Sign in to follow this  
djpretzel

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

Recommended Posts

The third draft has been completed and is available for review at http://www.ocremix.org/info/Content_Policy

Major changes include the following:

  • General rewording with assistance from Prophecy
  • Additional ownership clause:
    • "By submitting material, YOU indicate that YOU are the sole owner(s) of the material and contributor(s) to the arrangement of said material in the form of a derivative work, as defined by the current Submission Standards and Instructions and subject to review."

    [*]Modification to OCR removal clause:

    • "OverClocked ReMix reserves the right to remove submitted materials at any time due to violations of the current Submission Standards and Instructions or requests by third party copyright holders."
      • ... meaning we can't just remove your mixes because we think you smell or you hurt our feelings...

    [*]Modification/addition to license termination clause:

    • "Generally, OverClocked ReMix will not agree to most removal requests, and will evaluate such requests with regards to the best interests of the community."
      • ... clearly spelling out with far less ambiguity what's been discussed...

    [*]Modification to terms of use:

    • "In the case of public or semi-public performances where accreditation is not reasonable, responding to audience inquiries with this information will suffice."
      • ... meaning that Taucer's gym classes or other situations where citing every last artist/mix would be ridiculous are cool, so long as people are directed to ocremix.org if they take the initiative and ask...

There's more equality now... while we might refuse removal requests, we ourselves can't just remove any mix because we feel like it. Furthermore, there's a declaration of intent regarding license termination that makes it clear that removal is unlikely, so we're not trying to pull a fast one. Finally, Taucer's concern about accreditation for semi-public performances has been addressed.

Site projects will be covered by this policy. The policy itself does not need to explicitly refer to such projects; rather, the project guidelines will be modified to indicate the necessity of this agreement upon project completion.

The "grandfathering" of previous mixes does not need to be spelled out in this policy. If no one explicitly agrees to a policy, it clearly can't be enacted retroactively without consent. We plan on seeking out such consent for all existing mixes. ReMixes of those who decline or are unreachable will not be removed, but will also not be included in certain distribution/promotional channels.

I'm still very up for discussing and potentially revising this policy, but after due consideration with input from many, I continue to believe that the license termination policy should remain intact and essentially unaltered. All removal reasons to date have not swayed me on this point, and all alternatives suggested have been impractical, infeasible, very limiting, highly undesirable, or some combination thereof. Therefore, please focus on aspects of the policy not related to license termination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This addresses one of my concerns about using the music for routines, but not the other: I often (in fact, almost always) have to modify tracks to make them work as floor routine music, which goes explicitly against part C of the terms of use.

I have always asked the ReMixers before using their ReMixes as routine music. Does this constitute getting a separate license from the remixer? If so, then don't worry about changing the terms of use just to accomodate me; I can just continue to use remixes with permission (ie licenses) obtained directly from the arranger.

IF we go by the assumption that I am using it under an independant license from the remixer, it raises another issue: should/could I still attribute the track to OCR if anybody asks? I would be using a modified version of the mix under a different license from the one offered by the site; though it would not be explicitly against the terms of use for me to attribute it to OCR, it seems it would be a violation of the submission agreement for the arranger to give me permission to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This addresses one of my concerns about using the music for routines, but not the other: I often (in fact, almost always) have to modify tracks to make them work as floor routine music, which goes explicitly against part C of the terms of use.

Well, note the bold term:

C.) If OverClocked ReMixes are being redistributed, they may not be modified in any way from the MP3

Performance isn't really redistribution; we're concerned about modification of the files themselves if the files are being moved around, but playing them out loud is less distribution and more... playing them out loud. So the modification clause is moot, since it's not redistribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By submitting material, YOU indicate that YOU are the sole owner(s) of the material and contributor(s) to the arrangement of said material in the form of a derivative work, as defined by the current Submission Standards and Instructions and subject to review.

A few of the mixes on the site have samples from films or little motifs taken from other tracks, what would the situation be when using them in a submitted mix?

This license may be terminated at any time if both YOU and OverClocked ReMix agree to the termination. Generally, OverClocked ReMix will not agree to most removal requests, and will evaluate such requests with regards to the best interests of the community.

I'm bringing this up because of the wording. The word "most" sounds redundant after "generally". Perhaps something like:

Generally, OverClocked ReMix will not agree to removal requests. Such requests will be evaluated with regards to the best interests of the community.

...redistributing OverClocked ReMixes in the context of commercial advertisments.

Just pointing out a spelling mistake in section A of the Terms of Use.

I think this new version is much more solid. Most of my issues have been addressed either through the topic or in the new draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm bringing this up because of the wording. The word "most" sounds redundant after "generally". Perhaps something like:

Generally, OverClocked ReMix will not agree to removal requests. Such requests will be evaluated with regards to the best interests of the community.

I agree with andy.

I still don't see this is the right way to do this, and as much as you repeat "YOU" and "ownership" all over the document, the fact that OCR still retains the right to keep distributing a remix without an artist's approval still seems contradictory and not very.. nice.

However, seeing as the posibility is at least left open (not a complete denial as before), and that some measures have been taken in consideration to prevent retards from waking up one day feeling like they hate ocr and removing their mixes only to come crawling back the day after, I see this draft as passable.

Congrats for all the work invested in this, and for letting us voice our opinions, bests of lucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Third Draft looks a lot better, it's seems more balanced than the previous two. I still don't like the removal aspect of it, but I'm obviously in the minority here. You have absolute power here, Dave, and if you honestly feel that that is the most fair and equitable way to go about it, it's up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if this has come up yet:

What about projects? I'm particularly interested in this because i'm on like loads of the newer ones. Do those apply to this draft? We never really officially submit them unless we do it seperately or they're showcased, so how do they fit into the policy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about projects? I'm particularly interested in this because i'm on like loads of the newer ones. Do those apply to this draft? We never really officially submit them unless we do it seperately or they're showcased, so how do they fit into the policy?

It has, here's all you need to know:

Site projects will be covered by this policy. The policy itself does not need to explicitly refer to such projects; rather, the project guidelines will be modified to indicate the necessity of this agreement upon project completion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Third Draft looks a lot better, it's seems more balanced than the previous two. I still don't like the removal aspect of it, but I'm obviously in the minority here. You have absolute power here, Dave, and if you honestly feel that that is the most fair and equitable way to go about it, it's up to you.

Indeed, I've learned from experience that you never really win in an argument with djp, but you can usually reach a mutual understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm bringing this up because of the wording. The word "most" sounds redundant after "generally". Perhaps something like:

Generally, OverClocked ReMix will not agree to removal requests. Such requests will be evaluated with regards to the best interests of the community.

Just pointing out a spelling mistake in section A of the Terms of Use.

I think this new version is much more solid. Most of my issues have been addressed either through the topic or in the new draft.

Thanks; I like your wording better, and have also fixed the spelling error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please refer to my initial post, which I have updated. While discussing the policy ad infinitum might have continued to yield beneficial feedback, at some point we need to move on with a living, breathing document. We've decided to enact the policy in its present form, which represents feedback from mixers and listeners, lawyers and laymen (and women), and which I think is a step in the right direction.

It may need further revision. We may find that it leaves certain territory too vague, or is too restrictive elsewhere. It's difficult to get something 100% right the first time, and by enacting the policy in its present form we're not claiming we have, we just feel we've reached a comfort level with many and are ready to take things to the next level.

Without implying any cessation of feedback, I'd still like to thank those of you who offered your thoughts. Given that this is the type of thing that often gets people up in arms and makes even the most rational among us very passionate, sometimes irrationally so, I think we did a pretty fantastic job of taking an initial draft that admittedly had some gaping holes and coming up with something that better realizes the original intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, seeing as the posibility is at least left open (not a complete denial as before)...
It was left open before. "Reserves the right to" is a VERY common bit of legalese that grants the ability to do something, but does NOT indicate that it will always be done. For example, most restaurants have signs that say, "we reserve the right to refuse service." This means that if they don't want to, for whatever reason, they can tell someone that he (or she) isn't allowed to eat there. Obviously, restaurants don't automatically enact this policy, because if they did then they wouldn't have any customers. It simply means that if there's a reason for them to not serve someone (or for OCR to not take down a track), they are within their legal rights to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm a little confused.

# YOU are free to distribute and/or license these materials elsewhere, so long as they are not attributed to OverClocked ReMix, and such distribution or licensing does not conflict with the terms of this agreement. OverClocked ReMix maintains sole control of the distribution of materials 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.
Does this mean that I can download a song from OCR and then put it on my own website, and that's ok as long as I don't tell people it's from OCR? Why would you not want me to say it's from OCR? :dstrbd: 'm guessing I'm interpreting this thing wrong, but that's what it reads in my mind. If you can't say it's from OCR, you'd have to remove the OC_ReMix suffix and all mentions of it in the tag as well, but then you'd be violating
C.) If OverClocked ReMixes are being redistributed, 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. Modifications for personal use not involving redistribution, such as burning personal mix CDs or reformatting files for other devices, is acceptable.
So, bottom line, you can't distribute OC remixes. But that kinda goes against... oh wait.

This is the submission agreement. Ignore the above part of the post. Sorry...

Anyway, for clarification, I think it should be "not attributed to OverClocked ReMix, and so long as such distribution"... if that's what you mean. Why are legal documents always to difficult to understand anyway? Silly lawyers. :)!!

As for projects, are all remix projects on OCR to be encompassed by this license, or only the ones approved to be "official" OCR remix projects?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this