Creative Commons To Pass One Billion Licensed Works In 2015

Jason Hibbets writes Sharing is winning. In 2015, Creative Commons is expected to pass one billion licensed works under the commons. Millions of creators around the world use CC licenses to give others permission to use their work in ways that they wouldn't otherwise be allowed to. Those millions of users are the proof that Creative Commons works. But measuring the size of the commons has always been a challenge. Until now...

Too bad so much Creative Commons is poisoned.

[alzoron]

When creative commons licensing first started gaining a lot of popularity I was excited. What a great way to share creative talent with on another and help to create even better works. Then I started looking on a bunch of music sites that host creative commons licensed material and was shocked by what I found. Song after song and sample after sample contained blatant sampling of other copyrighted works. I personally can't trust anything licensed under creative commons as I can't verify that what I'm using is safe to use without fear of a lawsuit. Unfortunately, the well has been poisoned.

Re:Too bad so much Creative Commons is poisoned.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know. Unfortunately, non-CC stuff is even worse in this respect, so I guess we have to stop using music.

Re:

[cellocgw]

So what you're saying is we now have the Tragedy of the [Creative] Commons [wikipedia.org] ?

But how to avoid this?

[tepples]

Eventually some songs will sound like other songs just by coincidence. There are only about 14^7 = 105 million or so distinct hooks of eight notes.* So if someone wants to honestly compose original music and release it under a Creative Commons license, how is he supposed to ensure he didn't accidentally copy someone else's work?

* 14 is 7 distinct intervals modulo octave equivalence, times 2 for short or long note. Raised to ^7 instead of ^8 because the last note doesn't have an interval or duration.

Re:

[tgeller]

What you say is true, but it's not the main issue IMHO. Rather, it's that people rip copyrighted materials whole-cloth and post them as CC.

I produce short videos for a client, on a moderate budget. I was using lots of CC and public-domain labeled stuff from archive.org and YouTube. Then I realized, "Hey, wait! This TV show from the '50s is *not* public domain! Neither is this educational film from the '70s!"

This is what comes from people misunderstanding the slogan, "Information wants to be free." You get i

Re:

[TheDarkener]

There are only about 14^7 = 105 million or so distinct hooks of eight notes.*

Because every song has a hook...because every song follows the same format. *facepalm*

I bet Taylor Swift totally ripped off Bach.

Re:

[tepples]

Because every song has a hook...because every song follows the same format. *facepalm*

"Hook" can be replaced with "motif" if you prefer classical music lingo. In any case, I'm referring to the most memorable part of a melody, the part to which a judge will pay the most attention when determining the amount and substantiality of copying.

I bet Taylor Swift totally ripped off Bach.

That's because most of the Bach family composed before the sound film era and the perpetual copyright regime that it introduced. (Unless you're referring to P. D. Q. Bach, born in 1935.)

Re:

[TheDarkener]

Thanks for the clarification.. I guess I'm just depressed that artists have to deal with this kind of sh*t in the first place, at all, ever. Music is art, and these matters should be (in my idealistic opinion anyway) dealt with within the art community instead of in the courtroom.. What's a better punishment for ripping someone off as a musician: your own music community shunning you, or having to pay money?

Re:

[tlhIngan]

Thanks for the clarification.. I guess I'm just depressed that artists have to deal with this kind of sh*t in the first place, at all, ever. Music is art, and these matters should be (in my idealistic opinion anyway) dealt with within the art community instead of in the courtroom.. What's a better punishment for ripping someone off as a musician: your own music community shunning you, or having to pay money?

And yet "ripping off" music is common and even popularized. Rap was created this way when a drum riff

Re:

[TheDarkener]

Thank you. I think Creative Commons is so important in this respect, because it allows the "ripping off" (I don't like that term when it comes to music) while attributing the original artist. I think a lot of artists wouldn't mind (maybe even, gasp, be flattered by) someone taking their work and building upon it. Being a musician myself, I know I would. Of course it all depends on what your personal motive for making music is (money vs. happiness).

I wonder what the music world would be like if it was someho

Re:

[amber_of_luxor]

Due Dilligence was never a part of the Creative Commons License.

Re:

[Mathinker]

> Due Dilligence was never a part of the Creative Commons License.

Unfortunately, give how copyright works, it's impossible to do due diligence with respect to fair use, if you want to push it to the limit.

Re:

[gweihir]

The more use, the more legal footing, as more lawyers and people will have thought about it.

Shitty summary

[rebelwarlock]

"But measuring the size of the commons has always been a challenge. Until now..."

And why is that? What changed? Reading the article, it seems like the answer is, "We finally bothered to check."