3 Nov
2008
3 Nov
'08
7:39 p.m.
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:12:42 +1030
Matthew Smith <matt(a)smiffytech.com> wrote:
<snip>
Attribution is the key to the whole thing. Whilst we
may not receive a
cent/penny/centi-euro when someone else packages and sells on our
music/software/etc., what we ARE getting is exposure. The more people
that get to see/hear/etc what we have done, the greater the chance that
people will start saying "this is great, we want more of this!" And
that's when - we hope - they will come to us and we will have an
opportunity to sell them something. That something may be a contract to
customise our piece of software, it may be a record deal.
If, however, we have placed restrictive licensing terms (like no
commercial) on our work, it may be passed over by those who could
otherwise give our careers a boost, never see the light of day, and
never make us any money anyway.
Hope this makes sense!
Cheers
M
What a lot of people forget is that CC is not restrictive. There is
nothing stopping you from having as many *other* license arrangements
as you like with individuals or corporations.
All my work is initially distributed in the form of medium quality oggs
or mp3s, licensed as BY, NC, SA, however I have agreed different
arrangements with several people that enables them limited commercial
rights.
It is taking time for people and organisations to appreciate CC
licenses, but they are slowly coming round.
--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk