OverClocked ReMix Content Policy - Final Enacted 6/12/2007

[djpretzel]

Final policy available at: http://www.ocremix.org/info/Content_Policy

Comments, feedback, and discussion can still take place on this thread, since this is where most of the back and forth originally took place. We have enacted what we believe is a final policy that reaches an optimal balance between letting the site move forward and ensuring that the mutual interests of artists, listeners, and the site itself are respected. Revisions to the policy may still be necessary, but as of 6/12/2007 it is in effect in its current form.

[DrumUltimA]

I like it. Actually answers a lot of questions I've been wondering anyway. Cool.

[DragonFireKai]

"Unless otherwise stated, ownership of all works submitted to OverClocked ReMix is retained by the submitting artist."

"Once a work is submitted and accepted, OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to reject removal requests on the part of the submitting artist"

Hmmmm... I'm interested as to how these two sections will mix on a legal level. If the submitting atist retains all ownership rights, then wouldn't they have final legal say in weather or not it can be displayed on OCR?

The rest of it looks fine.

[Arek the Absolute]

"Unless otherwise stated, ownership of all works submitted to OverClocked ReMix is retained by the submitting artist."

"Once a work is submitted and accepted, OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to reject removal requests on the part of the submitting artist"

Hmmmm... I'm interested as to how these two sections will mix on a legal level. If the submitting atist retains all ownership rights, then wouldn't they have final legal say in weather or not it can be displayed on OCR?

The rest of it looks fine.

Simple, my avatar sharing friend.

By submitting their mix to OCRemix, they are subjecting the mix to be controlled by DJP, allowing him to do with it as he choses, while of course not claiming ownership of the mix.

Why submit a mix if you don't acknowledge the fact that that is how it has been since day one?

Do the two comments you quoted contradict each other? Pretty much, but it was a basic unwritten law here before it was blurbed before.

DJP should allow someone to remove their mix if they wish to, like DoD does, but you choosing to submit a mix here should show that you are aware of all risks that goes with your decision.

[zircon]

They're not really contradictory. The first quote says that the rights belong to the mixer except "where otherwise stated". The second quote is basically stating an exception, that you don't have TOTAL control over distribution of your mix. If you sub it here, Dave doesn't have to take it down when you ask later.

[Bahamut]

They're not really contradictory. The first quote says that the rights belong to the mixer except "where otherwise stated". The second quote is basically stating an exception, that you don't have TOTAL control over distribution of your mix. If you sub it here, Dave doesn't have to take it down when you ask later.

What about prior submissions?

[The Coop]

Once a work is submitted and accepted, OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to reject removal requests on the part of the submitting artist. Artists whose removal requests are granted may no longer have their submissions evaluated and be effectively prohibited from contributing further material, depending on the nature of the request.

This is a bit vague in spots. Are you saying that the artist will no longer be able to submit remixes to OCR, or are you saying they might not be able to? The "Depending on the nature of the request" part suggests the latter, but "Artists whose removal requests are granted may no longer have..." suggests the former. A little rewording for clarification might be needed there, and in the "contributing further material" part. Maybe something like...

"Once a work is submitted and accepted, OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to reject removal requests on the part of the submitting artist. Artists whose removal requests have been granted are at risk for no longer having their submissions evaluated, and thus being effectively prohibited from contributing further material to OverClocked Remix. The decision to allow or not allow future submissions from artists who have been granted a removal request is under the sole discretion of OverClocked Remix, and will depend on the nature of the request."

[The Orichalcon]

The Coop: Your point is one of the points we discussed. Generally if a mixer requests that a mix be removed, it will be granted and the mixer will not be barred from submitting remixes again. (An example would be a mixer who submits a mix that they later strongly regret submitting for quality or personal reasons. As long as they've shown a legitemate reason for a removal request and had time to think about it.) That rule is pretty much there to prevent another remixer "exodus" from happening again. ie: If people insist on having all their remixes removed out of anger for the site or some similar train of thought, then Dave holds the right to refuse to allow them to ever submit again, or "come crawling back" in a more fitting description.

[Arek the Absolute]

that makes more sense then

can you like add what to said to your post djp?

explains it a hell of a lot better

[The Coop]

The Coop: Your point is one of the points we discussed. Generally if a mixer requests that a mix be removed, it will be granted and the mixer will not be barred from submitting remixes again. (An example would be a mixer who submits a mix that they later strongly regret submitting for quality or personal reasons. As long as they've shown a legitemate reason for a removal request and had time to think about it.) That rule is pretty much there to prevent another remixer "exodus" from happening again. ie: If people insist on having all their remixes removed out of anger for the site or some similar train of thought, then Dave holds the right to refuse to allow them to ever submit again, or "come crawling back" in a more fitting description.

I see. Unfortunately, that still doesn't give the paragraph I quoted any greater sense of clarity in terms of language. It may obviously mean what you said to yourself and the other staff, but for someone who wasn't privy to your discussions, it doesn't read so clearly. As such, I still feel it needs a touch of rewriting to better convey what you just posted, Orichalcon.

[Dhsu]

The Coop: Your point is one of the points we discussed. Generally if a mixer requests that a mix be removed, it will be granted and the mixer will not be barred from submitting remixes again. (An example would be a mixer who submits a mix that they later strongly regret submitting for quality or personal reasons. As long as they've shown a legitemate reason for a removal request and had time to think about it.) That rule is pretty much there to prevent another remixer "exodus" from happening again. ie: If people insist on having all their remixes removed out of anger for the site or some similar train of thought, then Dave holds the right to refuse to allow them to ever submit again, or "come crawling back" in a more fitting description.

I'm not sure I see the point of what seems to me is essentially a "grudge clause." What would djp accomplish by rejecting people who WANT to come back?

[zircon]

I think it's essentially to dissuade people from throwing tantrums and badgering us to remove their mixes on a whim, then later coming back and saying "No, wait, I didn't mean it." Could be wrong though.

[Dyne]

The following represents my first stab at creating a formalized content policy for OverClocked ReMix. It has been reviewed by the judges panel for content and policy and by a couple lawyers I know on more technical grounds.

Before finalizing this and putting it into effect, we're interested in getting some community feedback, especially from ReMixers, who it most directly affects, but also from those using mixes in their podcasts, radio stations, projects, etc. Even if you're neither, if you have suggestions/comments/questions, please let me know. This is the first time we've taken steps to develop something that clearly maps out what can and can't be done with ReMixes, by the site, by submitting artists, and by third parties, and is thus an important document that deserves to be discussed and revised until it's ready for prime time.

In many ways this document only states the status quo more formally - most of the written policy was already informally followed or inferred elsewhere. However, there are a couple entirely new points that are covered:

• Copyright owners of the original arranged music may use OverClocked ReMixes in a for-profit context.
  
• Formalized mix removal policy (extremely important to all submitting artists).
  
• Live performance exemption for commercial contexts.
  
• No indemnification of either submitting artists or third-parties using OverClocked ReMixes elsewhere.

The entire document is worth discussing in detail, but these points perhaps deserve more focus due to their not previously being articulated, formally or informally, on the site. Obviously, this site is fueled by listeners, but the engine itself is made of ReMixers, and since this policy affects the music they bleed, sweat, and toil to produce and submit, feedback from this group is particularly valuable. If you know any mixers that may not frequent these forums often, please let them know this discussion is taking place, as they will most likely want to chime in, or at least see what's going on.

I've always liked the less formal, more fun attitude we've all taken towards doing this, and that's not gonna change, even if the legalese below sounds all fine-print and evil and Microsoft EULA-esque. I tried very hard to clarify the lines between ownership and utilization, and believe appropriate control has still been left in the hands of ReMixers, where it belongs. Nevertheless, we get a lot of questions about using mixes elsewhere, and other related issues come up routinely, such that a formalized content policy seemed like a necessary step towards growing the site both outward and upward in a manageable fashion.

Your feedback is appreciated!

Thanks,

David Lloyd

President & Founder, OverClocked ReMix

________________________________________________________________________

OverClocked ReMix Content Policy DRAFT

For submitting artists:

• Unless otherwise stated, ownership of all works submitted to OverClocked ReMix is retained by the submitting artist.
  
• OverClocked ReMix evaluates submitted works from all individuals, regardless of age, race, religion, color, sex, sexual preference, or ethnicity.
  
• OverClocked ReMix has the sole ability to distribute music under its name, as designated by "OC ReMix" in track titles, the "OC_ReMix" file suffix, or other indicators clearly establishing attribution of works to OverClocked ReMix.
  
• Evaluation and acceptance or rejection of submitted works is under the sole discretion of OverClocked ReMix.
  
• OverClocked ReMix in no way indemnifies submitting artists from legal action on the part of copyright holders.
  
• OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to redistribute submitted works through outlets other than http://www.ocremix.org, including but not limited to streaming radio stations, physical media, and mirror sites.
  
• Once a work is submitted and accepted, OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to reject removal requests on the part of the submitting artist. Artists whose removal requests are granted may no longer have their submissions evaluated and be effectively prohibited from contributing further material, depending on the nature of the request.
  
• OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to remove submitted and accepted works at any time, for reasons including but not limited to violation of submission standards and DMCA violations.
  
• OverClocked ReMix will not distribute submitted works for profit.
  
• All revenue generated by advertising presented in the context of submitted works will be used solely for site operating costs.

For those broadcasting OverClocked ReMixes live or including them in other works (videos, school projects, presentations, podcasts, streaming radio, etc.):

• OverClocked ReMixes may not be redistributed for profit, or used in the context of commercial works, except by the original copyright owners of the arranged material(s).
  
• OverClocked ReMixes may be used in any non-profit works without requesting explicit permission from OverClocked ReMix or the submitting artist, so long as credit is given. At a minimum, credit is defined as clear attribution of the work(s) in question to OverClocked ReMix as well as contextual presentation of the full site URL, "http://www.ocremix.org". This information should be presented as close to the utilized material as reasonably possible; if the OverClocked ReMixes are used in a video, accreditation can be included in credits at the end, but if displayed on a website, it should be prominently displayed in context with the utilized works. Additional credit to the original artist(s) responsible for each OverClocked ReMix used is requested, whenever possible.
  
• Live performance or playback of OverClocked ReMixes may occur in commercial, for-profit spaces such as stores, private clubs, or other gatherings, so long as no cost is explicitly associated with listening to them and no endorsement of the commercial entity by OverClocked ReMix can be inferred.
  
• OverClocked ReMixes may not be credited to anyone other than their actual, submitting authors and the website itself.
  
• If OverClocked ReMixes are being made available in redistributable form as audio files, they may not be modified in any way from the MP3 versions made available on http://www.ocremix.org . This includes but is not limited to any modifications to ID3 tagging.
  
• OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to deny continued usage of OverClocked ReMixes in any works.
  
• OverClocked ReMix in no way indemnifies those utilizing OverClocked ReMixes from legal action on the part of copyright holders.

I honestly believe that this is long past due. It clearly defines for one and all what is acceptable, and what is not acceptable. It helps a lot of the newer forum users a lot in that they no longer need to ask questions about the context in which they may want to showcase to their peers and others OCR, all they need do is read the Content Policy, and be enlightened.

Excellent step in the right direction. It only gets better from here.

[big giant circles]

I think it's essentially to dissuade people from throwing tantrums and badgering us to remove their mixes on a whim, then later coming back and saying "No, wait, I didn't mean it." Could be wrong though.

that was my interpretation. not necessarily a "who's your daddy???" type thing, but more of a "think before you throw your tantrum" thing.

[Dyne]

that was my interpretation. not necessarily a "who's your daddy???" type thing, but more of a "think before you throw your tantrum" thing.

Which is good policy. It keeps people from being stupid and undermining the operation by wanting their remixes removed for no other reason than "Oh snap! Take it down cuz I think it suxx0rz!" Or the like...

[José the Bronx Rican]

that was my interpretation. not necessarily a "who's your daddy???" type thing, but more of a "think before you throw your tantrum" thing.

Makes perfect sense to me: why put themselves at risk for future "removal requests" (read: the next mood swing) from the same person?

Everything looks fine where I'm sitting.

[Dhsu]

I think that if a ReMixer throws a tantrum, his judgment has already been clouded by his emotions and he's not really going to be swayed by some fine print he probably hasn't even read. That's why people always change their minds *after* the fact. And what's the point of punishing them at that point?

That said, it's not so much that I mind djp refusing to put old mixes back up, as that's kind of a hassle. What I'm bothered by is the threat of rejecting all future submissions...that in my mind crosses the line from being practical to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If this is in response to the infamous J.D. Harding incident, well...how often do things like that happen, really? I think extreme cases like his are few and far enough in between that it wouldn't hurt to just humor them.

If it's really that big of a deal to remove someone's remixes...then don't remove them. It solves the problem just as effectively, and without resorting to exile.

[PassivePretentiousness]

• If OverClocked ReMixes are being made available in redistributable form as audio files, they may not be modified in any way from the MP3 versions made available on http://www.ocremix.org . This includes but is not limited to any modifications to ID3 tagging.

I can't burn a mix cd for someone?

[djpretzel]

If it's really that big of a deal to remove someone's remixes...then don't remove them. It solves the problem just as effectively, and without resorting to exile.

Thank you sir; I've considered this suggestion and believe it makes sense. I've removed the "grudge clause" and simply indicated that we reserve the right to refuse removal requests, which is sufficient.

I can't burn a mix cd for someone?

I've added a line that clearly indicates that we're referring to public redistribution, and that modification for personal use is acceptable.

As for the very tricky subject of prior submissions, made before this policy is formalized and put into effect... I don't know yet. One possibility is that, when submitting any future works, that mixer would also be agreeing that previously submitted works would be subject to the same policy... but for artists that never submit anything ever again, their stuff might be "grandfathered" under more lenient guidelines. I don't know, our previous policy was really almost identical, except that we never flatly refused to remove mixes, because I felt doing so without a formalized policy in place would be unfair.

I have also updated the thread title to indicate that, unless there is ongoing, unresolved discussion that represents the concerns of multiple individuals, we aim to finalize this document next weekend on 5/27/07 and put it into effect immediately afterwards.

[debeerguy007]

My eyes went crossed reading this.

ROFL.

The draft seems fairly reasonable thus far, so no big complaints from me.

[Joe Redifer]

Looks good to me, but perhaps the following needs a bit of clarification:

• OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to deny continued usage of OverClocked ReMixes in any works.

This might contradict with the ownership of the original submitter. I shall grace thee with an example. Let's say ReMixer A allows me to use his remix in a video I made, and the ReMix is currently here at OCR. ReMixer A says I can use his tunage whenever and wherever I may exhibit the video. But if OCR (for whatever reason... doesn't matter) decides to deny the right of continued usage of the tune in my video, who wins? I highly doubt anything like this would ever happen, but it is good to find holes in order to close them. In answer to this "problem", I would say the original submitting artist's wishes would win.

[djpretzel]

Looks good to me, but perhaps the following needs a bit of clarification:

• OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to deny continued usage of OverClocked ReMixes in any works.

This might contradict with the ownership of the original submitter. I shall grace thee with an example. Let's say ReMixer A allows me to use his remix in a video I made, and the ReMix is currently here at OCR. The ReMixer A says I can use his tunage whenever and wherever I may exhibit the video. But if OCR (for whatever reason... doesn't matter) decides to deny the right of continued usage of the tune in my video, who wins? I highly doubt anything like this would ever happen, but it is good to find holes in order to close them. In answer to this "problem", I would say the original submitting artist's wishes would win.

They'd absolutely win; the subtlety here is that we're denying usage of the music specifically as an OC ReMix; if the mixer wanted the piece used but we didn't, for some reason, then the piece could still be used, but attribution to OCR would need to be removed. It's the attribution to OCR that we're concerned about, primarily; a mixer owns his or her music, and we can't say where they can or can't use it.

If, however, the mixer was unreachable, or had not yet been contacted, then simply removing the attribution to OCR wouldn't be good enough, as the implicit allowance of use through the OCR policy would have been retracted.

[Joe Redifer]

Cool. Gotcha.

[Rexy]

Well I've been slowly practicing with music videos recently, but if I need to use a specific song, should I explicitly ask the artist or the site staff?

With that question out of context however, the DRAFT looks promising.

[Wintermute]

For the most part this seems like very clearcut, useful rules, many of which are aimed at protecting the work from wanton stealing, etc. I like it.