Video News
Not really safe for work, unless you work at Penthouse, but here’s a video of many butts set to my version of Baby Got Back sent by Kevin Gray: Filthy Butt Video. Kevin was concerned that it might bother me that he did this without my permission – it did not. Allow me to take this opportunity to talk about Creative Commons AGAIN: the CC license on the songs page means all the songs are pre-approved for non-commercial use in videos, mashups, remixes and whatever else you can dream up (provided you release the new thing under the same kind of Creative Commons license). It’s really a good thing – it means that Kevin gets to follow his muse without talking to a lawyer, and I get that many more earballs from people who like to look at butts. And the world, she goes round and round…
Item the second: the Flickr video is now on google video: right here.
And finally, I must say it’s a shame this video wasn’t made, because I’m digging the drawing of me in a striped muumuu: Podsafe Christmas Song Video.
I’m off to Vegas in a couple of hours, John Hodgman and I will be podcasting from CES on Friday. If you’re out there, look for me: I’ll be the one in the striped muumuu.
Comments
Bob says
Quick question regarding the CC license.... According to the terms of the licence, one may make derivative works provided that, among other things:
"You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor"
I couldn't find any mention of this on your site, so... what exactly is the manner in which you would like derivitave works attributed to you?
Dan says
CC licensing is one of the things that just seems so radical in our era of the Gestapo-type attitude that other licensing agencies are taking: all the permission-getting is already taken care of.
You mentioned earlier about how "easy" it was to put the Flickr video together because folks had applied a CC license to their photos.
I also liked how you put in the credits the URLs of the original photos as a way of attribution.
JoCo says
Yes, regarding attribution: I think in most cases people usually just indicate somewhere the orignal author and provide a URL back to the original work, though the FAQ on creativecommons.org has more detail. I'm not sure what "in the manner specified" refers to, unless maybe I can require everyone to call me JoCo (which maybe is not a bad idea).
Bob says
According to:
http://creativecommons.org/faq#How_do_I_properly_attribute_a_Creative_Commons_licensed_work?
the proper form of attribution is:
(1) to keep intact any copyright notices for the Work;
(2) credit the author, licensor and/or other parties (such as a wiki or journal) in the manner they specify;
(3) the title of the Work; and
(4) the Uniform Resource Identifier for the work if specified by the author and/or licensor.
I imagine that in the absence of a specification, just the author's name would satisfy requirement #2.
If you want "JoCo", you should specify it somewhere. :-)
The Almighty Charles says
It is a shame the Podsafe vid was never made. Cool pics. You, sir, are debonair as construction paper.
Josh says
You say you and Hodgman are podcasting? Should we be expecting a new Little Gray Books (I love it!)? Because that is great, and it might grab some extra publicity for you and him.
Dan S. says
As much as I love the Creative Commons movement, we should remember that someone else owns the copyright to the original song, Baby Got Back. It's possible that Jonathan's cover could be licensed with the original artist for distribution under the full terms of a CC license, but I assume it isn't. I expect that this cover, and perhaps a derivative video, will probably fly under the radar of a copyright challenge, but I don't think we can talk about licensing the cover without taking the original copyright holder into account.
Certainly, I take Jonathan's point to be that others have his permission to make derivative works of his version of this recording, which is great. I'm just not sure it's safe to assume the CC license for the recording has complete legal merit without documentation that it is agreed to by *every* copyright holder. (IANAL.)
But I love the cover, and I hope it brings Jonathan's works the attention they deserve. I bought both albums based on BGB's appearance in the Coverville top 50 and subsequent exposure to tracks on this site. (Yay!)
(Coverville *is* licensed to play Jonathan's cover of BGB via an ASCAP umbrella license. I'm really not sure, and I shouldn't speculate, but I believe if Sir Mix got his panties in a bunch, so to speak, J may be forced to take the MP3 off the site, but Coverville could still keep the show in which it appears in his archives.)
JoCo says
Dan: an excellent point. Now I am embarassed that I used this example to push my creative commons agenda, because as you point out, certainly the original BGB is not creative commons, so I can't just stamp it that way just because I want to. I was excited and frothy and got ahead of myself. Oops. Sorry everyone (especially you Sir M).
Dan S. says
CC for the JC originals is truly awesome. I forgot to mention that. :)