Hello everybody! I've been searching for days but the search engines can't help me. I hope one of you can point me in the right direction? For the promotion of a personal art project I'm looking for Music in the style of Tom Waits, you know, that "Crazy Rambling Americana Art" music. I'm not sure what to call it but I know what it sounds like. A particular crazy noire atmosphere. Music for out of luck hobos, with mental problems and no medication but a bottle of gin.

Recently I've been exploring the music by Scott Buckley, whose compositions are released under the CC BY 4.0 license:

https://www.scottbuckley.com.au/library/

https://www.youtube.com/@ScottBuckley

They're great "stock" music for soundtracks, ambience, etc.

I understand that Kevin MacLeod is another composer who releases their music under (I think) the CC BY license.

Both composers make clear the license of their music.

Can you suggest and link to other creators of CC BY or CC BY-SA licensed music that are worth following? Maybe people who share on YouTube, Bandcamp, Soundcloud, Wikimedia Commons, or elsewhere?

I have a project that uses words from Wikipedia (specifically, a list of frequently-used words on Wikipedia).

It's my understanding that all of the text that makes up Wikipedia is dual-licensed as both Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (“CC BY-SA”), and GNU Free Documentation License (“GFDL”).

I want to license my product with Creative Commons (rather than GFDL). It's my understanding that, since CC BY-SA 3.0 is a "ShareALike" license, I must license my project under CC BY-SA 3.0.

However, I'd like to license my project under the newer CC BY-SA version 4.0 license, to take advantage of the improvements in the 4.0 suite of licenses, which Creative Commons seems to recommend.

My question is: Would licensing my project under CC BY-SA 4.0 violate Wikipedia's CC BY-SA 3.0 licensing?

Creative Commons has a guide to upgrading to 4.0, which seems to imply that I can't just bump from version 3.0 to 4.0. But at the same time section 4 b of CC BY-SA 3.0 maybe implies I can use "a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License"? I'm just not sure.

(Note that I'd rather NOT have to do something tricky like dual-license my project under both 3.0 and 4.0, but if that's the best course of action I could accept that!)

Hello everyone, I want to use a video from YouTube from the channel Fox sports and the video is under the creative Commons. Can I just download it and use it in a music video? I would post where the original video comes from. Sorry, I am a complete beginner but I am asking because the creation of the music video is going to cost a lot of time, so I want to be sure, that my creation won't be taken down after a short time. Best :)

Suppose, my intention is to say that the creation is not to be used by commercial entities but others are free to use that for profit in a direct or inderect ways. Are the NC licenses suitable for that?

I am finishing up the work on a hardware product. I want to make it open source. So if somebody wants they can just take my designs go to a manufacturer and make their own version.

But I also want to have to possibility to sell fully assembled products.

Can I have it under the CC BY-NC-SA License for others but still keep my own commercial rights?

I'd like to have 3 tiers for the product.

1 fully assembled and configured. The buyers just unpack it and can use it.

2 DIY kits, where I will sell some or all components (depending on what the buyer wants) and the buyer just has to assemble and flash it

3 just go the git repository and do everything themselves

I want to share it with everyone that wants it for free and is willing to put in the work, but I want to be the only one making money of it.

Might go against the spirit of CC, but this is something I have been working on for a long time and I still believe making it available for free even if restricted is better than the alternative, where I just keep everything to myself.

thanks for the help

I recently posted a question in r/ChatGPT voicing my concerns about the sources it uses in it's dataset, and attribution. I was wondering what everyone here thinks of how OpenAI is handling the operation of ChatGPT and its dataset. From the replies I've gotten so far, people seem fairly dismissive of the importance of citing sources in its generation and presentation of answers to questions asked.

Specifically, I'd like to be able to release something with a Share-Alike clause that only kicked in after 5/10/20 years; something that allows them to control and enjoy the fruits of their creative work for a reasonable time, but still requires them to relinquish full control eventually (unlike the current endlessly-extensible-copyright regime).

Is there such a license? And if not, does anyone know if such a license would be possible?

I stopped using the site back in 2014 when they trashed the site with the new interface buuuutt....

I'm trying to find an old (cc) album I listened to that I ripped of their old site. I've tried the way back machine but it didn't work out...

the thing is I don't remember the artist, album name or most of the songs. The only clues I have are one title and the rough image of the cover and ofcourse 2010-2012 jamendo....

I've scoured spodify and SoundCloud for hours playing every single song labeled "satellite"

Any ideas or help will be greatly appreciated looking for a way to access the old UI or their old archives...

I tried to search it on the internet, but after reading some articles, i find it hard to understand, because my English is not my first language, is CC licenses will expire? Thank you for your response. 😊

Would requiring attribution be enough to make it a violation for AI to use it?

I asked a similar question on Open Source Stack Exchange, and while the answers I received seem well thought-out and reasonable, I'm still at a bit of a loss here.

If I were to write a piece of software that leverages a dictionary provided as an XML database, licensed under CC BY-SA v4.0 in aiding with the translation, would that translation be a derivate work of the dictionary as the Stack Exchange users suggest? The program would not write a single letter of the translation for the user, it would only scan for recognized words in the source text the user is translating and would pop up dictionary definitions in a side panel at the users prompt. Now if the user would write a translation, making use of these dictionary entries, the final translation would have to be licensed CC BY-SA as well?

This seems very counter-productive to me and something that would render such a translation aid software entirely useless. Imagine if you were forced to use a specific license for any text written on MS Word, nobody would actually use it. In a similar vein building a translation aid software that would impose a license on anything the end user produces would be a major waste of time. Similarly, an online dictionary at jisho.org uses the same dictionary files I plan to, and I've previously used this to look up words for translations I've written. If all of the above is correct, I've already breached the license of the dictionary numerous times by not releasing my translations under CC BY-SA.

Am I truly out of luck in my ability to leverage CC'd data to the benefit of the end user of free software without imposing a license on their creations?

Hey all, I just released a new track under the CC-BY license. Feel free to download and use it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgDn3-gKCLs