Of course we would be honored, but things like this are oppurtunities for faggots to come and steal music from here. Taking pride if your music is used is something i think most people do, but if you're missing out on a big pay check because they're stealing your music, would piss off anybody that's dedicated hard work and having to watch it get used without recognition.

some one needs to do some thing a bout this!

At 3/15/08 09:03 PM, DSMagnum wrote: I forgot another thing. You guys should be honored if someone were to even consider using one of your songs for anything. There's no need to get money for it. You should be happy enough with the acknowledgement you get.

Acknowledgment is great and all, and getting recognition is always a plus. But once someone starts using your free works to help themselves make some money, that's when it isn't ok anymore. That's been proven in courts again and again. :P

There's another possibility with the new change that hasn't been discussed yet - with "fair use," copyrighted samples could legally be used in submissions since there's nothing guaranteeing that you'd be getting money from it...

yeah, like Rig!

At 3/15/08 09:10 PM, Testicle wrote: Of course we would be honored, but things like this are oppurtunities for faggots to come and steal music from here. Taking pride if your music is used is something i think most people do, but if you're missing out on a big pay check because they're stealing your music, would piss off anybody that's dedicated hard work and having to watch it get used without recognition.

Your argument if flawed. First of all, no one can steal your music. You are still protected by that. You aren't protected from commercial usage. Also, you will get recognition. It's a part of the Attribution part in the license.

When I joined Newgrounds, my original intentions were to post on the Audio Portal for one reason: exposure. Tell me, how many of you actually joined because your music was protected by this license? How many of you think about it when you submit a song? Everytime you post a song, do you think "Hey, thank goodness this is protected by the non-commercial license!" or are you more interested in hearing what the users have to say about it? I'm sure most of you will go with the latter. A very small portion of the users actually care about the license, and the majority are only saying they care because this just happened.

At 3/15/08 09:18 PM, DSMagnum wrote: stuff

Ok fair enough, but i when i submitted music i always thought about the license, because incase some super rare occasion came along where someone wanted it, not likely, but, not impossible.
Ok yeah aswell maybe my argument there was flawed with the recognition parts but can't you get the underlying point of it? Rig pretty much said what i wanted to a few posts back..

While exposure is what most care about, it still is pretty shitty to have somebody make money off your work, while you are pushed aside.

Is it really that hard to grasp?

At 3/15/08 09:18 PM, DSMagnum wrote: Everytime you post a song, do you think "Hey, thank goodness this is protected by the non-commercial license!" or are you more interested in hearing what the users have to say about it?

Well, yeah. I felt secure that I had the legal thump behind me if I had to go after someone making money off of my song. Comments are nice, too. :)

At 3/15/08 09:03 PM, DSMagnum wrote: I forgot another thing. You guys should be honored if someone were to even consider using one of your songs for anything. There's no need to get money for it. You should be happy enough with the acknowledgement you get.

Thats the kinda of attitude that will get rid of all the good music on the audio protal. Like I said before why whould anyone post anything that they could make money off of on site that doesn't let them make any money off their music. It takes away any incentive to post good music.

At 3/15/08 08:43 PM, New-Milkman wrote: There's a good chance that Flash artists won't want to pay for their soundtracks, because if they were to win anything, they would have to pay the audio artist some of the money. (And with first prize being $3000 USD, it might be a bit hard to split.)

The submission agreement makes NG exempt from the non-comercial part of the licence so if some-one is awarded money from NG for a flash that uses music from the Audio portal, the audio artist has no right to it, even with the old lisencing.

At 3/15/08 09:17 PM, Rig wrote: Acknowledgment is great and all, and getting recognition is always a plus. But once someone starts using your free works to help themselves make some money, that's when it isn't ok anymore. That's been proven in courts again and again. :P

I thought about that for a second before posting, and really didn't think it was all that big of a deal. If you really want to make money for making music, don't submit it to Newgrounds. That's not why Newgrounds made the Audio Portal. It was made so audio artist could share their work and give each other help, not to make money.

At 3/15/08 09:30 PM, DSMagnum wrote: If you really want to make money for making music, don't submit it to Newgrounds. That's not why Newgrounds made the Audio Portal.

Regardless of your intentions, ITS STILL SHITTY!

At 3/15/08 09:24 PM, InsaneSmilie wrote: Thats the kinda of attitude that will get rid of all the good music on the audio protal. Like I said before why whould anyone post anything that they could make money off of on site that doesn't let them make any money off their music. It takes away any incentive to post good music.

They've been doing it since the license was there, so why is it going to be a big deal now? If the artist cares that much, they can put there own licensing agreements on their song pages, or just upload demos and link to their websites which protect the songs under the non-commercial license.

At 3/15/08 09:30 PM, DSMagnum wrote: If you really want to make money for making music, don't submit it to Newgrounds. That's not why Newgrounds made the Audio Portal. It was made so audio artist could share their work and give each other help, not to make money.

That may be true, but believe it or not, there are people out there who would want to make themselves some money with works of yours. I mean, it's only fair to acknowledge the work the musicians put into their songs by giving them a cut, eh?
How about if I sold a Newgrounds AP compilation CD, and didn't give you guys any money? Does that seem right? With the old licensing, you would have the right to sue me or whatever to get your share. But with the new licensing, you can't do anything about it.

At 3/15/08 09:18 PM, DSMagnum wrote: When I joined Newgrounds, my original intentions were to post on the Audio Portal for one reason: exposure. Tell me, how many of you actually joined because your music was protected by this license? How many of you think about it when you submit a song? Everytime you post a song, do you think "Hey, thank goodness this is protected by the non-commercial license!" or are you more interested in hearing what the users have to say about it? I'm sure most of you will go with the latter. A very small portion of the users actually care about the license, and the majority are only saying they care because this just happened.

The biggest problem with this change is that it effectively allows anyone to use your music for free. So if you had a song I wanted to publish on an album or perhaps release as a demo or promo track like TurmionKatilot does, you can't really can't do that. It's great way to discourage anyone from putting effort into their work. There is also of course the legal issue that many of us submitted our songs under a non-commercial licence, and now that licence has been changed without our consent.

Plainly put if some-one is using a song in a flash their making money off of, than that song has the potential to make money. Second I'm not sure how many artist showcase/promote their songs only on NG, but this new type of licencing prevents them for claiming royalties anywhere else as well since it would undermine any other licence that they had.

Music is a pretty big part of movies and games, and think if a flash artist wants good music they should be willing to split any royalties as well. If not than they can go ahead and throw together some crappy midi track on their own.

At 3/15/08 09:14 PM, ronay wrote: some one needs to do some thing a bout this!

NO NEED TO FEAR! RONAY IS HERE!

lol

At 3/15/08 09:37 PM, InsaneSmilie wrote: The biggest problem with this change is that it effectively allows anyone to use your music for free. So if you had a song I wanted to publish on an album or perhaps release as a demo or promo track like TurmionKatilot does, you can't really can't do that. It's great way to discourage anyone from putting effort into their work. There is also of course the legal issue that many of us submitted our songs under a non-commercial licence, and now that licence has been changed without our consent.

Really, they could release it if their label was down with allowing the track to be downloaded. 'Cause at that point if your allowing it to be available for download, if it gets used in a flash it doesn't matter much. And even the current licensing demands attribution, the only difference is that someone could cut a profit off it.

WHICH ONCE A FUCKING 'GAIN IS SHITTY.

At 3/15/08 09:03 PM, DSMagnum wrote: I forgot another thing. You guys should be honored if someone were to even consider using one of your songs for anything. There's no need to get money for it. You should be happy enough with the acknowledgement you get.

I disagree.. im not an audio artist by any means and im the most untalented audio anything :P

but if someone makes something like Shift 2, and that game has been sponsored for like thousands of dollars with your soundtrack.. isnt that slightly unfair to know that your talent made it possible for that person to enjoy thousands of dollars and they didnt bother giving you atleast 5% of that?

The issue isnt so much the audio portal, but etiquette in general... theres alot of educating we as a newgrounds community need to do to people out there.. even with a 'fix' in place from the audio portal.. its still impossible for newgrounds to govern deals that take place EVERYWHERE.. its wrong to spoil people into thinking that youre simply honored to be in a project.. of course your honored but if they are going to package their work with yours and sell it.. their appreciation and acknowledgement for what YOU are good at should be in the form of money.. especially if they are getting money for what THEY are good at.

meh thats my rant. I think that you gotta start somewhere and you gotta make it clear that sponsored games do count as commercial use.

At 3/15/08 09:44 PM, KaiserSzandor wrote: Rig, et al: You guys are making too big of a deal out of this. Sure they can make money using your songs. Would it be enough to make you 'rich and famous'? - Not really. On the upside, you'll still get exposure.

I'm not expecting to get rich and famous. Luis pretty much summed up what I've been saying :P

On another note, I find it curious that people are saying "oh noes summon Rig" about this, lol

I'm not even going to bother anymore. You guys just seem to be so sucked up in the money that you seem to forgot what the portal is really about. Just be glad you have ANY licenses now. Before when you submitted a song, anyone could use your song for anything and wouldn't have to give you credit. Now at least you're protected under the attribution license. If it means that much to you, though I'd hate to say it, take your music elsewhere.

When we initially put together the Creative Commons feature, it was meant to allow artists to CHOOSE their categorization... But that never got done. It was intended to default to what it is currently - since that was how the Audio Portal originally explained things - that you are putting your music out there, royalty free, for people to use.

The redesign launched with the wrong default and the original plan was just to fix it when the change was made to allow authors to change their settings, but that never happened either, so on a whim recently the default was changed to what it was intended to be.

But we're seeing how this is a huge problem so I'll make sure it gets changed back to what it was, and we'll wait until the feature is launched and people can manage their own categorization.

The big question in the air right now has been that when Flash makes money, do they owe the AP authors money? Historically, no, they don't. It would be courteous of them to share money with the AP authors, but it was never made that way. We are working on something that will facilitate this sort of thing in the future, although it still can't account for all areas of potential revenue for a Flash game or movie.

The old license basically says people CAN'T use your music in their Flash games if they make any money, and that's a problem - because a lot of Flash is making money nowadays. The current description DOES let them use your music, but the vocal concern seems to be that it also allows ANYONE to use your music. I think the real problem is, there is no Creative Commons settings that say "You can use this for commercial Flash, but not commercial anything else." So part of me is tempted to say we should throw the whole thing out.

At 3/15/08 09:42 PM, Luis wrote: but if someone makes something like Shift 2, and that game has been sponsored for like thousands of dollars with your soundtrack.. isnt that slightly unfair to know that your talent made it possible for that person to enjoy thousands of dollars and they didnt bother giving you atleast 5% of that?

Because my soundtrack totally determines the quality of the game.

At 3/15/08 09:51 PM, DSMagnum wrote: I'm not even going to bother anymore. You guys just seem to be so sucked up in the money that you seem to forgot what the portal is really about. Just be glad you have ANY licenses now. Before when you submitted a song, anyone could use your song for anything and wouldn't have to give you credit. Now at least you're protected under the attribution license. If it means that much to you, though I'd hate to say it, take your music elsewhere.

Seriously, you've got to be the most bigoted fuck. HOW THE FUCK CAN'T YOU GRASP THIS?

MONEY is NOT the PRIORITY.

It just UPSETTING when your hard work is being PROFITED by SOMEONE ELSE. Sure you DIDN'T CREATE THE FLASH your work was used as a part of it. So you should be allowed a share in that, simply because you put some work into it as well.

A nice part about creative commons is that you can come up with your own conditions-of-use with the guy who used your stuff. So I'd forgive small-scale projects, of course. But you know, several thousand dollars later, it seems fair to ask for something in return.

I think that the best way to handle it is to have it the way it was (or the way it seemed). If you automatically put us under a more protected license (like before) and state that our work is not to be used for commercial purposes unless an agreement is made between the author and musician, things seem to be okay.

I have to admit, though, that the whole thing is really ambiguous. It isn't completely clear what our rights are and what Flash authors' obligations are.

I wouldn't want my music to be used for commercial purposes without my knowledge and consent in any case, Flash or otherwise. I only think it's fair that I am entitled to compensation if my work is used commercially, and I definitely want to be the one to give permission.

I like the idea of letting audio artists choose their own license, but until then, I'd like to keep the rights I had.

Well I think Tom's post pretty much settles this, I still say the choose your lisence is the way to go.

At 3/15/08 10:19 PM, InsaneSmilie wrote: Well I think Tom's post pretty much settles this, I still say the choose your lisence is the way to go.

Agreed.

And towards Tom, thanks for the speedy response!

Nice one, now back to more pressing matters like..

Tom why doesn't your avatar look much like you?!

At 3/15/08 10:45 PM, Testicle wrote: Nice one, now back to more pressing matters like..
Tom why doesn't your avatar look much like you?!

The matter is still relevant, so please keep this thread on topic. I'm sure plenty of people have opinions on the licensing of their music...

also, tom shaved.

At 3/15/08 11:01 PM, Rig wrote:

At 3/15/08 10:45 PM, Testicle wrote: Nice one, now back to more pressing matters like..
Tom why doesn't your avatar look much like you?!

The matter is still relevant, so please keep this thread on topic. I'm sure plenty of people have opinions on the licensing of their music...

also, tom shaved.

I liked the security I felt knowing that my music couldn't leave the boundaries of the site without my authorisation. I probably wouldn't decline someone the use of my music in a commercial flash, provided that the ask me about it. I don't like how people can do whatever with my music without my knowing it...

At 3/15/08 09:03 PM, DSMagnum wrote: I forgot another thing. You guys should be honored if someone were to even consider using one of your songs for anything. There's no need to get money for it. You should be happy enough with the acknowledgement you get.

You're completely missing the point here. The POINT is that whoever decides to scrap up a piece for the next money-making venture doesn't even need to ask the artists permission anymore (if it's from newgrounds of course). You may not even know that your music was ever used in any production because legally all the producer/director/artistic overseer of the incorporating project has to do is shove a tiny little footnote at end of said product and that's the end. You are none the wiser.

Because it is a site-wide application, the person pulling your content doesn't even have to check another separate text-field or click on a licensing link to find out where the intellectual property stands. They just download and utilize. It's basically like a free-for-all. It's the next worst thing to pure public domain.