Hello.

> I don't mind it being modified.
> Commercial use is no problem too.

That would really depend on what I'm going to release - but I wouldn't give anything away for commercial use. That's just me though.

By the way, if you're offering sound services, you should probably open a separate thread in the "Help Wanted" section.

Cheers,
Moritz

Why not give something away for commercial use?

I'm making a living with music. If anyone makes money with my work, I'm obviously entitled to a fair share.
The question of modifying work is maybe more interesting - will I want to be identified with an edit of my work I didn't have any influence on? Not sure about that.

I want the type of license that allows me to [color="#FF0000"]kill.....

Okay... nerd time is over.

I only offer two types of licenses for projects to use my work: exclusive or non-exclusive. Exclusive is more expensive but the client will own the music once it's delivered and the payment is made in full. Non-exclusive rights is cheaper but I retain all rights and can re-use or re-sell the music as I see fit. In some situations I work for free and a volunteer project but those are rare situations and the project needs to be really special and well done.

I only offer two types of licenses for projects to use my work: exclusive or non-exclusive. Exclusive is more expensive but the client will own the music once it's delivered and the payment is made in full. Non-exclusive rights is cheaper but I retain all rights and can re-use or re-sell the music as I see fit. In some situations I work for free and a volunteer project but those are rare situations and the project needs to be really special and well done.

Yup, that's just the way I handle it too.

Broadly speaking, exclusive rights are mostly sold to clients who wish to have their product identified with the music (commercials are probably the best example, thankfully also many games), while clients who just need background music tend to spend less and buy non-exclusive rights instead. (e.g. documentaries, image films)

Broadly speaking, exclusive rights are mostly sold to clients who wish to have their product identified with the music (commercials are probably the best example, thankfully also many games), while clients who just need background music tend to spend less and buy non-exclusive rights instead. (e.g. documentaries, image films)

In my experience it's actually been the opposite. Commercials are more apt to license something out (or in other words non-exclusive rights) that will match the brand and feel of the commercial and games (at least the middle to top tier) will want custom music that is exclusively tied to their project. More casual, lower tier games are usually much more open to non-exclusive rights but even at that level you can find developers that still truly unique music. One thing not covered is offering exclusive rights for only a certain period of time and then the rights transition to non-exclusive or the client can do a buy out. This is another good option because if the game flops then the client can make the judgement call not to invest further funds into it but the game was still given the opportunity to succeed with exclusive musical content. But if the game is rocking and rolling then the client will be more likely to want to ensure the music stays exclusive plus they'll have more funds to do a buy out. All of this has to be clearly laid out in a contract beforehand, of course!

What your describing sounds just like a creative commons license, if you check their website it should have what you're looking for.

What your describing sounds just like a creative commons license, if you check their website it should have what you're looking for.

It's not sure who exactly you're responding to but creative commons license is VERY different from exclusive or non-exclusive rights.

Attribution
CC BY

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. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials.

[/quote]

Attribution-ShareAlike
CC BY-SA

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to “copyleft” free and open source software licenses. All new works based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use. This is the license used by Wikipedia, and is recommended for materials that would benefit from incorporating content from Wikipedia and similarly licensed projects

[/quote]

Attribution-NoDerivs
CC BY-ND

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

[/quote]

Attribution-NonCommercial
CC BY-NC

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.

[/quote]

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
CC BY-NC-SA

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.

[/quote]

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
CC BY-NC-ND

This license is the most restrictive of our six main licenses, only allowing others to download your works and share them with others as long as they credit you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially.

[/quote]

NONE of these apply the same rules that exclusive or non-exclusive rights apply. If I sell a piece of music to a video game for non-exclusive rights, by no means can anyone remix, tweak or build upon that music without my written consent and any other terms I see fit to apply. Nor can anyone just download the music and share it as long as they credit me as the composer. That's stealing the music (i.e. Napster, for example). Now if I sell my music for exclusive rights then it's up to me, as the creator and/or the owner of the rights, the client. And in 99% of those cases all of the same expectations or rules apply. So selling for exclusive or non-exclusive rights (i.e. copyright) provides a great deal more protection than the creative commons licenses.

Edit - Upon a second reading it appears as if you're responding to the OP and in that case - yes the creative commons would work for what he's after.