Would it be possible to get CC options that don't have the NC?
I usually go for a CC-BY-SA, but this option is unavailable.
Offline
Offline
Los Angeles
Yeah we can add it- it might take a few days to get around to it as I'm busy with work and have a wb to make 
Just out of curiosity, may I ask why you'd like to have people be able to use your tracks commercially without permission?
Offline
I don't really know, but I guess it allows a higher possibility of exposure.
Offline
Los Angeles
Etheross wrote:
I don't really know, but I guess it allows a higher possibility of exposure.
Right but you are also granting someone to commercially use your track for whatever purpose- aka: advertisements etc. I've found if someone really wants to use some of my music for commercial purposes they generally just email me to ask permission, then I decide if I allow it or not. But to each his own of course. 
Offline
Melbourne, Australia
Etheross wrote:
I don't really know, but I guess it allows a higher possibility of exposure.
Don't do it 
Offline
Sydney, Australia
I also prefer CC-BY-SA. I don't have a problem with commercial use IF you comply with the other clauses. I wouldn't do it without the SA clause.
Offline
NL
jiffypop23 wrote:
add GPL pls
Might as well add WTFPL and beerware, although all three of those are more for software, not creative products.
Artistic License 2.0 is actually more catchy.
Offline
Gosford, Australia
the SA in CC-BY-SA means that the derivative work needs to be released under a CC-BY-SA license too, doesn't it?
Offline
Los Angeles
You can also just select generic copyright and then in your description mention your own.
Offline
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
It may seem counter-intuitive but according to creativecommons.org, the NC clause is "not a Free Culture License".
See: http://creativecommons.org/choose/ and http://creativecommons.org/freeworks
As such, I too vote for the option to use CC BY or BY-SA
That said, I'm not losing sleep over it
Offline
Los Angeles
Yeah, I personally have an issue with it. But we'll add it.
There is a difference between a free-one-for-all-everyone-holding-hands culture versus giving permission for a commercial enterprise to profit or misrepresent your creative work.
As long as you know that by selecting such a license- you are legally allowing companies to use your work without consent- which you'd normally get compensated for or have the option to reject their usage. It may even look like you are endorsing the product when they give attribution. It's a awful idea in this society.
Offline
Melbourne, Australia
trash80 wrote:
Yeah, I personally have an issue with it. But we'll add it.
There is a difference between a free-one-for-all-everyone-holding-hands culture versus giving permission for a commercial enterprise to profit or misrepresent your creative work.
As long as you know that by selecting such a license- you are legally allowing companies to use your work without consent- which you'd normally get compensated for or have the option to reject their usage. It may even look like you are endorsing the product when they give attribution. It's a awful idea in this society.
Seriously, THINK ABOUT THIS before selecting a licence like this. You could end up directly endorsing something horrible. Not to mention you are seriously devaluing music in general. You're basically shooting yourself in the foot if you ever hope to become a professional.
Offline
Los Angeles
I added it. Though still dont know if its a good idea.
Offline
NSW
Is it possible for me/an Admin. to alter the license I've pegged my first three tracks under?
Offline
Los Angeles
Poppi wrote:
Is it possible for me/an Admin. to alter the license I've pegged my first three tracks under?
It is now.