Thought it would be helpful to make this discussion more public.
I wrote...
Greetings!
I propose we three (Sheryl, ?!Charlie, and Major Zed) mutually grant to each other a Creative Commons 3.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/) to use certain files (described below) to re-master or re-mix "Online Dating," to create derivative or new works, and to use the files or derivative works or allow others to use them in live performances, radio play, internet streaming, internet downloading, or other types of performances, regardless of commercial/for-profit or not-for-profit status, providing the following conditions are met.
(1) In whatever derivative works, performances, or other uses that are created, we three continue to get credit at least equivalent to that posted in http://community.livejournal.com/interrocartel/60032.html.
(2) Neither one of us nor a member of our families, as individuals or members of a group, may receive remuneration from such derivative works, performances, or other uses that are created. If any of us anticipate there will be remuneration, we will need to come to a separate agreement about that.
(2a) An exception to clause (2) is made for merchandising where the object being merchandised does not contain any audio from these files nor does it contain textual or graphical depiction of the music or lyrics. (E.g., a coffee cup with the title and a graphical image is OK, a T-shirt with a guitar tab of the chords is not. But be careful to get permission to use someone else's likeness or graphical work.)
(2b) Further exceptions are made that Sheryl can do anything she wants with the lyrics and vocal tracks, ?!Charlie can do anything he wants with the guitar tracks, and Major Zed can do anything he wants with the rhythm tracks.
The tracks are
...(snip)...
By sending this message I am hereby agreeing to the terms I propose above. Once I get emails from you two agreeing as well, I will send you copies of everyone's agreements and give you the URL of the file folder.
Regards,
Major Zed
I responded with the following concerns:
1) I hate to be inflexible, but I would need an exclusion that prohibits derivatives on the lyrics. I don't want people doing a hatchet job on my poetry. I already had someone in my OKC journal post the following:
"... the lyrics need work. Have you thought of telling it as a story? I think it needs a perspective:
I was sitting at my computer Wondering about my future. . .
It was time to bet my heart
On a picture. . .
Online dating, it's a new way
Of hating. . ."
I have seen people who think they are poet's, but aren't, completely bastardize my poetry and two previous songs with suggestions for "improvements" in the past. You may recall in the original post I was pretty protective about that. That's from personal experience.
I appreciated the suggestions you made that I should add more internal rhyme to the lyrics, and I think it is better for it, but at least I got to control the changes.
2) As long as there are extra conditions being written in, shouldn't there be an ability for us to retract these privileges from one another as well? Like if one of us was using this expansion of terms in a way that bothered one or both of the other contributors, it seems like there should be something written in there that allows us to revert the license back to the previous one.
3) if we are allowing derivatives, then doesn't 2b apply by default? Surely if everyone else has the right to mess with our art, then we do as well?
However, doesn't that muddy up our individual copyrights? I think it would be better to state that each of us retains complete copyright control over our respective contributions, and that the purpose of this agreement is make it easier to borrow from each other's contributions.
Come think of it, shouldn't the capacity to make derivatives be limited to either the 3 of us or people altering it on our behalf? If you completely open it up, then it seems like you have lost any creative control over what's done to it, no?
-------------------------------
Also replied directly to Charlie about some things he hasn't posted here yet. Will add them in once he does so (if he does so), but I would like to add the analogy I made to him about why lyrics are somewhat different from music when it comes to how "open source" they can be:
Lyrics and poems are like novels. JRR Tolkein wouldn't agree to an open source version of The Hobbit, for example. A story is a story. A message is a message. If you start tampering with that, you are changing the statement/meaning.
I doubt a lot of poets sign creative commons agreements on their poetry. Usually the distinction between poetry and prose is that in a poem every word is sacred to the meaning. And lyrics are mostly poetry applied to music. Just changing the "lover" to "flake" can not only throw the rhyme, the meter, but the absolute meaning to the entire piece. Something that was serious can become funny from the change of a single word (or vice versa.)
Now certainly there are people who write things that don't mean anything, and they would probably be more open to changes then those who do, but I'm not one of them.
Sheryl's attitude is perfectly valid, though rather different than that of most IC members, who might take offense at the last sentence in her post. My own attitude toward my work is that a derivative work does not destroy the original; it may be an improvement, which is great -- it may be worse, but so what, the original is still there -- or it may just be different, which is good too.
Two examples would be "Schroedinger's Car" and "Geek Freak". I wrote lyrics for both. In the case of "Schroedinger's Car", Charlie recorded them, and then Zed recorded a version based on a drastic rewrite of the lyrics. Honestly, I liked my lyrics better. On the other hand, Zed wanted to rewrite the lyrics of "Geek Freak", and I collaborated with him on that; I don't strongly prefer the rewrite to the original... but it's fine, and Zed's recording is one of my favorite IC songs, one that wouldn't have been made if I'd insisted on keeping my lyrics unchanged.
So it's not that my lyrics don't mean anything (not that I'm under any illusions that they constitute great art); it's that once written they can't be unwritten, even if they're rewritten, and the rewrite may be fruitful.
But this is not to say Sheryl should change her opinion. Only to try to convey how I feel. In the case of "Online Dating", I'd say it sounds like the lyrics should not be under Creative Commons license at all; Sheryl should grant a more traditional, exclusive license to Zed and Charlie for their use, and the music should be licensed separately, under Creative Commons if the people responsible for the music agree to that.
Hi, would that be Doctroid posing as Emma? Hahaha I looked up the song mentioned, and I think that's who I am talking to. :-)
Sorry if my last sentence was offensive. It was not intended to put down collaboration on lyrics or even allowing people you know to alter your work with your clear consent. Which is what you are describing. But rather that if you leave your words open to this derivatives option, then ANYONE can come in and alter them. Not just the Major Zeds of the world, who I am sure would do so with respect to my writing.
My point was that words are not the same as music, and to be fair, I suppose it also depends on what kind of words. What you are trying to do with them, etc.
I was thinking this afternoon that musically composers have been doing the "variations on a theme by..." for centuries, but then it occurred to me that the ballad tradition is all about evolving words over time. So I can't say there are no traditions for open source lyrics.
Maybe I am just protective of my lyrics because I have seen people try to re-write them, and usually they think they are suggesting something better, but aren't. Occasionally they are better though. It's not that I have never taken anyone's suggestions on changes. I though MJ's suggestions on these were good and that they sped up the pace of "Online Dating" nicely. But not everyone is going to treat my work like Major Zed.
I will confirm that for my parts at least, they can be used for whatever purpose as long as I get attribution.
I don't really want to go into this too much but the first thing I said in my email was that it was granted that Sheryl wanted to reserve the rights on her lyrics from the beginning. She clearly stated that and I have no issues with. I actually think we are perhaps beating a dead horse here.
I merely pointed out that Creative Commons seemed to me to be like Open Source (just using an analogy, not being particularly lawyerly). I also pointed out that the general IBC pattern was that things tended to be open about developing alternate versions of things. My preference for future projects would be for IBC ones since it seems to keep things less complicated.
It seems like a worthwhile conversation in any case. There are pros and cons to consider. :-)
FWIW, I don't mind open sourcing on my melody ideas or singing contributions in the future, although I'm not always sure my tune ideas are original.
And perhaps I would feel differently on some of my lyric ideas that I am not so attached to or ones that I feel are still being evolved/developed. I am certainly less attached to lyrics when I still consider them drafts.
My general opinion is close to Charlie's. IBC was always mainly for the entertainment it provides the participants and is a fundamentally open forum. For example, Casey wanted to record "UK Places With 'Z' In The Name", but objected to a couple lines I wrote. We discussed this in the ArkMOO, and came to an agreement. So change is not necessarily bad. (However, not writing down those changes is bad. I'm just saying.)
Another example: when Kerri and Jake recorded "Rewind", they arbitrarily changed "Coke" to "Diet Coke". Later, Jake changed it to "Rum and Coke" for a different recording. They didn't ask permission, but it doesn't matter. The changes worked for their specific approach to the lyrics.
There are exceptions and will always be exceptions. MOtis didn't release any of his material under Creative Commons or any open license, for example. And Sheryl wrote "Online Dating" before having heard of IBC; I encouraged her to come check us out. So, "Online Dating" was always "off the table" as far as lyrics go, although I would certainly encourage future projects to be done in a completely open manner.
Zed's phrasing things very formally, but I think all he's saying is that it should be OK to take the finished song to some venues that are actually commercial in nature, as long as no one artist is personally profitting to the exclusion of others, and also it should be OK for the three of you to try some other mixes and arrangements of the song. I think that sounds reasonable, with the restriction Sheryl raises that the lyrics shouldn't be drastically changed without her approval and presented as if they were her lyrics. Sheryl, can you confirm if you'd be OK with the same melody and title on completely different lyrics, so long as the attribution makes it clear who's to blame?
Write in haste, repent at leisure. Sheryl might be happy with a NoDerivs Creative Commons license for the lyrics.
Hi Talysman,
I think I am dancing around some of my worries, so let me be a little more direct. lol
Another of my concerns, besides the ones listed, is the reasoning behind switching the license on something that turned out quite well to start with and is complete.
Why does the producer want open ended leeway to alter it and have things written so that he doesn't need my creative input on something that turned out better because of our collaboration?
And maybe if we're going to have it on the radio, I would just as soon it be with MY vocals. I'd just as soon they were MY words, and that I have some control over any changes. And I would just as soon not hand over complete creative control on something I have an emotional stake in as well.
I don't see why something that started out as a team effort needs to re-written so that everyone can go off and do their own thing on it.
You talk about creative commons as means to promote experimentation, but it's also supposed to allow for cooperation and compromise on efforts, and it seems to me that at this stage in the game, opening it up to derivations might be more about reverting compromises that were made.
I realize that Major Zed has put a ton of work in this, and I respect that and am honored that he put so much time and creative energy into it. And I think he did a fucking amazing job!!!! But that also makes me less inclined to see it changed. And certainly more protective about how it gets changed.
In other words, why does it need to be changed if we did it right?
We had a no derivatives license, although it was non-commercial, although I still think that it would be better if any commercial projects required some deliberation and agreement of those who participated in creating the artwork.
Hi Zed,
Sounds like we want the same thing then.
Let me revise the wording on your original proposal as a counteroffer so that it deals with some of my concerns, and then if you guys are ok with my changes, we can march happily on! :-)
Sheryl
OK, I don't quite understand this CC contracting stuff, so I need some clarification.
I originally offered my lyrics on the non-commercial, no derivatives, but then we started develop a song to go with them from a melody idea of mine without actually specifying anything in particular about the music. Having never done this before, I thought it was all taken care of with my initial license offer.
I was looking at the info for the site on copyright. It says the standard is the share-alike license, but then says, "If the arranger/composer of one of the MP3s has agreed to the Creative Commons license, you may...create a derivative arrangement of the MP3s (a dance or polka mix, for example, or compose/sing completely different lyrics to the same tune) as long as the original artist receives attribution and the recording is distributed noncommercially under an identical license."
But does that apply if it is a different creative commons license from the default? Does this "identical license" wording assume that the original license under offer must be used for further expansions on the work?
Does that mean that the music part was automatically offered under the "identical" license of non-commercial, no derivatives? Or does it mean it was automatically offered under non-commercial share alike? Or does it mean that we never actually had an agreement about what it was offered under at all? Hahahahaha
I was trying to decide whether I think Major Zed and I even need a license agreement to do what he and I want to do with it, but the more I thought about it, the more it occurred to me that I am not even sure where we are starting from. Opinions? Thanks.
If you click on the CC link at the announcement (http://community.livejournal.com/interrocartel/60032.html), that is to say, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/, you will see that this is also a "attribution - noncommercial - no derivatives" license. So your licensing of the lyrics, and our licensing of the recording, are done under the same basis. That's where we are starting from.
Sheryl asked me some questions about the side-wide licensing and how it relates to "Online Dating", and I thought I'd like to summarize some points I brought up.
Sheryl published her lyrics under another site and placed a CC AT/NC/ND license on them. She then made a recording of herself singing the lyrics and offered them to Major Zed, with no restrictions on the melody, but also no formal license. "Online Dating" was produced as a collaborative project, with Sheryl, Zed, and Charlie as copyright holders, and NO LICENSE. I know Zed mentioned a CC AT/NC/ND license in the announcement, but clearly this hasn't fully been worked out, so presumably this only applies to Zed's contribution.
Whether any of the three can distribute the MP3 is up to the creators, but NO ONE ELSE, including the Cartel as a whole, can distribute, remix, or do anything else with it, until such time as the copyright holders decide how they would like to license it.
Now, the site in general operates under a CC AT/NC/SA license, to encourage collaboration, remixing, and even multiplicity of lyrics and melody, because that's the way things were handled informally on the early USENET-only days of IBC. It gives us the feel of an "anti-band" and avoids problems with derivatives. Any IBC song can be placed under any kind of license the artist(s) desire, as long as the artist grants IBC the right to call it an IBC song and distribute it non-commercially. But, I'd certainly encourage everyone to go along with the craziness and allow derivatives.
Thanks for the clarifications, talysman. Two more cents from me. Anyone who saw the announcement (and Sheryl has been promoting that link) saw or could/should have seen the CC AT/NC/ND license notice and therefore has a right to act accordingly. I think the cat is out of the bag in that respect. I've also uploaded it to two music sites and included the same notice. We could change that for future visitors, I suppose, but how could we make it more restrictive without removing the track altogether? While IANAL, I think as a matter of custom, when you download a free MP3, AT/NC/ND is pretty much what you expect.
Thanks, guys!!! OK, so that explains why we actually require a license to do some of these things Zed was talking about.<p> I was thinking we already had one that allowed for a number of the things he wanted to do, such as post the on other websites (and he had posted on livejournal, so I was doubly confused), share the recording with bands and radio stations,and remixing (since he had already done initial mixing), etc. <p>Understanding that we didn't actually have a clear license puts a lot of this in perspective! You know, like, why thought we needed one. Hahahaha Thanks!!!
Oops, I get used to posting on OKC and start paragraphing with p tags. lol Sorry.