Label Proposal
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Label Proposal

on

  • 1,713 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,713
Views on SlideShare
1,713
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Label Proposal Label Proposal Document Transcript

  • Yagan Kiely Creative Commons Proposal to Slow Release Yagan Kiely 37 Ellen St. Fremantle, WA 6160 T 0400 508 102 yagankiely@gmail.com www.yagankiely.wordpress.com
  • Company Table of Contents Creative Commons 1 Original Licenses 1 Combinations 1 Introduction 1 The Artist 2 Objectives 2 Common Licenses 3 Creative Commons Repositories 3 Policy Options 4 Blanket License 4 License Set 4 Licensing Freedom 4 Minimal Variability 4 Monetary payments to the Artist 4 Exclusivity 4 Default Site Licenses 5 Online Distribution (general) 5 Website 5 Sales 5 Free 6 Non-Commercial 6 Streaming 6 Creative Commons Proposal to Slow Release
  • Company Contract Licenses 7 Students 7 Staff 7 Visiting Artists 7 Royalties 8 Artists’ Royalties 8 Donation of artists’ royalties 8 Optional 8 Requirement 8 Marketing and Commercial Use 9 Commercial Use 9 Commerciallity of Slow Release 9 Outcomes 10 Sold items 10 Free Items 10 Contract Licenses 10 Staff 10 Students 10 Visiting Artists 10 Recording Agreement 11 Agreement 11 Licence between contributor and Slow Release 11 Licence between contributor and the world 11 Royalties [insert applicable clause] 12 Warranty 12 Non-exclusive licence 12 Royalty Options: 14 Royalties[opt1] 14 Creative Commons Proposal to Slow Release
  • Company Royalties [opt2] 14 Appendix: charts i Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on Jamendo - by number i Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on Flickr - by number i Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on Magnatune - by number ii Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on Jamendo - by percentage ii Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on Flickr - by percentage iii Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on overall - by number iii Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on overall - by percentage iii Appendix: Creative Commons Music Labels iv Magnatune iv Jamendo iv Pocketclock Records iv Postmoderncore iv OnClassical iv Loca Records iv 60sox iv Creative Commons Proposal to Slow Release
  • Slow Release Music - WAAPA Creative Commons Original Licenses • Attribution (by): Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only if they give the author or licensor the credits in the manner specified by these. • Non-Commercial (nc): Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and make derivative works based on it only for noncommercial purposes. • No Derivative Works (nd): Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works based on it. • Share-Alike (sa): Licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs the original work. Combinations • Attribution alone (by) • Attribution + Non-Commercial (by-nc) • Attribution + No-Derivatives (by-nd) • Attribution + Share-Alike (by-sa) • Attribution + Non-Commercial + No-Derivatives (by-nc-nd) • Attribution + Non-Commercial + Share-Alike (by-nc-sa) Introduction Creative Commons provides options for artists to license their works in ways that gives them control over how they want their works to be used. Creative Commons has been proven to be a legal alternative (or addition) to traditional copyright, and is a major contributor to the culture of sharing. It provides a legal framework that permits – at the very least – [artist attributed] sharing at the consumer level which drives new supporters and holds an established fan base. Creative Commons provides various clauses to copyright including the allowing of: Non-Commercial or Commercial use; Share-Alike (allowing modification, restricted to the same license) or No Derivatives and other limited to Sampling or attribution. Combinations of these licenses are available or manipulations can be specifically tailored to a particular use. Traditional copyright does not allow sharing of works, works must be purchased by each new person seeking the work, this is certainly detrimental to aspiring artists. The marketing alone required to sell enough copies of works to acquire a fan base would exceed any budget of said artists. Creative Commons promotes a creativity that is not driven by the desire for commercial success, but by the social success of supporters. Creative Commons does not damage the commercial worth of the piece which can still reach it’s full potential because CC can assist with the notoriety of the artist and hence assist with commerciality. Copyright is singularly a conduit for commercialising the rights to an artist’s work and ignores many of the more poignant artist’s objectives. Creative Commons Proposal to Slow Release 1
  • Slow Release Music - WAAPA The Artist A brief description of each license, the roll of the label and any options available (as well as the advantages and disadvantages of a Creative Commons License) should be easily available on the Slow Release website. Artists hoping to sign with the label would then easily be able to understand the terms of the label and what they will be (irreversibly) doing to their works. Objectives Effective implementation of appropriate Creative Commons licenses which are adopted to respective persons or situations will guarantee that the artists, the consumers and the label will be satisfied with the end product. If an nd clause is applied to a work that is decidedly suitable for sampling and modification, the consumer may not be pleased (which will effect both the artist and the label); if a too liberal a license is chosen, the artist may acquire his or her achievement of some notoriety and the consumer may use a work commercially for a small or no cost, the label will be compromised; and it will be detrimental to the artist if the label insists on a contract that the artist is not in total agreement with. label 1 3 4 artist consumer 2 Clearly, the 4th option is the optimum objective. The artist should be well informed that they will be required to license their work with a Creative Commons license and indeed the definitions of each Creative Commons license. The artist should be explained the recommended licenses and what options are also suggested. If an artist is fully informed of the options available and has been given sufficient information upon which to make an informed decision, there is less chance of legal challenge and of artists dissatisfaction with the contract forged. If the appropriate label is chosen by the artist and the label, the result would fit within the 4th option of the Venn diagram above. With regard to items that are for sale and as with traditional Music Labels, upon signing the contract, the label holds at least some control over the product. However, these contracts often rob musicians of control over their own art, pertinent to Slow Release, it would likely prove a more effective practice, considering the implementation of a Creative Commons license to provide a more ‘hands-off’ service. The Creative Commons licenses should cite both the artist and the label in the works attribution. This would drive more consumers to Slow Release, and ensure more purchases when the work can easily be shared for free otherwise. If the Editorial Board chooses to force artists to sign contracts for freely distributed works (not items that are sold by Slow Release), then – as above – the label should be cited in the attribution. Creative Commons Proposal to Slow Release 2
  • Slow Release Music - WAAPA Elliott Bledsoe, the project manager of ccAustralia has made it known that ccAustralia will endeavor to help Slow Release as much as it can. Common Licenses Creative Commons Repositories Jamendo, an online music platform; Flickr, an image and video hosting website and Magnatune, an independent record label and music store have all effectively used Creative Commons licenses in various ways. Magnatune allows low-quality by-nc- sa samples, all files on Jamendo employ a variety of licenses as is the same with Flickr. A more complete list of Creative Commons labels is included in the appendix. Overall License Demographics The pie graph 1 by-nc-sa by-nc-nd by-sa demonstrates by by-nd by-nc the percentage 1% of licenses 9% 8% employed by the artists. As shown, 70% of artists do not wish their work to be used commercially, and either opt for Share-Alike or No-Derivatives clauses. 2 13% 42% Because the majority of artists (77% of Musicians using Jamendo) avoid commercial use, contracts should certainly provide the artists the option of denying commercial use. 28% The table below lists the licenses of each of the three mentioned websites. 3 Flickr (photos) - As of 27 Jamendo (albums) - Magnatune (albums) - As July 2009 (in millions) As of 27 July 2009 of 27 July 2009 1 by-nc-nd - 36+ by-nc-sa - 11,235 by-nc-sa - 672 2 by-nc-sa - 33+ by-nc-nd - 4,547 - 3 by-nc - ≈16 by-sa - 3,506 - 4 by - 16+ by - 732 - 5 by-sa - 9+ by-nd 529 - 1 It should be noted that this graph does not include data from Magnatune. As Magnatune only employs the by-nc-sa li- censes, including it would be bias towards the other licenses. by-nd and by-nc are unique to Jamendo and Flickr respec- tively. 2 Music based Jamendo users prefer to allow there works to be modified (with the same licenses), while photo based Flickr users prefer to not allow this. A complete list of graphs are at the end of the paper. 3 The inclusion of Flickr is given to provide a comparison and to provide statistics of the licenses which artists consider ap- propriate to apply to their own creative works. Creative Commons Proposal to Slow Release 3
  • Slow Release Music - WAAPA Policy Options Blanket License This option would apply a single license to the entire site and all media or products on it. Artist wishing (or asked) to be on the label would be required to agree to the terms of the license. It is much easier to administer such an option, but this option is very limited and it may not be very agreeable with all artists. License Set Unlike a Blanket License, having a set of strict unmodifiable licenses for different circumstances (free or sold items etc.) would still be relatively simple to administrate, but still limits the artist, be it less-so. Licensing Freedom This would possibly cause some chaos for administration, as allowing users to choose and modify every part of there license would require a newly constructed contract for every artist. Minimal Variability This option is the option I recommend and extend upon below. A set of default licenses with set options for varying the license (rather than allowing the licenses in any form the artists chooses). This would reconcile with the artist to some degree, still giving him or her flexibility, but it isn’t a strain on the administration of the label. Monetary payments to the Artist If it is deemed appropriate for proceeds of sold items to – in part – be delivered to the Artist (in one way or another), a similar arrangement to that of Magnatune and Jamendo who both distribute 50% of the profits to the artist and withhold the remainder. A similar arrangement would likely be the optimal solution. Exclusivity I believe it to contradictory to the philosophy behind Creative Commons to force artists to sign exclusivity agreements. Any such agreements would put at a disadvantage the artist and the labels aspirations of signing Visiting Artists. Creative Commons Proposal to Slow Release 4
  • Slow Release Music - WAAPA Default Site License Recommendations These ‘default’ site licenses are the most likely predicted licenses to be used in whichever given category. Ultimately the type of license would be defined in the contract and by the the artist’s association with the label (staff, student or visiting artist). The following recommendations have been concluded through research into similar situations with other labels and sites, consideration of the objectives of the label and thought paid towards both commerciallity, artist rights and consumer satisfaction. Online Distribution (general) by-sa As a basic model for distribution, the No Derivatives clause should be avoided as well as the Non-Commercial clause. These clauses can be incorporated later to other more specific licenses. Given that not having the sa clause allows others to place full copyright on the modified work, I do not believe it is in the goals of the label to allow this. Website The label’s website (http://slowrelease.waapamusic.com) should also adopt this license as it’s default (unless otherwise mentioned) license governing the whole site. Wikipedia, as of June this year is using the by-sa license. Permissions should be sort from all copyright holders of media on the site to license their works accordingly. Sales by-nc-nd or by-nc-sa As some sort of income is expected from sale of the music (be it commercial or otherwise), allowing commercial use is almost certainly not ideal. If we denounce commerciallity, those wishing to use it for commercial reasons would need to apply for it, possibly with higher fees as a result. Mixing and modifying a work is a key contributor to modern culture, Creative Commons and sharing in general; No-Derivatives is almost more restrictive than nc for this reason. by-nc-sa is the most popular single licenses overall (42%) and it contributed to 55% of works at Jamendo, it is clear that artists choose this to protect any possible monetary gain, while still contributing to the sharing culture and exposure of the artist. Given that most Visiting Artists’ works are likely to be sold (as opposed to free or streamed), either by-nc-nd or by-nc-sa would likely be the most applicable licenses for this category. Creative Commons Proposal to Slow Release 5
  • Slow Release Music - WAAPA Free by-sa or by-nc-sa For free downloads, using the aforementioned general distribution license would be the ideal option. Income isn’t an objective, so commerciality isn’t a problem. As mentioned, nd – if only for cultural reasons – is not an ideal clause. There is no relevant reasoning to omit the sa clause, or replace it with an nd clause. Students and staff will most likely be the main beneficiaries of freely distributed works, either the default by-sa or by-nc-sa would be apposite to the category. Non-Commercial Artists that do not want there work used commercially should be given the option to have the nc clause on their work. Streaming by-nd Arguably one of the reasons to stream as opposed to download (apart from it’s increasing popularity and ease of use – musically.com/blog/2009/07/13/filesharing-down-by-a-third-among-uk-teens), would be to avoid derivatives (as it is more difficult to acquire a copy to modify). As these will be streamed and likely not as high a quality as downloadable equivalents, a commercial license will likely not be an issue. Online music label magnatune.com release free versions of its paid music on a low bit-rate (or other limitations) as a deterrent to commercial use. Creative Commons Proposal to Slow Release 6
  • Slow Release Music - WAAPA Contract License Recommendations These should be considered the default licenses for the respective client categories. Changes should be available on a case by case basis, for example a Visiting Artist may wish to allow derivatives. The following recommendations have been concluded through research into similar situations with other labels and sites, consideration of the objectives of the label and thought paid towards both commerciallity, artist rights and consumer satisfaction. Students by-sa As students are striving to become better artists and more well known amongst the community, getting their name and their work into ‘the wild’ has to be one of their foremost priorities. Restricting modification would be detrimental possible to this primary objective. nc shouldn’t be necessary as having a work commercially used would be of great benefit for the aspiring artist. nc should, however, be explained to the artist as an option as he or she may wish to use it. Staff by-nc-sa Staff are likely to be already somewhat established in their profession, so absolute freedom in terms of commerciallity may not be in the best interest of the staff member. Visiting Artists by-nc-nd Visiting artists, by default are well established artists. For this reason, having the most restrictive license will probably garner more support from the artist. Sharing will be permitted, but certainly no commercial use. Having an sa clause (instead of the nd clause) should be suggested. The by-nc-nd licenses contributes to 28% of applied licenses, it’s ideally used by those that are cautious with regard to their creative rights. Previous Exclusivity Agreements Previously signed artists may have problems with signing for a Creative Commons Label (moreover, they may not be permitted to sign to any new label), as their previous label may have a exclusivity agreement with the artist. One possible work around would be to not sign the artist to the label, but merely have them (the artist) license their own work themselves and then Slow Release could host the work while abiding to the license explicitly. Creative Commons Proposal to Slow Release 7
  • Slow Release Music - WAAPA Royalties Artists’ Royalties Many online – Creative Commons – music labels employ a royalty model that is fairer on the artist than traditional Record Labels. Magnatune offers its signed artists 50% revenue,4 and similar arrangements are made at other labels. A similar situation would be beneficial to Slow Release as, regardless of whether the Artist receives the royalties him or herself, or if a donation of the artists’ royalties (Described below) is administered,the artist would be comfortable with where the revenue is going and how it is being used. Allowing the percentage of royalties between the artists and Slow Release to be negotiated may prove to be time-wasting and administratively difficult. Having a fixed, non-negotiable percentage (50/50 or otherwise) would be the easier course. ‘Donation’ of artists’ royalties This proposition involved the artists donating5 their share of the royalties to Slow Release. All donated royalties should only be able to be spent on activities or materials related to the artist donating the royalties, or Slow Release in general. How it should be spent will still be up the Slow Release itself, but the artists’ royalties should be permitted to be spent on unrelated (to the artist or the label) activities or material. This should put at ease any non-commercial worries that the artists may have regarding the use of the money they provided. Publishing the financial statements of the label my prove to further vanquish any doubts the artists may have. Wikipedia – which survives off donations – publishes its financial statements for this reason. Both optional and required donations clauses are included in the draft recording contract included in this paper. Optional If donations are optional, the artist will need to agree or disagree to donating the royalties in the recording contract. Requirement If donations are required, the donations clause will be added to the recording contract to which the artist will agree to. 4 Note: not 50% of profits. 5 For tax reasons, the word donation should be herein regarded as a metaphorical use, not legal use. The the percentage or royalties with which the artist would normally receive would be kept by Slow Release, but would only be used on the condi- tion that it’s use would be related to, or in regard to Slow Release itself. Creative Commons Proposal to Slow Release 8
  • Slow Release Music - WAAPA Marketing and Commercial Use Commercial Use It is likely that Slow Release will want to use produced recordings to promote itself, its represented artists, its representative board, WAAPA and ECU. If this is sought from contracted artists’ works that do not have a Non-Commercial clause to it, there is no concern. If, however, a work that the label wishes to use for promotional ‘activities’, a Commercial Use Agreement must be acquired before any marketing arrangements are made. This clause is included in the draft recording contract included in this paper. Commerciallity of Slow Release A non-profit organisation status may be a viable option for the label to look more closely at further in the future. This could help taxation related to the label. Creative Commons Proposal to Slow Release 9
  • Slow Release Music - WAAPA Outcomes Sold items Magnatune’s signed artists make an average of between $US1500 and $US4000 p.a. 12 January 2006 and a highest average payment of $US10.43 for each album as at 11 March 2007. Effective use of the appropriate Creative Commons license should provide relative results for Slow Release. Jamendo, which offers an ability to donate rather than purchase the products has had 1,454 donations over the first 22 months with an average of $US14.55 each donation. Magnatunes, which more closely resembles the proposed Slow Release label has, thus far, been the most effective system of Creative Commons implementation. Sales should not decline after a notable amount of sales so long as the label is cited in the attribution (in addition to the original Artist/s). People, including ‘pirates’ are generally ethical people, thus providing a purchasable source for ‘indie’, unsigned, lesser known or aspiring artists would keep a steady flow of consumers to Slow Release. Free Items If Slow Release is cited in the attribution, free products will likely drive consumers to Slow Release also. The number of sales relative to this will not be as large as for Sold Items, because with sold items, consumers would in, all probability, go to the label with the intent of purchasing a product. Contract Licenses Staff Staff would be able to use the label to both promote themselves, WAAPA (and thus ECU) as well as the label. The inclusion of such high quality artists would improve the reputation of the label, and further its growth. If a semi-liberal Creative Commons Licenses is applied, consumers will likely return to Slow Release at future occasions. Students Chosen students would represent the quality of music coming out of WAAPA, increasing the standing of both. A more liberal Creative Commons license would provide free and easy promotional opportunities for the student. Visiting Artists The reputation of the label, which will likely be improved upon by the quality of Staff and Student works, will encourage more Visiting Artists to sign up to the label. Semi-strict licenses will reduce any possible concern that Visiting Artist may have, but would still follow the labels ideals. Creative Commons Proposal to Slow Release 10
  • Slow Release Music - WAAPA Recording Agreement Agreement I _______________________________________________ agree to the publica- tion of my submitted contribution to Slow Release under the following terms: 1. Licence between contributor and Slow Release I grant to Slow Release a non-exclusive, perpetual, [royalty free,] worldwide, transferable licence to use the content for purposes associ- ated with Slow Release. This includes, but is not limited to: a) its publication, in part or in full, on the Slow Release website; b) its use, in part or in full, as part of promotional, research and community outreach activities associated with the West Australian Academy of Performing Arts or with Slow Release; c) its inclusion, in part or in full, in any future publication or an- thology of work. I understand that this may be a physical publica- tion (e.g. CD etc.), which may be produced and sold by Slow Re- lease; d) the attribution of the recording to be jointly attributed to both myself and Slow Release. I grant this permission on the condition that in all uses Slow Release includes appropriate attribution of me as the original author of the con- tribution. 2. Licence between contributor and the world In addition to the above licence, I also permit Slow Release to make my contribution available for reuse by the world under a Creative Commons ________________________________ licence. I understand that this permits others to share (copy, distribute and transmit) my contribution on the condition that ________________________________ [depending on licence]. I understand that the following demonstrable image representing the above Creative Commons license will be applied to where ever my work is avail- able on any Slow Release site (circle the selected license and initial): The full terms of the selected Creative Commons licence are avail- able at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/] Creative Commons Proposal to Slow Release 11
  • Slow Release Music - WAAPA 3. Commercial Use Clearance [insert applicable clause] Royalties [insert applicable clause] 4. Warranty I undertake that, to the best of my knowledge, I have the right to grant the above permissions in relation to the content I am submitting. 5. Non-exclusive licence The licences granted above are non-exclusive. Subject to these licences, all legal rights, including copyright remain with the creator/s of the content. The creator is in no way restricted in how they may use this content in the future. Artist Signature:__________________________________Date:_________________ Witness Signature:_________________________________Date:_________________ Witness Adress:_________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ Slow Release Signature:____________________________Date:_________________ Creative Commons Proposal to Slow Release 12
  • Slow Release Music - WAAPA 4. Selected Works Work 1:________________________________________________________________ Work 2:________________________________________________________________ Work 3:________________________________________________________________ Work 4:________________________________________________________________ Work 5:________________________________________________________________ Work 6:________________________________________________________________ Work 7:________________________________________________________________ Work 8:________________________________________________________________ Work 9:________________________________________________________________ Work 10:_______________________________________________________________ Work 11:_______________________________________________________________ Work 12:_______________________________________________________________ Artist Signature:__________________________________Date:_________________ Creative Commons Proposal to Slow Release 13
  • Slow Release Music - WAAPA Royalty Options: Royalties[opt1] Royalties shall be allocated and distributed between Slow Release and me in the following proportions: Fifty Percent (50%) to Slow Release. Fifty Percent (50%) to the Artist. I_______________________________[agree/do not agree] to donate royalties owed to me by the Slow Release for any sales of my creative works to Slow Release. I accept that the royalties I donate to Slow Release will be used in any way deemed [by Slow Release] to further the growth of Slow Release. This may include, but is not limited to: a) Promotional material; b) Promotional activities; c) Other recording agreements. Royalties [opt2] Royalties shall be allocated and distributed between Slow Release and me in the following proportions: Fifty Percent (50%) to Slow Release. Fifty Percent (50%) to the Artist. I agree to donate royalties owed to me by Slow Release for any sales of my creative works to the Slow Release. I accept that the royalties I donate to Slow Release will be used in any way deemed by Slow Release to further the growth of Slow Release. This may include, but is not limited to: a) Promotional material; b) Promotional activities; c) Other recording agreements. Creative Commons Proposal to Slow Release 14
  • Slow Release Music - WAAPA Royalties [opt3] Royalties shall be allocated and distributed between Slow Release and me in the following proportions: Fifty Percent (50%) to Slow Release. Fifty Percent (50%) to the Artist, but to be kept, in perpetuity, by Slow Release. I agree that the Fifty Percent Royalties owed to me by Slow Release for any sales of my creative works to the Slow Release may be kept, in perpetuity, by Slow Release. I accept that my own royalties, kept by Slow Release, will be used in any way deemed by Slow Release to further the growth of Slow Release. This may include, but is not limited to: a) Promotional material; b) Promotional activities; c) Other recording agreements. Non-Commercial clause options: Commercial Use Clearance [opt1] I grant Slow Release permission to sell my contributed work to the public under the conditions of the below mentioned royalty agreement. This does not effect any conditions by which Slow Release may not license third parties commercial use of my contributed work/s. All other conditions of the applied Creative Commons license must be upheld by Slow Release. I also permit Slow Release to use my work for commercial purposes under the condition that the commercial purpose/s deemed by Slow Release will be related to, or in regard to Slow Release or my contributed work. All other conditions of the applied Creative Commons license must be upheld by Slow Release. Commercial Use Clearance [opt2] I also permit Slow Release to use my work for commercial purposes under the condition that the commercial purpose/s deemed by Slow Release will be related to, or in regard to Slow Release or my contributed work. All other conditions of the applied license must be upheld by Slow Release. Creative Commons Proposal to Slow Release 15
  • Company Appendix: charts Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on Jamendo - by number Jamendo 15000 11250 7500 11235 3750 4527 3506 0 by-nc-sa 732 by-sa 529 by-nd Jamendo (albums) - As of 27 July 2009 Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on Flickr - by number Flickr 40 30 36 20 33 10 16 15 0 9 by-nc by-sa by-nc-sa Flickr (photos) - As of 27 July 2009 (in millions) Name of report i
  • Company Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on Magnatune - by number Magnatune 672 504 336 672 168 0 by-nc-sa Magnatune (albums) - As of 27 July 2009 Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on Jamendo - by percentage Jamendo 4% 3% 17% 55% 22% by-nc-sa by-nc-nd by-sa by by-nd Name of report ii
  • Company Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on Flickr - by percentage Flickr 15% 30% 14% 8% 33% by-nc-sa by-nc-nd by-sa by by-nc Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on overall - by number Flickr (photos) - As of 27 Jamendo (albums) - Magnatune (albums) - As July 2009 (in millions) As of 27 July 2009 of 27 July 2009 1 by-nc-nd - 36+ by-nc-sa - 11235 by-nc-sa - 672 2 by-nc-sa - 33+ by-nc-nd - 4547 - 3 by-nc - ≈16 by-sa - 3506 - 4 by - 14+ by - 732 - 5 by-sa - 9+ by-nd 529 - Most Common Creative Commons Licenses on overall - by percentage Overall 1% 8% 9% 13% 42% 28% by-nc-sa by-nc-nd by-sa by by-nd by-nc Name of report iii
  • Company Appendix: Creative Commons Music Labels Magnatune http://magnatune.com Jamendo http://jamendo.com Pocketclock Records Pocketclock Records are an independent music label based in Melbourne, Australia, focusing on experimental pop. http://pocketclock.org Postmoderncore Postmoderncore is a netlabel concerned with releasing underground New Zealand music and other music of interest under local Creative Commons licences. http://postmoderncore.com OnClassical OnClassical is a small Italian independent record label. It features classical music mostly for piano or chamber ensemble. http://onclassical.com Loca Records http://locarecords.com 60sox http://60sox.org.au Name of report iv