creative deconstruction

How Creative Commons Can Enhance Your Business Model

Posted on 22. Jun, 2009 by refe in STRATEGY

Recorded music – aside from being a powerful art form – can be an incredible promotional tool. Now that recorded music as a product is declining in value, its role has transitioned even more toward the promotion of other revenue such as live performances, merchandise, licensing, etc.

Unfortunately, traditional copyright law has not quite caught up with the way music is used today. I certainly don’t recommend abandoning copyright outright, but there are other options that can make a lot more sense for bands attempting to adopt innovative business models. Creative Commons licensing is perhaps the most significant of those options, supplementing traditional copyright and providing more flexibility in how the work can be engaged with and distributed. The question is how can Creative Commons fit into your business model?

I’ve tried to create a basic guide should help bands and musicians decide which of the six Creative Commons license works best with their business model. It’s not a one-size-fits-all thing, and a lot of thought needs to go into what you want to sell and how you plan to create revenue.

1. Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives

Here’s the description found on the Creative Commons website:

This license is the most restrictive of our six main licenses, allowing redistribution. This license is often called the “free advertising” license because it allows others to download your works and share them with others as long as they mention you and link back to you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially.

This is the closest thing to conventional copyright licensing that Creative Commons offers. Under this license, your fans will be able to share and download your music freely, but that’s where the ‘free’ stops. Fans are not able to create remixes, fan videos, mash-ups, covers, etc. without your permission.

In the above excerpt from the CC website you’ll see that this option has been dubbed the ‘free advertising’ license, but I think that in licensing your music this way you are actually limiting its potential promotional value. Don’t underestimate the power of fan created content. A good remix or mash-up can expose your work to listeners that might not be familiar with your work, or who would not normally be interested in your genre or style. For example, if your track is combined with another artist’s their fans will likely want to check out the original and you have potential to gain a new fan.

Remember: greater control over the licensing of your music does not translate directly into more revenue. Derivative works themselves may not earn licensing revenue, but if permission and a fee are required many fans will simply not bother working with your content in the first place, and the promotion potential will be diminished. It’s up to the individual artist to determine whether this is a trade off that makes sense for their model.

2. Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. Others can download and redistribute your work just like the by-nc-nd license, but they can also translate, make remixes, and produce new stories based on your work. All new work based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also be non-commercial in nature.

If I had to weigh in with my personal favorite this would be my pick. This form of licensing factors easily into a larger business strategy in that it provides for both high promotional potential (fans are allowed to create and distribute derivative works) as well as direct revenue sources. The ‘Non-Commercial’ provision requires permission to be obtained if your music is to be used commercially, which means that you have the opportunity to earn fees or royalties. ‘Share Alike’ requires that all derivative works must be licensed the same way which perpetuates the free use of your music and at the same time ensures that no one will use it to get paid without you getting a piece of the action.

3. Attribution Non-Commercial

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.

This is similar to the last option, minus ‘Share Alike.’ This means that those who remix your material are able to attach a more restrictive license to that content, and may therefore restrict how widely your content and its derivative works are distributed (and therefore promoted.) 

4. Attribution No Derivatives

This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to you.

Before considering this option or the two that follow, you had better have a strong revenue plan that does not rely on generating any profit from your music itself. No licensing fees, no royalties, no record sales, etc. You are giving film, TV, radio, blogs, and whoever else the liberty to share your music wherever they want and even to charge for it – and you wouldn’t be entitled to a dime. That isn’t to say that you couldn’t try to any of these types of payment, just that no one is likely to give it to you because they wouldn’t have to!

Re-mixes, mash-ups, fan videos, etc. would not be allowed, however. You might choose this option if you have plenty of revenue potential from other aspects of your business, but are concerned with keeping the integrity of your work intact. If someone is uploading your song, you can be confident it will be the entire song. This limits others’ ability to misrepresent you or your music, which may be important to some.

5. Attribution Share Alike

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial reasons, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to open source software licenses. All new works based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use.

Under this license others are able to do just about whatever they want with your music, except restrict it. This is basically a safeguard that no matter what is created by modifying your original content it will be completely free and available to all.

6. Attribution

This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered, in terms of what others can do with your works licensed under Attribution.

Not much to add here. No restrictions, other than making sure that you are credited for the original content.

Your Model

Creative Commons can be a great alternative to conventional copyright, provided that you have a clear strategy in place. Hopefully this guide will be helpful as you try to figure that out. Let me know your feedback. What are your thoughts on the different licensing options? Are you already utilizing CC for your music? What has your experience been?

Tags: business models, copyright, Creative Commons, Licenses, Remix