[Sticky] Creative Commons Media for Videographers (aka "May I use that album for a video at Youtube?")

This is copied straight from http://www.osnews.com/story/20575/Guide_to_Creative_Commons_Media_for_Videographers
Written by Eugenia Loli-Queru.
None of the content was modified, only the embedded videos were converted to links by The Chilling Spirit.
It is licensed under the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

===== START =====

I am personally a big proponent behind the idea of the Creative Commons movement, which tries to create a free-er multimedia society where listeners, users and remixers build upon original works and freely exchange that information. The Creative Commons culture features the most free music (13,000+ high quality albums), it's easy to find, and they usually have the right license for the job (ported to the legal systems of most countries). In other words, it's your best bet to find a music piece that will fit your video without potential legal consequences.But first, you must get familiar the 4 major Creative Commons clauses. Please note, the following is not legal advice as I am not a lawyer, but rather my own understanding of all things CC after having researched it for my own projects the last few years.

1. CC-ND (Creative Commons non-derivative)
When this "ND" clause is used, you can not use it on your video, because syncing audio and video is prohibited. This clause is the most restrictive of all, and it happens to govern a lot of the CC albums. It basically just allows for free personal viewing/listening and nothing else (unless you get permission from the copyright holder).

2. CC-NC (Creative Commons non-commercial)
Be very careful about this clause. Even if you are not charging money for your video, if you upload that video on a site that has advertisement in it (even if that's your own site that happens to have some ads, or YouTube, or Vimeo), then that’s commercial use and it's prohibited. However, if you only use it for your own web site that has no ads, or you burned DVDs, including burning for your friends and family, then it's fine.

3. CC-SA (Creative Commons share-alike) (and ArtLibre)
This clause allows usage of the composition as long as your video is licensed under the same license. This is not a bad deal, but it also means that if you have a great shot that Steven Spielberg wants to use as stock footage, he can't, because his movies won't be licensed under the same license (he will have to get written authorization directly from you to get around the "SA" clause). So this is a "viral" license: anything that uses music licensed as such, will have to use the same "SA" license from then on. Same goes for the popular French "ArtLibre" license (aka "Free Art License"). It might be what you need, or it might be not.

4. CC-BY (Creative Commons attribution)
Lastly, there is the "Attribution" clause. This is the most liberal for all the CC licenses, as it only asks to give credit to the artist, in the credit roll of your video. That's it, there are no other restrictions (apart from using the work for unethical purposes, but what constitutes as "unethical" is open to a public court's interpretation). That's what I personally use for my projects (check the credit rolls on my HD videos). Only problem with this is, from all the CC music available, only about 330+ albums are licensed only under the "BY" clause, so selection is limited. Although it should be enough. I found good music for my videos even at a time when only 45 such albums existed.

Here's a recent video of mine that uses CC-BY 3.0 music (most of my videos are also licensed under this very nonrestrictive license too), with the appropriate attribution in the credit roll:
http://vimeo.com/2265645

Of course, most of the time there are combinations of these clauses (e.g. CC-BY-NC-ND, CC-BY-SA, CC-NC-SA etc etc), so pay attention when you download a piece of music. There are also some other types of clauses (e.g. CC with no clauses at all, Sampling+, etc), but very few compositions are licensed under these, so I won't be explaining them here.

Now, there are two major Creative Commons sources. ccMixter, and Jamendo.

- If you actually download from ccMixter, be very careful to not use compositions that remix upon commercial songs. For example, a potential ccMixter remix of Linkin Park's "Numb" song will be a violation of Linkin Park's copyright if you use it on your own video, even if the actual remix is licensed under a CC license. In other words: choose original compositions, and choose wisely! If you don't know if a composition is original and not RIAA-ridden, avoid. ccMixter personnel told me that they are very careful about such issues and so bumping into remixed music of... RIAA origins is not likely to happen.

- Jamendo's CC-BY-only URL is this. However, Jamendo doesn't let you search per license, so if you start searching or use the tags on their site, you will end up with search results that include all kinds of CC licenses. So be 100% sure, that the music you end up downloading and using has the right license. The license is written on the right side of each album page -- for example, the CC-BY clause is represented with a "little human" icon. If more icons are next to it, it means that the album is governed with more CC clauses, so you need to be careful. If you want to browse all major CC clauses on Jamendo instead of just CC-BY, here's the URL for it.

- If you really need to use a piece of music that it uses a more restrictive Creative Commons clause, you need to write to the author of the music and ask for permission. If this is a commercial project you are creating, you will need to actually get him to sign a contract.

- If your movie uses a free-er license than the music it is using (e.g. you license your movie under the CC-BY, but you use CC-NC-ND music under a signed contract), then you need to make this super-clear in the license of your movie. In some countries, you might need to use a less-free license for your movie, just because the music it contains is less free.

- Always make clear the license of your video on both the web page it appears and in its credit roll. If you don't show that the video is governed by a license, then by default, according to the US law, it will automatically be copyrighted and restricted (a'la MPAA/RIAA). Don't handcuff your creations. License them under a free license, like a Creative Commons one. Even if you pick the most restrictive CC license, do say so that you do. Allow others to build upon your work, this is how societies and culture evolve.

- The Creative Commons license just defines the kind of use that you authorize for your work. You still remain its author and keep all the rights. Regardless, if you pick CC-BY music or you specifically license other types of CC music, you can still license your video work under any other license.

- When you pick music that includes the CC "BY" clause in it, you need to give attribution to the musician. This is how you do this properly, in your credit roll (in the web page that has the video, you can just mention that your video and/or the music is licensed under a particular CC clause without any additional info, but in the credit roll you need to give full credit):

Artist: [Name of the artist]
Track Name: [Name of the music track used]
Album Name: [Name of the music album track appears in]
URL: [Jamendo or other URL where others can download the music]

This music track is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
[you always include the URL of the license. Use the name and URL of the actual CC license the music is licensed under, in this example I just used the CC-BY]

[If your video is governed by the same license as the music track, just use this instead:]
Music and video are licensed separately under the Creative Commons "BY" 3.0 license
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0
[...otherwise, just name the video license and include a URL for it, separately to the music's]

Video Copyright 2008 [your name here]
[you don't say just "copyright", because this can cause problems with the music copyright legally-speaking]

Feel free to reword the above, but remember, all that info must be in the credit roll. You can find some ideas on how to "compact" all that info on my own Vimeo videos.

Finally, now that you have read all the above, please view this 19 minute video below, which is a talk of the Stanford university professor and co-founder of the Creative Commons movement, Larry Lessig. The talk is educating, entertaining, it explains the idea behind Creative Commons very well, and why it is important for our future generations for such-licensed work to exist. This is the talk that made me license all of my videos under one of the most liberal CC licenses, the CC-BY.

===== END =====

This seems to be a most professional look on this. It might seem a bit strict (eg. one may argue if using music for a random video, that is not synced to the music, would be a derivative work) but this way you'll always be on the safe side.

Wow Chilling Spirit you are a damn cool person yaar!

A complete encyclopedia of most common user grievances on the forums!

A dream come true!

Respect! Very clear. Great work! Long live SA-BY

Just to make it clear: I did not write this, I just stumbled on it (and already forgot where :( ) and realised it would be handy here.

That was a good video Chilling, thanks for the link.

Notice that what Lessig said he's aiming for has mostly failed to happen so far: the coexistence of commercial and amateur music on the same plane, so that the amateur work can generate pressure of competition to force changes in the commercial area.

It's failed (mostly) I think for two reasons: (i) because Big Music controls the media and the outlets, so CC music doesn't reach the ears of most kids, and (ii) because even the fully independent Internet radios play very little CC music because they don't want to lose their audience which is comprised mainly of kids brainwashed by Big Music. It's a vicious circle.

The biggest problem of the lot is TV, because when it delivers music into the receptive minds of young viewers, it's using a formula that CC can't rival: music videos projecting images of scantily-clad and very attractive young things writhing to the beat, which is almost irresistible, especially when your hormones are so pumped up at that age.

It's a big problem, and I don't think CC has really found the full solution yet. At the current rate of adoption of CC media by the population, it'll take many generations for commercial music to feel any pressure. People just aren't hearing about it, and when they do hear for example Radio Paradise play a CC track, they probably aren't even aware that it wasn't produced by Sony or EMI or whoever. The message that it's a competing source isn't registering.

Maybe CC musicians need to produce music videos too ... <cringe>

Morgaine wrote: Maybe CC musicians need to produce music videos too

indeed, the next challenge Come on, moviemakers, take this as another step to fame...

CC musicians do make vidoes--and will continue to do so.

CC/mixter/jamendo/netlabel/sharing movement is gaining steam, and it's a matter now for a conspiracy of artists, musicians, writers and film-makers with readers, viewers, listeners, and curators to help this burgeoning movement turn into a mass culture phenomenon.

This is a great explanation of CC licenses and music use. Jamendo is a fantastic resource for free-to-use music, and I certainly have no problem crediting people who benefit me. I raise a glass to those who are generous, and wish blessings of return to them. I will also follow your outline for giving credit in my video.

Now it's all well and good that Jamendo's search has that easy-to-use advanced search where you can tick off if you want to be able to transform it and/or make commercial use of music. However, it gets frustrating when i tick both of those off, but then keep coming onto albums that have a Sharealike license on it. I'm sorry, but I will not consider, at any time, EVER, sharealike music for a project, simply because I don't like being forced to do something, and I don't like forcing others to share, either. I'd rather let them have that choice. (and for some reason, a lot of people like to use that license)

So, when is Jamendo going to offer picking specific licenses in the advanced search (maybe allow ticking off more than one license). That would be a blessing.

Thank you.

You can get the share-alike without the share-alike if you ask jamendo about it ;) while paying of course...

It's just adapted copyright, you see...

In few words: playing free music means making soundtracks for amateurish videomakers, and if you have an "uncomfortable" license they even send you to fuck off.
I'm a musician and also a videomaker, better, an editor (I worked with italian national television) but I respected much more musicians if I had to use their work to make a soundtrack. For instance, I'd never say "I don't take share-alike music"... What? WHAT??? You don't pay, and you want ALSO to complain? It's incredible. Instead of say thanks, there's something to criticize. FANTASTIC.

I think that it's better sign with a label, even the greediest and shittiest, and make records with them.
You always have to deal with gross people, but at least THEY PAY.

Hox: no cussing plz... is it about the money or about the music? If it's worth it, I'll pay (and I did already, just mainstream doesn't fit me). Only here at jamendo I find things really to my liking and I'm glad my money here goes almost completely to the artist.

Why not with the ordinary labels? You just lose your rights. They have your music, they have the money you earn them, and they even can stop your music from being available (and yes, that happens) or anything bad you can imagine. The Beatles got in trouble with EMI about selling on iTunes. Why? EMI owns the music, not the Beatles themselves. You can think what you like (srsly, free speach) but I think that's just stupid. Do you make music to be heard or to be economized and trashed afterwards?

Jamendo in this case has the same role as EMI and all the others. With this difference: you are still the owner of the music, and the license you set remains valid, which means your music remains accessible even if it doesn't sell a bit. You can earn money even when you are economically finished.

Your choise :) I love to see how famous your music becomes and whether you can live of it :).

"It basically just allows for free personal viewing/listening and nothing else (unless you get permission from the copyright holder)."

While CC ND may be very restrictive when it comes to video. It allows more than you say outside of video use.

A person could make and sell albums composed of CC ND songs and pocket all the money without any permission from the copyright holders otehr then the permissions granted in the ND license right?

all the best,

drew

The Chilling Spirit wrote: 2. CC-NC (Creative Commons non-commercial)
Be very careful about this clause. Even if you are not charging money for your video, if you upload that video on a site that has advertisement in it (even if that's your own site that happens to have some ads, or YouTube, or Vimeo), then that’s commercial use and it's prohibited. However, if you only use it for your own web site that has no ads, or you burned DVDs, including burning for your friends and family, then it's fine.

What? no.. Now what?
This means I've broken the liscense by uploading my videos to Youtube and by not writing "the music and the video are under the liscense.." in the credits?
Sure, I tell anybody who asks under what liscense the music and the video is when they ask.

I have no problem deleting the videos or get sued afterwards by anyone for having done that. You can have ~€500 if I sell my computer & flatscreens and a deal about €50/month for the rest of my life may be possible.

I mean - I even evangelized some people to go to jamendo and maybe use the songs from my playlist for their movies. And I told them to give the creator credits.

What I've done was with a clear conscience, but that using Youtube is commercial because of their adds realy shocked me. I thought I just make sure there is no prohibition like "Don't alter, transform or build upon this album." -bummer

Someone official please contact me via e-mail so I can be sure that I am a criminal. Then I can make effort to convert my friends to not use music from jamendo for their videos. This one will get harder than being laught at for not using music that plays on MTV.

At the end, 2134 people came to know the bands, the artists and jamendo at youtube.
This might be a good bye,
Teddl

There is not really someone "official" who could help you. That linked article is as official as it gets. If you are in doubt about a license make sure to contact the artist and ask.
Yes, you absolutely MUST write the attribution in a clear and visible way. Telling people who ask is not the way Creative Commons works.

Considering Youtube commercial because of the ads is very strict, yet I myself support strict views and do think that it is a commercial use (not for your (immediate) gain, but still).

Sorry, too complicated.
Since I don't know a cool way to implement that into videos and me resisting not to use Youtube, I will delete the videos and pay the fine if somebody claims. If someone official sais so..

Teddl,

Some CC licenses allow for commercial use. They do all require attribution though.

If you like the style of music in this playlist:

Midnight Freedom Show

They should all allow commercial use unless I made a mistake. The BY-SA ones will require you to use a BY-SA license on your video too though which you may want to be careful about if you have other people in the video. (I have never done a video with releases and all the rest so I can't really give any personal thoughts on it.)

all the best,

drew

Hi zotz!
Your playlist is great! Thanks for sharing.
Jeff Wyatt with Arizona Wedding March sounds cool.
Just like A Reflection of You with Clarity.
They are in my playlist after me finishing this post.
I was so glad to find music that sounds like Blackmore's Night, Faun,Garmarna and even Hans Zimmermann in the creative commons format.
But I think every song in my playlist is "for non commercial youtube use".
http://www.jamendo.com/de/playlist/115918

So far as I know now, and I would not have cared if would not have been in the mood to check out the english forum.. just for fun to test my english skills:
- the url to the license has to be next to the video. Like this:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
I added the license urls into the comments of all my youtube videos as it reads "Notice — For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page."
Yes, I failed to read that..
Kinda odd, I had to download the whole album of each band for each song that I used to get the license.txt with the url included.


To make it easy to sue me, here is the link to my youtube channel.
http://www.youtube.com/user/tippis?hl=en-GB
Affected artists:
Jellroy, Tchopilo, Serphonic, Ceili Moss, 7BZH, Cyril Pereira, General Union, Butterfly Tea, and Glory of Dementia.

About the other issue, I can't help but think that it's an anti youtube campaign.
At least, I hope so.
Sometimes knowledge makes depressive,
for some time.
Teddl

Teddl,

you could ask for people thoughts on the Creative Commons Mailing lists.

drew

Thanks zotz,
Oh no..

"you agree not to access User Videos (as defined below) for any reason other than your personal, non-commercial use solely as intended through and permitted by the normal functionality of the Services, and solely for Streaming. "Streaming" means a contemporaneous digital transmission of the material by YouTube via the Internet to a user operated Internet enabled device in such a manner that the data is intended for real-time viewing and not intended to be downloaded (either permanently or temporarily), copied, stored, or redistributed by the user. "
-Youtube terms of use

No way to have cc-by-sa videos there. Makes the question about Youtube commercial adds unimportant.
I guess I have no more questions. Sorry about my mistakes. Videos are deleted.
Now, I need a new hobby. Maybe I should make my own music now.

Teddl,

I am not so sure about that and I guess I would ask YouTube specifically about exceptions to that in the case of CC licensed videos and especially the Free ones.

Another thing to look at is what rights you have to grant YouTube to the videos when you upload them and if you have the necessary rights to do so.

I have been suggesting in the CC world that an effort be made to push for best practices that allow for sites to work with just the rights granted by the Free CC licenses without needing any further grants from the submitter or copyright holder. To me, this would make many things much easier and cleaner.

drew

Youtube seems to have a "creative common feature" for their Partners. I'm not a partner..
http://www.youtube.com/blog?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&entry=Mp1pWVLh3_Y
Maybe this becomes public like Youtube HD did.

I found this link when I was reading Lawrence Lessing's blog http://www.lessig.org/blog/
"Owned? Legal terms of video hosting services compared"
http://advancingusability.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/owned-legal-terms-of-video-hosting-services-compared/

Now I'm in a haze of legal doubts and do nothing. I guess I won't upload anything anywhere anymore at anytime if I did not contact the bands beforehand.

This was such a life saver! Easy to understand, and found the perfect French ditty to bring my chocolate story to life. Thanks!

That is a great video. Thanks for using Creative Commons media and thus promoting it. :)

Thank you so much for this article, this is the answer to all my questions.

Hello, everyone!

Although legal matter should be black and white, I think that Creative Commons licenses have been created with a purpose. My personal interpretation is the following:

* Property kept by the author. Perfect.

* Attribution to the author. In my youtube videos I always place credits inside the video, at the end, with all the CC required information. It was a bit tedious at the first, but I have automatized the process and now it's easy for me.

* Non commercial: I think the real aim of this kind of CC license is to prevent others to benefit from your work, without giving you anything for it. In the case of Youtube, I think there is an exception: Youtube benefits from the author's work BUT they give publicity to the author (if the video has the correct credits, of course). In this case, the user that have uploaded the video is NOT receiving any money and Youtube is like an advertising company that does not pay nor charge the author for it. So I think is perfectly plausible to place by-sa or even by-nc-sa music in videos for Youtube.

* Same License sa: in the Youtube terms in a previous post, it says that the user only can access the videos in streaming, non-commercial, etc. But they are requeriments for the User (youtube viewer) and not for the video itself.

Anyway, what I ALWAYS do is, after uploading a video with music from other authors, send an e-mail to the original author telling them about the existence of the video made from their music. Maybe I'm perverting the essence of the CC license (or maybe not), as I'm not asking for the permission in advance, but I notify them and obviously if they require me to remove the audio track of the video I will do it inmediately.

Obviously, there would be a better way to do this with a kind of youtube-website-advertisement-supported license that would allow to include music and videos in commercial sites, but if it's not the case, the CC music would not be placed almost in ANY web site, losing all the advertisement effect. The same issue to the P2P networs used by Jamendo to distributed the music. Those P2P networks can also be used by webs with commercial banners and advertisement, so what then? Should Jamendo stop the P2P distribution because of that?

I think CC should protect the author's right WHILE allowing the author and the rest of users to PROMOTE and DISTRIBUTE the music as much as they can. It there are several banners in the promotion webs, is it a crime? The real crime is a disco, a pub, etc, using CC-NC music without authorization as they don't distribute nor promote the music and most of the time don't attribute the music to the author (they just play it).

So, the spirit should be: Promote and attibute. If the license is NC, don't use for your own personal profit. If the license is SA, don't make unlicensed / public domain / commercial works derived from the CC work.

(Please don't sue me for the all my comments above ;-)

Best regards.

David Bluecame.

Hello again!

To give more strength to my point, please read this article from the weblog of the Creative Commons official site:

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7537
( article licensed under Creative Commons license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ )


This is an extract from the article:

"The Spanish short film, Lo que tú Quieras Oír–released under a CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license–has achieved a huge amount of popularity on YouTube, totaling close to 10,000,000 views!

While the film itself is quite brilliant, the CC license enables its viewers to not only freely distribute the film, but also remix it as long as they give credit, do so with non-commercial intent, and share their new works under the same license. We can only hope that part of the short’s online success has been enhanced by this decision to utilize CC licensing."

Isn't this a direct contradiction to the alleged incompatibility between youtube and by-nc-sa or by-sa?

Best regards.

David Bluecame.

I just joined today and trying to navigate this whole thing. I am hobbyist that does illustration and art work that wants to make videos with music that musicians want promoted but I don't always have means to buy tons of things or know how to do everything because I am still learning how develop content for videos.

I must confess it gets bit overwhelming at times figuring out basics in order how to do this example I found in wikipedia Marcy Playground song Good Times that has CC license but its OGG file and trying to just navigate how to get the audio file open to put in media play to create images can be pain in but I don't know how.

Example I find a file but not always how to convert the file, the You tube advertisers will refer me to video converter but I have buy the software and sometimes I just don't have the additional funds to do this because one I am hobbyist and I am living on very tight budget due to my own personal situation.

Sometimes it just gets overwhelming to do what I just love to do but I am not expecting profit from it as budding video artist who lives on really tight budget.

I am trying to navigate this site and truthfully I am not sure how it all works either.

Dear Dagon.

Maybe this is not the right forum to talk about this and we should move to the Off-Topic forum.

Please, go to the following link where I tried to answer your question:

http://www.jamendo.com/en/forums/discussion/7731/answer-to-dagon-xanith-from-sticky-creative-commons-media-for-videographers/

Best regards.

oops sorry I wasn't sure where to put things I am still learning.

Actually I was pretty much asking what Teddi was asking. I would think more audience, more revenue for everyone involved even if I as a video artist make nothing from it then sake of being creative and show case really great song. I guess I am trying to understand personally.

The Chilling Spirit wrote: 2. CC-NC (Creative Commons non-commercial)
Be very careful about this clause. Even if you are not charging money for your video, if you upload that video on a site that has advertisement in it (even if that's your own site that happens to have some ads, or YouTube, or Vimeo), then that’s commercial use and it's prohibited. However, if you only use it for your own web site that has no ads, or you burned DVDs, including burning for your friends and family, then it's fine.

no one but a lawyer can give you "legal advice," but the purpose of this thread is to help you choose a license that is designed to be used without hiring lawyers. the above quote seems to be from an article written by someone who understands the term "commercial use" as applied to copyright, but not the actual creative commons license.

the license itself is lengthy and complex. in it, you will find some clarification of the term "non-commercial" as it pertains to the license.

it seems to translate to plain english this way: if you charge money for access to the music, that's commercial (it violates the license.) if i put it on a cd you have to pay to get- that's commercial. if i play it in a club you have to pay to enter- that's commercial. if i play it in a store, where you can come in, buy nothing, pay nothing, and eventually leave, that's MAYBE not commercial use. if i put ads on the cd, but charge nothing for the cd- if i give you the cd for free, or put the music on youtube that's NOT commercial use.

it's not just about what "non commercial" means, but what about it means in the license. i think the license itself will back what i'm saying here. the point is valid however, that if you're uncomfortable using nc licensed music- don't use nc music. use cc by or cc by-sa.

Hello!

From the creative commons page:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode

Paragraph 4: Restrictions

"[...] You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation [...]"

It's clear that a user posting a video in Youtube does no break the license, as the user is not primarily intended for commercial advantage or private money compensation. The user is not also directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. Even if Youtube is a commercial company, the user is not breaking the license.

In addition to that, I also think the objetive of Creative Commons is to promote and share the works, so Youtube is a very good place to do so. The only works I never use are the -nd non derivative works, because the author does not want it's work to be edited or build upon and I respect that desire.

Best regards.

Nice, thanks for this information.

Thanks for saying that David. I am asking before using anyone's music this way on youtube and doing so respectfully. In big picture its promotes the music and Jamenda if I do a quality video that gets noticed and its more practice for myself as a digital Artist putting my own material out there for free for anyone to see. I personally not expecting any type of money doing this just doing it for love of art and music.

david.bluecame wrote: Even if Youtube is a commercial company, the user is not breaking the license.

One could see it like that, but then YouTube would be violating the license by publishing/hosting the video.

Recently Creative Commons has conducted a study about non-commercial usage. They are aware that there are many questions and some gray areas.

CC is currently conducting a study on the meaning of noncommercial. We hope to announce the results of the study in early 2009.

(http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FFAQ)

I am eagerly awaiting the results.

I am eagerly awaiting the results.

i am too, but it wouldn't change the existing licenses. the big thing people miss when they read "nc" in creative commons licenses, is that it's not a catch-all, vague term.

nc in a creative commons license has nothing to do with concepts of "nc" outside the license. that's why it specifically outlines what "nc" means- for users of the license, both the original artist and any listeners or remixers down the line. (only if you're the original copyright holder, you can use your own work any way you want to.)

youtube can and does- blip.tv can and does- jamendo.com can and does- put advertising for commercial products (including for your albums) next to nc-clause licensed tunes, so long as access to them is free. no matter what people think "nc" means in general, what it means to the license is what the license says it means.

as long as your not getting "paid" for the video and or making profit you are fine to use the music for background video clips, for making profit and or money off the video you would have to contact the actual musician or talent who first created the song and put it under the creative commons license.

I use music all the time from my music site for videos and stuff we make but they are all promotional video stuff..

Ok, been reading and just need simple instructions. I f your looking for music to be used as background in Business profiles video's where do you go?

I agree with david and manymny...

Can i upload my video with any music from jamendo?

Can i also create an album with my music's choice and let people download it inside my blog/website?

Of course just saying the license and giving credit to the author?

Hello, everyone!

For Harald Walker: ok, Youtube is a commercial company and it's getting indirect profit from the CC music used as video soundtrack, but if any indirect profit would break the CC-NC license, it would be useless, as even the Internet Providers would be breaking the license when earning money for providing the basic infrastructure (internet network) where to put the CC-NC music. I don't think it's the purpose of the CC-NC license.

For Tim46311: if you need Jamendo music for a primary commercial use, like using it as background music for your bussiness, you have several choices:
* You can use Jamendo music that's NOT under the "Non Commercial" license. In this case, you have to credit the artist in your background audio system, as every CC license requires attribution to the original artist. If the work is under "Non derivative" license, you cannot alter it, cut or mix in any way nor use it as the soundtrack to videos.
* You can use Jamendo music purchasing them a PRO license. This enables you to use even music initially under Non-Commercial license, by paying a fare for each track. They provide the music with a certificate that the music is not part of any copyright association.

To kaito57: you can use for Youtube only music that's not under "Non-Derivative" license. The Non-Derivative (nd) doesn't allow you to cut, mix, or use the music as soundtrack for videos. The same is applied to creating a "mix" album for your blog. Of course, if your blog is "monetized" with advertisement, it's easy to assume that you main objective is to earn money and in that (hypotetical) case, you could not use music under Non-Commercial license for your blog.

As I'm not a member of Creative Commons nor Jamendo, all these are only opinions of mine, based in the common sense and after reading the terms of the licenses. I could be mistaken, so please ask Jamendo directly if you have important doubts about this.

Best regards!

David Bluecame.

ah ok David!!

agreed with that also!!!

Is there anyone who disagree with david or manymny arguments? anyone from jamendo?

I got another question...

Can I change the mp3 format to ogg using a program like audacity for music under the ND license?

I really would like to have them under ogg format, but i cant donwload them by torrent...

someone?

Dear kaito57

My opinion is that if you change the format of a ND track from MP3 to OGG only for your personal use, it's ok.

But, if you change the format and afterwards you give the altered work to other people, you are breaking the ND license. My reasoning is that during the conversion process there is apossibility that you choose encoding parameters that reduce the quality, thus distributing a lower quality version that could make those people that the original work is also a bad quality one.

There is a trick to download the OGG, but I advise you to use it in a limited way, as it requires the Jamendo servers to build from scratch a zip file with all the OGG files inside it, putting an extra load into the servers. So, I will send it to you in a private message.

Best regards! David.

David que hases por aqui amigo , estas de paseo ?