Motivations:
← Older revision
Revision as of 15:36, 9 October 2012
(One intermediate revision by one user not shown)
Line 25:
Line 25:
== License Usage ==
== License Usage ==
-
'''Sita Sings The Blues''' is released under a [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ CC Attribution-Share Alike license], a decision Paley came to after her experience trying to license Annette Hanshaw's music.
+
'''Sita Sings The Blues''' is released under a [CC Attribution-Share Alike license], a decision Paley came to after her experience trying to license Annette Hanshaw's music.
== Motivations ==
== Motivations ==
Line 31:
Line 31:
Paley describes her motivation for using a CC BY-SA license at length in her featured interview at [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/14760 creativecommons.org]:
Paley describes her motivation for using a CC BY-SA license at length in her featured interview at [http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/14760 creativecommons.org]:
-
+
I want my film to reach the widest audience. It costs money to run a theater; it costs money to manufacture DVDs; it costs money to make and distribute 35mm film prints. It’s essential I allow people to make money distributing Sita these ways and others; otherwise, no one will do it. So I eschewed the “non commercial” license. Share Alike would “protect” the work from ever being locked up. It’s better than Public Domain; works are routinely removed from the Public Domain via privatized derivatives (just try making your own Pinocchio). I didn’t want some corporation locking up a play or TV show based on Sita. They are certainly welcome to make derivative works, and make money from them; in fact I encourage this. But they may not sue or punish anyone for sharing those works.
I want my film to reach the widest audience. It costs money to run a theater; it costs money to manufacture DVDs; it costs money to make and distribute 35mm film prints. It’s essential I allow people to make money distributing Sita these ways and others; otherwise, no one will do it. So I eschewed the “non commercial” license. Share Alike would “protect” the work from ever being locked up. It’s better than Public Domain; works are routinely removed from the Public Domain via privatized derivatives (just try making your own Pinocchio). I didn’t want some corporation locking up a play or TV show based on Sita. They are certainly welcome to make derivative works, and make money from them; in fact I encourage this. But they may not sue or punish anyone for sharing those works.
I looked to the Free Software movement as a model. The CC BY-SA license most closely resembles the GNU GPL, which is the foundation of Free Software. People make plenty of money in Free Software; there’s no reason they can’t do the same in Free Culture, except for those pernicious “non commercial” licenses. A Share Alike license eliminates the corporate abuse everyone’s so afraid of, while it encourages entrepreneurship and innovation. Everyone wins, especially the artist!
I looked to the Free Software movement as a model. The CC BY-SA license most closely resembles the GNU GPL, which is the foundation of Free Software. People make plenty of money in Free Software; there’s no reason they can’t do the same in Free Culture, except for those pernicious “non commercial” licenses. A Share Alike license eliminates the corporate abuse everyone’s so afraid of, while it encourages entrepreneurship and innovation. Everyone wins, especially the artist!
-
== Profit Breakdown ==
== Profit Breakdown ==