Creative Commons Moving Images Winners

ArcRiley writes "The winners have been announced for the contest that Creative Commons launched last fall to deliver their ``some rights reserved'' message with a short video. Congratulations to Justin Cone, Sheryl Seibert, and Kuba & Alek Tarkowski for their winning videos!"

Comments

Now to get this kind of stuff out in the public

[lavalyn]

Too bad it's impossible considering how television is financed and broadcast. It'd be such an irony to see these videos (they're pretty good) broadcast over HDTV, with the no-copy flag on.

Re:Now to get this kind of stuff out in the public

[iswm]

There's always the grassroots method. But then again, the media is just so controling now it's hard to get something such as a grassroots campaign to have any major influence on anything. Oh well.

Marketing

[gid13]

It seems to me that this will only matter when one of two things happens.
1. Heavy promotion of creative commons-licensed material happens somehow.
2. There is a severe crackdown on copyrighted file-sharing to the point that few or none feel comfortable doing it.

I can't see 1 happening ever. 2, on the other hand, may be beginning. Personally, though, I think the better way to address this is just to allow copyrighted file-sharing.

Why did they have to pick share-alike?

[LostCluster]

I'm a bit disappointed that two out of the three winners chose the "share-alike" attribute on their Creative Commons license.

One of the strongest selling points the CC system has is that they're not the GPL... they offer variants that don't have the "viral clause" that requires those who use CC pieces to require that the whole work be licensed the same way. Since the strongest selling point of the CC system is that there are really sixteen CC licenses that are formed by mixing and matching four binary attributes. It's possible to insert a CC work into something that's under full copyright, and that's something the GPL just can't do. Flexablity is the whole point of CC.

But maybe they took the flexability too far here. I'm a little surprised the contest organizers left the free selection of CC licenses open to the entrants. I would have suggested that all entries be under a CC license with Attribution and No Derivative Works... therefore allowing anybody who wants to spread the word of Creative Commons to republish the essentially PSA ad works without dictating what the publisher has to do with theirs.

Afterall, the winners got some pretty cool stuff. They've been well paid for their work...

Bring on the artists

[nmoog]

Spend 10 minutes talking to an artist about OSS ideas and you have a OSS supporter. Art wants to be free. Software wants to be free. What a happy combination.

Now, we need to get those converted artists and get them making linux a little easier on the eyes! Although, you'd want to be careful about which artists helped out....

Re:Bring on the artists

[nmoog]

Yes, well there are musicians and there are musicians who are artists. You'd have to consider which type of musicians you have encountered in your experience.

Metallica has spoken out about their views of free==piracy, where has Aphex Twin has spoken out and said he couldnt give a shit if you took his whole album and released it under a different name. Not all musicians are artists. (and to be fair, not all artists are any good :)

Re:Bring on the artists

[LostCluster]

The way to explain the Creative Commons system to a music artist is this: There are other artists out there who need source material to use in their works, but don't have the money to pay you right now. If you release your song under a CC Attribution and No Commercial Use license, fans can listen to you and movie makers might be able to include you in their early films. However, if that movie maker finally gets a hit and wants to make money with their early film that used you, they've got to come back to you and buy the rights then. If a radio station wants to play your song, they have to at least contact you to get your permission. It's giving other artists at the same level a way to audition for partners so that a collective work.

Record labels angle to get their artists into movies not for the royalty money, but because being used in a hit movie can bring attention to an otherwise unknown artist. Artists perform for free on talk shows to promote themselves. If you're not bundled in with something somebody's already paying attention to, how's anybody going to notice you?

Of course, the closed label-system presently shuns anybody who has already distributed their work by bypassing them because they fear the first recording star who launches into the "big time" without a label contract...

Re:obligatory /. joke

[mlinksva]

Actually Ibiblio is hosting the files on behalf of CC on behalf of the winners. The files are also uploaded to the Internet Archive here here and here. IA has offered to host any CC-licensed content free of charge.