![Mre. Dartigen [maker mode]](https://mediacdn.aus.social/accounts/avatars/108/195/770/473/016/150/original/d5b937db377b2251.gif "Mre. Dartigen [maker mode]")
I thought some of you nerds might like to hear about this brand new open textbook published by my uni:
Insect Science
by Gurion Ang and Kathryn Ebert
https://uq.pressbooks.pub/insect-science/
You can read this #creativeCommons book online or download it as e.g. PDF or ePub.
I thought some of you nerds might like to hear about this brand new open textbook published by my uni:
Insect Science
by Gurion Ang and Kathryn Ebert
https://uq.pressbooks.pub/insect-science/
You can read this #creativeCommons book online or download it as e.g. PDF or ePub.
New #Faircamp Release: "Melody 2 - Tag You're It"
Copyright (C) 2025 Flock of Nazguls. License: #CreativeCommons CC BY-NC-SA
This is the new track from my album-in-draft "The Well-Tempered Deluge (Volume One)."
New #Faircamp Release: "Melody 2 - Tag You're It"
Copyright (C) 2025 Flock of Nazguls. License: #CreativeCommons CC BY-NC-SA
This is the new track from my album-in-draft "The Well-Tempered Deluge (Volume One)."
Releasing music as #CreativeCommons is no doubt the right thing to do…but it’s costly.
The real money made in the music industry is from sync licensing…music that you hear in TV, video games, and movies.
However, the media companies paying out thousands of dollars in licensing fees to artists like me don’t want Creative Commons music.
Here’s why:
🧵1/5
So if you’re interested in supporting #CreativeCommons media, please check out my Bandcamp page: https://megabyteghost.Bandcamp.com.
I’m currently over $50,000 in debt because I tried to start a CC-exclusive record label not knowing that the way record labels stay in business is by sync licensing music to TV, games, and movies.
I’m working with an organization and we’re getting my debt down. I’m on a repayment plan that is about $800/month.
I don’t want to give up on CC media. And I won’t.
🧵5/5
That’s a potential $300,000-$500,000 I’m leaving on the table.
To do “what’s right”.
I will continue to make #CreativeCommons music.
Because it’s the right thing to do.
Art should be in the commons. Especially when it’s essentially free for me to infinitely reproduce a digital file.
No artificial scarcity here.
But you gotta understand: this is not really sustainable.
Streaming pays out, for me, $0.0014 per stream.
If you want CC to exist you gotta BUY IT.
🧵4/5
That’s a potential $300,000-$500,000 I’m leaving on the table.
To do “what’s right”.
I will continue to make #CreativeCommons music.
Because it’s the right thing to do.
Art should be in the commons. Especially when it’s essentially free for me to infinitely reproduce a digital file.
No artificial scarcity here.
But you gotta understand: this is not really sustainable.
Streaming pays out, for me, $0.0014 per stream.
If you want CC to exist you gotta BUY IT.
🧵4/5
So if you’re interested in supporting #CreativeCommons media, please check out my Bandcamp page: https://megabyteghost.Bandcamp.com.
I’m currently over $50,000 in debt because I tried to start a CC-exclusive record label not knowing that the way record labels stay in business is by sync licensing music to TV, games, and movies.
I’m working with an organization and we’re getting my debt down. I’m on a repayment plan that is about $800/month.
I don’t want to give up on CC media. And I won’t.
🧵5/5
If at any point you ever wonder, “why don’t more artists release #CreativeCommons,” this is why. It hurts our income, which hurts our ability to put food on the table.
Even artists who aren’t interested in making a living from their music still have to buy gear. Gear is expensive. Gas money to play shows is expensive.
I actually do produce music for sync licensing. The pay is usually $3000-$5000 per song.
Right now I have around 100 songs I’ve released as Creative Commons.
🧵3/5
That’s a potential $300,000-$500,000 I’m leaving on the table.
To do “what’s right”.
I will continue to make #CreativeCommons music.
Because it’s the right thing to do.
Art should be in the commons. Especially when it’s essentially free for me to infinitely reproduce a digital file.
No artificial scarcity here.
But you gotta understand: this is not really sustainable.
Streaming pays out, for me, $0.0014 per stream.
If you want CC to exist you gotta BUY IT.
🧵4/5
🧵2/5
If at any point you ever wonder, “why don’t more artists release #CreativeCommons,” this is why. It hurts our income, which hurts our ability to put food on the table.
Even artists who aren’t interested in making a living from their music still have to buy gear. Gear is expensive. Gas money to play shows is expensive.
I actually do produce music for sync licensing. The pay is usually $3000-$5000 per song.
Right now I have around 100 songs I’ve released as Creative Commons.
🧵3/5
Releasing music as #CreativeCommons is no doubt the right thing to do…but it’s costly.
The real money made in the music industry is from sync licensing…music that you hear in TV, video games, and movies.
However, the media companies paying out thousands of dollars in licensing fees to artists like me don’t want Creative Commons music.
Here’s why:
🧵1/5
how come @ccreleases has only 210 followers?
how come @ccreleases has only 210 followers?
[OLDIES BUT GOODIES]
Openverse è un motore di ricerca multilingue per oltre 700 milioni di immagini e file audio con licenza Creative Commons: https://openverse.org/it Con Openverse, gli utenti possono trovare, condividere, remixare e attribuire facilmente le opere con licenza CC in tutto il web.
#OpenVerse#MotoreDiRicerca#CreativeCommons#SearchEngine #conoscenza #scuola
@scuola@a.gup.pe
@scuola@mastodon.uno
@maupao
@lealternative
@opensource
@informapirata
@alephoto85
@devol
@prealpinux
@dado
[OLDIES BUT GOODIES]
Openverse è un motore di ricerca multilingue per oltre 700 milioni di immagini e file audio con licenza Creative Commons: https://openverse.org/it Con Openverse, gli utenti possono trovare, condividere, remixare e attribuire facilmente le opere con licenza CC in tutto il web.
#OpenVerse#MotoreDiRicerca#CreativeCommons#SearchEngine #conoscenza #scuola
@scuola@a.gup.pe
@scuola@mastodon.uno
@maupao
@lealternative
@opensource
@informapirata
@alephoto85
@devol
@prealpinux
@dado
copyleft-next contributor, @bkuhn, posted his views on @creativecommons's Attribution-Share-Alike license.
bkuhn explains why he doesn't believe #CC-BY-SA is actually a #coypleft license.
https://lists.copyleft.org/pipermail/next/2025q3/000016.html
“Source code provisions” are an essential aspect of copyleft licenses — even for those that are designed for non-software works.
Much work remains to determine how to draft a “source code provision”. Copyleft-next hopes to get there eventually. Maybe #CreativeCommons could help!
copyleft-next contributor, @bkuhn, posted his views on @creativecommons's Attribution-Share-Alike license.
bkuhn explains why he doesn't believe #CC-BY-SA is actually a #coypleft license.
https://lists.copyleft.org/pipermail/next/2025q3/000016.html
“Source code provisions” are an essential aspect of copyleft licenses — even for those that are designed for non-software works.
Much work remains to determine how to draft a “source code provision”. Copyleft-next hopes to get there eventually. Maybe #CreativeCommons could help!
At its core, #CCSignals is an attempt by Creative Commons, a Silicon Valley-based organisation, to legitimise the AI grifts of its donors – Google, Microsoft, and Meta (Zuckerberg).
Creative Commons was always a thinly-veiled attempt at enabling Big Tech data farmers to get more data (that’s why the whole “open data” realm is so well funded/popular – open as in “open for business” not free as in “freedom”) but at least their original licenses (non-commercial, share-alike, no derivatives, and yes, sometimes even just attribution) were genuinely useful for people as well as for corporations.
I like to think (perhaps naïvely, I don’t know) that Lawrence Lessig had his heart in the right place when he came up with it all. But I’m biased. I learned how to present from him (including how to use my presentation display) and we even presented a session together back in the day when I was running Open Source Flash. I’m also a big fan of his concept of “institutional corruption”. But I have no illusions that we see eye to eye on all things and I haven’t spoken to him in over a decade.
Anyway, that’s neither here nor there.
This is Creative Commons jumping the shark (is jumping the shark the original enshittification?) and destroying their credibility with a scheme that doesn’t benefit people, only their corporate donors.
Keep using the existing licenses, as they have value, but don’t help them legitimise this latest land grab by the same trillion-dollar corporations and billionaires who are busy destroying our habitat, human rights, and democracy.
In fact, if they go ahead with this, it might be an idea to fork the original Creative Commons licenses and publish them under a different name in an effort to counter the use of their legitimacy to whitewash Big AI.
#CreativeCommons#SiliconValley#BigTech#BigAI#AIhttps://mastodon.cloud/@raymondpert/114754532045016792
At its core, #CCSignals is an attempt by Creative Commons, a Silicon Valley-based organisation, to legitimise the AI grifts of its donors – Google, Microsoft, and Meta (Zuckerberg).
Creative Commons was always a thinly-veiled attempt at enabling Big Tech data farmers to get more data (that’s why the whole “open data” realm is so well funded/popular – open as in “open for business” not free as in “freedom”) but at least their original licenses (non-commercial, share-alike, no derivatives, and yes, sometimes even just attribution) were genuinely useful for people as well as for corporations.
I like to think (perhaps naïvely, I don’t know) that Lawrence Lessig had his heart in the right place when he came up with it all. But I’m biased. I learned how to present from him (including how to use my presentation display) and we even presented a session together back in the day when I was running Open Source Flash. I’m also a big fan of his concept of “institutional corruption”. But I have no illusions that we see eye to eye on all things and I haven’t spoken to him in over a decade.
Anyway, that’s neither here nor there.
This is Creative Commons jumping the shark (is jumping the shark the original enshittification?) and destroying their credibility with a scheme that doesn’t benefit people, only their corporate donors.
Keep using the existing licenses, as they have value, but don’t help them legitimise this latest land grab by the same trillion-dollar corporations and billionaires who are busy destroying our habitat, human rights, and democracy.
In fact, if they go ahead with this, it might be an idea to fork the original Creative Commons licenses and publish them under a different name in an effort to counter the use of their legitimacy to whitewash Big AI.
#CreativeCommons#SiliconValley#BigTech#BigAI#AIhttps://mastodon.cloud/@raymondpert/114754532045016792
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
