. This is very different than just leaving the copyright intact with the name on it.
In other words you want CREDIT. ... Like "Nigel Rathbone's Tales of Trailers" or "Marimba Freidkiens Kitchen Sexuality".
Somehow that just doesn't seem to be in keeping with the concept of open source. It also strikes me as being overly pretentious... Like I'd be much more likely to simply use your idea and write my own code. {Like most everyone else would.} If I were to attribute someone that heavily it would be out of respect... not because of some clause in a contract...
I've always seen that sort of thing as a sort of way of sucking off of the authors reputation in order to advertise a product, anyway. Why don't you wait until you have one and then re-negotiate your contract?
I mean... Take a look at the posters here...
Before you launch into minor tirades, I suggest you read what I have
Why are you expecting a tirade?
been writing a little more closely. I have said all along that all of my software is released under the GPL, therefore no attribution clause. What I am trying to get at is to apply free software ideas to other realms, like a musical score for example. A musical score is not software so there is a good chance that the license issues will be different.
Yeah. Same deal... what I see you wanting is something more than most folk expect. ...Like Stephen King or someone. They put his name on stuff so they can sell it... His name is as much the product as the product. I don't know who "Hans-Christoph Steiner" is outside of this thread... Your name is not a selling point.
Take a look at some music sites... think about how much credit an author actually gets {frequently the only place someone will be credited is in parenthesis next to the song name on the disk label.} What I see you wanting is is going to be going to be "difficult" for everyone involved... It's like you're expecting other folk to advertise you. If you're not involved with the actual project I don't see why you think you're entitled to more than any other author.
On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 20:26 America/New_York, RTaylor wrote:
The label "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hathe been affixed to this message,
On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 04:36 Europe/Brussels, RTaylor wrote:
The label "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hathe been affixed to this message,
You're thinking just the ©?
For a more complete explanation of what I mean, check out the old BSD license with the attribution clause. If I released a score to a piece of music under the GPL, then anyone could perform it without giving credit in the program, advertising, etc. An attribution clause, says that whenever the piece of work in question is mentioned, or anything that uses it, attribution must be giving in ads, published materials, etc. This is very different than just leaving the copyright intact with the name on it.
In other words you want CREDIT. ... Like "Nigel Rathbone's Tales of Trailers" or "Marimba Freidkiens Kitchen Sexuality".
Somehow that just doesn't seem to be in keeping with the concept of open source. It also strikes me as being overly pretentious... Like I'd be much more likely to simply use your idea and write my own code. {Like most everyone else would.} If I were to attribute someone that heavily it would be out of respect... not because of some clause in a contract...
I've always seen that sort of thing as a sort of way of sucking off of the authors reputation in order to advertise a product, anyway. Why don't you wait until you have one and then re-negotiate your contract?
I mean... Take a look at the posters here...
Before you launch into minor tirades, I suggest you read what I have
Why are you expecting a tirade?
been writing a little more closely. I have said all along that all of my software is released under the GPL, therefore no attribution clause. What I am trying to get at is to apply free software ideas to other realms, like a musical score for example. A musical score is not software so there is a good chance that the license issues will be different.
Yeah. Same deal... what I see you wanting is something more than most folk expect. ...Like Stephen King or someone. They put his name on stuff so they can sell it... His name is as much the product as the product. I don't know who "Hans-Christoph Steiner" is outside of this thread... Your name is not a selling point.
Take a look at some music sites... think about how much credit an author actually gets {frequently the only place someone will be credited is in parenthesis next to the song name on the disk label.} What I see you wanting is is going to be going to be "difficult" for everyone involved... It's like you're expecting other folk to advertise you. If you're not involved with the actual project I don't see why you think you're entitled to more than any other author.
Actually, all I am asking for is to attributed just like Stephen King is. You cannot get his writing in a format that does not have his name on the front of it. But the key difference is that I would like to release everything open source with the hope that others will as well. The CC Attribution license ensures this, but I think that attribution clauses can cause big problems in open source work in the long run.
.hc
-- Could you be the one they talk about? Hiding inside, behind another door? Is it only happiness you want? Does wanting a feeling matter any more? {Mould}
PD-ot mailing list PD-ot@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-ot
________________________________________________________________________ ____
Man has survived hitherto because he was too ignorant to know how to realize his wishes. Now that he can realize them, he must either change them, or perish. -William Carlos Williams
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Then make the code unmistakenably yours, stylistically, functionally, and by sprinkling references to you anywhere you can..
| |Actually, all I am asking for is to attributed just like Stephen King |is. You cannot get his writing in a format that does not have his name |on the front of it. But the key difference is that I would like to |release everything open source with the hope that others will as well. |The CC Attribution license ensures this, but I think that attribution |clauses can cause big problems in open source work in the long run. | |.hc | | | |> -- |> Could you be the one they talk about? |> Hiding inside, behind another door? |> Is it only happiness you want? |> Does wanting a feeling matter any more? {Mould} |> |> |> _______________________________________________ |> PD-ot mailing list |> PD-ot@iem.at |> http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-ot |> | |________________________________________________________________________ |____ | |Man has survived hitherto because he was too ignorant to know how to |realize his wishes. |Now that he can realize them, he must either change them, or perish. | -William Carlos Williams | | |_______________________________________________ |PD-ot mailing list |PD-ot@iem.at |http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-ot |
The label "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hathe been affixed to this message,
On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 20:26 America/New_York, RTaylor wrote:
actual project I don't see why you think you're entitled to more than any other author.
Actually, all I am asking for is to attributed just like Stephen King is. You cannot get his writing in a format that does not have his name on the front of it. But the key difference is that I would like to
Stephen is "special". You're not.
release everything open source with the hope that others will as well. The CC Attribution license ensures this, but I think that attribution clauses can cause big problems in open source work in the long run.
When and if I were to write code it would definitely be open source. {Public domain, more likely}. I make a living from artwork. Open source isn't a really viable option. To present... the only thing I have written is batch files and scripts... pretty much system and task specific... I doubt they'd do anyone much good.
Anyway...I don't think anyone's going to bother with anything that requires them to promote the author that heavily. I could be wrong.
If you want attribution as well, there are ways to ensure this,
in the CC Attribution license this is made very clear, but I guess,
this is possible with GPL'd work as well.
No, the GPL specifically does not have an attribution clause because of
the problems that such a clause caused with the BSD license. RMS is in
fact opposed to attribution clauses, and I agree totally for software
projects. For software, attribution clauses give a minor benefit to
the authors, but with major problems. Imagine if RedHat had to give
credit in all of their materials (books, software boxes, ads, etc.) to
every person who has contributed to RedHat GNU/Linux? It would be
totally unmanagable. Also, if they left someone out, they could be
sued for damages.
But with parts of art projects that are not 'tools' (i.e. the score,
etc.), the reasons for attribution clauses might be compelling enough
to warrant their use. But you could take the example of music built
with samples to be a similar case as with RedHat. Looking say 20 years
into the future, where art is made from samples of samples of
samples..., then the attribution list is going to be in the thousands,
if not more. This is the problem with attribution clauses that makes
them almost as bad as regular copyrights in the long run; you would
have to spend so much time/money to make sure you are giving all of the
correct attributions.
The creative commons license Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0 (and I'm sure the others too) includes the line:
"Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above."
I would view sampling of parts of the work (for example, up to a couple of bars) as fair use and thus not requiring attribution, this to me is the common sense approach.
Claude
Hallo, Claudius Maximus hat gesagt: // Claudius Maximus wrote:
The creative commons license Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0 (and I'm sure the others too) includes the line:
"Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above."
I would view sampling of parts of the work (for example, up to a couple of bars) as fair use and thus not requiring attribution, this to me is the common sense approach.
I don't know, but there also is a CC sampling license now.
ciao
The label "Claudius Maximus" hathe been affixed to this message,
I would view sampling of parts of the work (for example, up to a couple of bars) as fair use and thus not requiring attribution, this to me is the common sense approach.
That's the way the courts would see it as well.
On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 20:29 America/New_York, RTaylor wrote:
The label "Claudius Maximus" hathe been affixed to this message,
I would view sampling of parts of the work (for example, up to a couple of bars) as fair use and thus not requiring attribution, this to me is the common sense approach.
That's the way the courts would see it as well.
Actually quite the opposite, at least in the US, unfortunately. The courts have come down quite firmly on the side that sampling is not fair use and must be licensed:
Here are a couple references:
http://www.globalmusicresource.com/legal/legal6.html "It is illegal to copy any part (in total or "sample") copyrighted music without the prior written consent of the copyright owner. You may not sell or even distribute this music for free. One must first obtain the written permission of the sound recording copyright holder and the actual composition copyright holder."
http://www.emplive.com/visit/education/popConfBio.asp?xPopConfBioID=41 "During the 1980s, many hip-hop artists sampled music with impunity in spite of growing resentment from songwriters and copyright owners who felt their work to be unlawfully exploited. But three pivotal court decisions in the 1990s punished severely those who sampled without permission. Since then, most artists and record companies refrain from sampling unless they can obtain clearance."
.hc
-- Could you be the one they talk about? Hiding inside, behind another door? Is it only happiness you want? Does wanting a feeling matter any more? {Mould}
PD-ot mailing list PD-ot@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-ot
The label "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hathe been affixed to this message,
On Thursday, Dec 18, 2003, at 20:29 America/New_York, RTaylor wrote:
The label "Claudius Maximus" hathe been affixed to this message,
I would view sampling of parts of the work (for example, up to a of bars) as fair use and thus not requiring attribution, this to me is the common sense approach.
That's the way the courts would see it as well.
Actually quite the opposite, at least in the US, unfortunately. The courts have come down quite firmly on the side that sampling is not fair use and must be licensed:
Here are a couple references:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html http://www.batnet.com/oikoumene/nobomediarights.html#preexist http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/110.html http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/114.html http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/115.html {actually, you can just do this:} http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/index.html http://www.copyright.gov/ details here: http://www.copyright.gov/register/sound.html http://www.ipwatchdog.com/fairuse.html http://www.ipwatchdog.com/about_copy_infringe.html http://www.techlawjournal.com/ http://www.dfc.org/dfc1/Active_Issues/graphic/DMCA_index.html {Oh, hell with it:} http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Issues/Intellectual_Property/Copyrig...
I've seen several articles on "derogatory" media that make certain allowances... there are all sorts of ways around the thing. As far as I know... folk use samples all the time. I don't think it's ever been legit... Look at it this way... how many folk do you think are going to go through all of the hassle of researching this, tracking all of the recordings made in the US every year listening for "that one special phrase" and in the grand scheme of things, ummm who really gives a rats ass? :} As long as it doesn't mis-represent or damage anyone... who cares?
Have you ever put a halfway hardcore delay on a bit of .wav? ...ever run one through a synth? It bears no resemblance at all to the original... It hardly communicates the same ideas. If you're talking "straight" samples... that's just boring.
It does look as though things have changed a bit since the last time I looked though. ...The "tone" of most of the pages that address this issue for one.
This is just sort of interesting: http://news.com.com/2100-1023-955805.html
http://www.globalmusicresource.com/legal/legal6.html "It is illegal to copy any part (in total or "sample") copyrighted music without the prior written consent of the copyright owner. You may not sell or even distribute this music for free. One must first obtain the written permission of the sound recording copyright holder and the actual composition copyright holder."
http://www.emplive.com/visit/education/popConfBio.asp?xPopConfBioID=41 "During the 1980s, many hip-hop artists sampled music with impunity in spite of growing resentment from songwriters and copyright owners who felt their work to be unlawfully exploited. But three pivotal court decisions in the 1990s punished severely those who sampled without permission. Since then, most artists and record companies refrain from sampling unless they can obtain clearance."
-- Could you be the one they talk about? Hiding inside, behind another door? Is it only happiness you want? Does wanting a feeling matter any more? {Mould}
Hallo, RTaylor hat gesagt: // RTaylor wrote:
http://www.emplive.com/visit/education/popConfBio.asp?xPopConfBioID=41 "During the 1980s, many hip-hop artists sampled music with impunity in spite of growing resentment from songwriters and copyright owners who felt their work to be unlawfully exploited. But three pivotal court decisions in the 1990s punished severely those who sampled without permission. Since then, most artists and record companies refrain from sampling unless they can obtain clearance."
Sampling in pop was common, when "white men" "sampled" "black men's" music (Bill Haley, Elvis Presley, Stones, Sinatra,...) and it became illegal, when that was tried to turn around (Biz Markie!).
And then MJ bought the Beatles songs...
Go figure...
ciao
The label "Frank Barknecht" hathe been affixed to this message,
Sampling in pop was common, when "white men" "sampled" "black men's" music (Bill Haley, Elvis Presley, Stones, Sinatra,...) and it became illegal, when that was tried to turn around (Biz Markie!).
I don't see stealing entire songs as equivalent to sampling. I see sampling as using a few notes or bars of an audio file {that don't actually retain any significant part of the sampled songs structure} mixing it into other "samples" and synthesizing something new from it.
And then MJ bought the Beatles songs...
Go figure...
You really gotta' wonder what he's done with them...
RTaylor wrote:
Have you ever put a halfway hardcore delay on a bit of .wav? ...ever run one through a synth? It bears no resemblance at all to the original... It hardly
even with delays of about 5mins (which i consider already "hardcore" delays) i hear no remarkable difference at all. haven't tried yet, but i guess it is the same with 20h-delays....
mfg.a.sdr IOhannes
The label "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hathe been affixed to this message,
There are two pieces to this, one like the saxophone, which I have no problem putting out under the GPL for people to use however they see fit, like any other software 'tool'. The other is like the score, which I also want to release as open-source. This is the untested realm: open-source art. I plan on releasing the source to everything I do, including the score, source samples, etc. I have mostly dealt with the music realm where this is more clear cut. Its the art realm that I am trying to figure out.
There are folk doing this already. Do a search at google or check some artsy type linux groups.
I don't want to write my own license for so many reasons, especially since there are great ones already out there, like the GNU GPL and Creative Commons licenses. What I want to do is to be able to release the entire source to everything I do so that its more than just the conveyance of the idea that gets out there, but my actual implementation of that idea. Art, as with basically everything else, is a process of building upon what others have done. Now with digital art, artists can directly build on top of what's already there in the form of the actual files that made a given piece of art. This means that the ideas can be more fully communicated.
What's the difference? The one should probably come packed in the same box as the other.
{You can't copyright ideas in the first place. Only implementations of the same. {Or the means by which they are conveyed}}
My one issue is how to prevent unscrupulous use of work that is released freely. If the score to a piece of music is released under the GPL, then someone, take the Boston Pops for example, could play that music without giving the composer credit, except for leaving the copyright intact on the score itself. This is the crux of the issue.
Boston Pops are more professional than this. {I think... I really don't know anything about them} I don't see why anyone would have problems with giving you credit in the first place. I'm sure that where an author is listed that they'll put your name there.
Since art is so much about building a name for yourself, credit is very important. This is in many ways the same as writing free software, but I trust the art world far less than I do the software world. And also, the ways in which software is distributed allows someone to find out the copyright info much easier than in a concert.
What are you afraid of?
So I guess I am thinking whether the potential for abuse in the art world is big enough to warrant the problems caused by attribution clauses in open-source licenses.
.hc
On Tuesday, Dec 16, 2003, at 11:44 Europe/Brussels, RTaylor wrote:
The label "Hans-Christoph Steiner" hathe been affixed to this message,
I think an example would more clearly explain what I am talking about. Say I write some software that is central to a performance and the performers have a commodity skill. So if I release this project under the GPL, someone could download the software, hire some people, and perform the piece and call it their art, leaving all the Copyright notices intact on the code, just not telling anyone about it. This wouldn't violate the GPL since they would be claiming credit for the performance, not the software.
To some extent it would be their art. Just like the Boston Symphony Orchestra's art is their art. I'm not one of those folk that sees things as being "all in the interpretation" but I do see it as having much validity on its own. {Depending on just how much folk do put into it}
Why wouldn't they just call it a performance, acknowledge that it was written by you and make arrangements to pay you whatever fees and royalties are due you? That is a standard operating procedure, no?
Seeing as you're talking a bit of software though... folk don't generally acknowledge the maker of their saxophones... I suppose it would depend on the role it played in the performance.
But I want people to build upon my idea just as I have built upon the ideas of so many others, that is why I insist on releasing everything I write as free software. But I would like to get paid for my work so I don't have to do other bullshit jobs. The main funding stream that I see for code/media art is getting paid to show your art at festivals. I am currently finishing a stint at the Lille 2004 European Cultural Capital festival and the level of sleaze and backstabbing is pretty appalling. This is what triggered this question: I could totally see someone in a festival like this not wanting to pay to put on a piece, so once they find out its GPL'ed, they just do it themselves, without giving me even credit (while leaving the GPL copyright notices intact with my name on them).
Is the value of this in the code itself or in the ideas conveyed? If the software's simply a saxophone-like tool... I'd not worry about it... I'd probably just go with the gpl by itself... If the software makes the statement... I think you may have a sticky wicket to ummm... "wicket" with {If you're going to GPL it {Tho' I've always had the impression that was covered by the GPL anyway. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html }}. Why don't you just append whatever license with the stipulation that... in order to use the software as a basis for further software folk need to give you credit?
It does give you something legal...
The other side of the question is the troubles that the BSD attribution clause caused. Basically, as the software spreads the number of attributions needed becomes large and unmanagable. So I think the comprimise would be to cover the instrument parts of the code under the GPL, so people will develop it and make it better, while putting the score and other performance aspects of it under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license, then just hope that people will actually want to pay me rather than just give me credit :).
Maybe you should just offer it for sale. You might specify that in your license as well.
{"This product is for sale. ...$39.00 a box."}
-- Could you be the one they talk about? Hiding inside, behind another door? Is it only happiness you want? Does wanting a feeling matter any more? {Mould}
PD-ot mailing list PD-ot@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-ot
http://at.or.at/hans/
PD-ot mailing list PD-ot@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-ot