Posts Tagged ‘non-commercial’

green dust blue

October 3, 2008

green dust blue

Originally uploaded by jamtea

its interesting though about the whole free-culture outside the US, it seems that free-culture is looking to be funded via the state. well at least all the admin operations, so does that mean that mechanism behind free-culture is fed through the government.

so the government build more trains for the first class passengers. i had hoped that free-culutre also means the right to do as you choose with what you create. yet being able to only license using the CC licenese and be a member of a rights organization outside the us does not make sense. it seems that ideas for artists might also move on the artists the universal blanket license for eternity is sometimes to much for the artists. how about the universal blanket license for the local pub, that the artists can turn on and off when he feels like it?

Creative Commons might at least give merit to the other ideas, or would that be competition in a monopoly circumstance?

proove me wrong and put project applications in place via some of the CC affiliates outside of the US that are funded through the state to get moving on these kind of ideas? maybe i have it wrong though, another good pipe dream.

free-culture= free to do what you want with what you create.

not free to make it free only under a creative commons license, yet its interesting. i’m not worried about the CC license, yet maybe this article above shows an argument that might get thrown at you guys from time to time. how can you have a summit for free culutre within a blanket license and no definiftion within the law of what is non-commercial and what is commercial?

anyway i find it intersting, cause in all the time i have been using these CC liceses, i still can’t get free legal advice. both sides seem the same as they have a political agenda, ultimatley the artists uses the tools that are available to her/him to get what they made heard. So i have to wonder if CC within the blanket admin of APRA is such a good thing. Is it not unfair to other licenes that might want to exist?

Paul Kellar talks about creative commons

August 3, 2008

Paul Keller Creative Commons Netherlands

March 8, 2008

Talks about a commercial, non-commercial, creative commons, rights organizations, myspace and youtube.

On last tour to Belgium I was able to meet up with Paul Keller from .

Questions sent out to CC mailing list: even if a site is set up as a non-profit is it fair that they run google adds with content licensed under a non-commercial license? I understand that often the non-profit makes very little from the adds, yet how do creators view this use? Are most artists ok about that art being associated with any product that google choose for ever and not participating in any part of that revenue? If a creative commons non-commercial use did not allow any kind of associated advertising, would the license work better? Is there a demand for a non-commercial license that does not allow advertising?

is it worth standing in front of a bulldozer to save a tree?

March 5, 2008

jamteaCreative Commons are asking people for feedback on policy

CC/ iCommons is looking (from a distance) to be moving towards the corporations rather than the artist. Policy of iCommons is directed to those who create pools of content rather than users. The problem might be that most of the funds CC/iCommons get don’t come via individuals yet from larger corporations/organizations. CC has business people on the board. yet these people look at content from a business perspective not from that of an artist. From a far out view it looks like the same thing is going on a different plate.

who is going to decide what a non-commercial use is. The corporations or the people? The more people that use CC licenses the more important the organization is.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 100 other followers