Initial seeding of <podcast:license> tag values - optimization

[Dwev]

I’m a podcaster, and a contributor to the open source Castopod hosting service, and I’m looking into adding specific support for the <podcast:license> tag (e.g. in the UI with a drop-down list of licenses, as opposed to a freeform tag in the “additional RSS” field Castopod uses.

The SPDX list that is referred to on the tag information in the spec is very long, and includes licenses that have no relevance to podcasts (Adobe Utopia Font license?) so I’m wondering if there is a smarter way to approach this.

Ideally, I'd like to present the podcaster with a list of the most common licenses used for them to select from. In my mind that's likely to be All Rights Reserved and the Creative Commons variants, but there could be more. We could then iterate on this list if there are other licenses being used that aren't in the "pre-selection".

Right now, the podcastindex API doesn't allow me to filter podcast feeds by the license tag, so I can't get an idea of how it's currently being used, even in aggregate.

I believe it would be be useful to the community to see this kind of aggregate data on certain tags in any case - to make it easier to support Podcasting 2.0.

So for @daveajones, @benjaminbellamy, @jamescridland, @samsethi, and others - do you have a feel for the types of content licenses people are using for their podcasts, or access to data in aggregate that will give us a data-backed starting point?

[daveajones]

I'm very much in support of people in the 2.0 community who are good on the license/legal front helping pare down the giant list into only what's practical. We can then publish that as the recommended list in the main namespace document and be open to adding to it in the future upon request/consensus.

I'm actually going to put this into Phase 7 plan. It's something I know @jamescridland has wanted.

[samsethi]

In TrueFans we had the exact same problem as @Dwev - we looked at the 40+ licenses in the SPDX list. Originally we listed them all in a drop down but then we decided less is more and now we only list the 6 Creative Commons licenses. - see image 1 below. - we store this in the License Tag.

We then display this license on the front-end app in the podcaster's info/about page with a link back to the Creative Commons page for more detail about the license. - see image 2 below

We are currently talking with Julie/Jim Costello about adding a new music license based on Creative Commons. It would be a V4V license with similar attributes to the CC license such as share-alike or non-commercial. The one difference is the license will be revokable and it will have a few more attributes directly related to music.

@joksas from RSSBlue will probably be the first host to add it and we will then add it to the list of licenses we currently support. There is nothing to say we can't extend this list with other licenses in the future but for now I think we are covered with CC licenses.

Personally, I think ALL podcasters need a license to let people know WHAT they can do with their content because with Remote Items, GIUD's and VTS it is now much easier to include audio content from other podcasts or music and pay the other content owner.

However not all content owners will want their audio reused and a license makes it clear they permit or do not want their music used in a musicast or a podcaster may not allow their podcast to be clipped.

In the future, like the block and lock tags, apps will read the license and if the content license prevents it reuse then we could grey out the clipping option or prevent it being added to our VTS admin user interface.

But to simplify, we have just used the 6 CC licenses in a drop down or we read the license tag. The other thing we do is auto-populate the copyright field if this is blank.

Image 1- TrueFans Admin Backend

Image 2- TrueFans User Frontend

[Dwev]

Sorry, PD = Public Domain which I'm pretty sure = CC0. It's an explicit way of saying "No Rights Reserved" and dedicating all those rights to the Public Domain.

Where can I find more information on the V4V Music license?

[jamescridland]

@Dwev - Could I challenge the "Undefined"? All material is copyright automatically as soon as it is created (in all jurisdictions) - so the default is automatically "ARR", and there legally can't be a "none", can there?

[Dwev]

@jamescridland Copyright and License are different things though.
The "undefined" is a marker to show a license hasn't been selected, so it can be clear to the listener that licensing is not defined and should they wish to use the content, they should find out more.
I'm not sure you could assume that a podcaster who hasn't explicitly selected a license intends to reserve all their rights - but I could be wrong.

[jamescridland]

The "undefined" is a marker to show a license hasn't been selected, so

So it doesn't have a licence available, and therefore is fully copyright; and the default is automatically "ARR"?

[Dwev]

I think the issue for me is that I don't want to make assumptions on behalf of a podcaster, with an explicit declaration that all rights are reserved.
In some interpretations, the lack of a declared license means that some rights may revert to the T&Cs of a host, where they may declare that some rights are not reserved by the podcaster. Think of some of the social media sites where there is an automatic license for them to use your data / photos etc.
Maybe the term is better as "undeclared" instead of "undefined"? Then hosts can highlight to their users why choosing a license is important, and explain the differences between them, and then the user is making a conscious (and better educated) choice.
To me, undeclared is a signal of "not known - seek more information on how this can be used", not an implicit choice.

[daveajones]

I'll start building a JSON list for the repo based on this:

• None/Undefined
• All Rights Reserved
• CC-BY-4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution)
• CC-BY-NC-4.0
• CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0
• CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0
• CC-BY-ND-4.0
• CC-BY-SA-4.0
• CC0-1.0

[jamescridland]

can we formally add the country and ISRC tags

Again, just for noting, the country is part of the ISRC tag. Those working on this should work out what happens if someone says they want this in GB but the ISRC tag says it's in US.

[agates]

apps should be required

I would recommend to stop using phrases like this or you're going to be disappointed very quickly. There is and never will be any way to enforce it.

[samsethi]

As an app provider I agree there is a need for transparency but I am not required to do it. We are putting in options for users to choose what they want published in their TLV record.

[Dwev]

Those working on this should work out what happens if someone says they want this in GB but the ISRC tag says it's in US.

ISRC country is just where the artist decided to register the track for legal purposes.
Feed country is where a feed owner wants to identify where the feed is based.

I think these are different things and can be different values. Technically, each track on an album could have a different ISRC country.

Also ISRC only applies to music as far as I can see, and a traditional podcaster may still want to identify a production country (separate from the location, which can change).

[Phantom-Power-Music-JC]

Interesting catch @Dwev I think that could be true. Different country of origin for Legal Rights Protection, vs. I'm living in England and am distributing here this year and the ISRC Code I have was generated in London. It does appear to me that ISRC is for music only, I have not heard a podcaster have any interest using the ISRC yet. I can't help but wonder if we should still consider two variations of a V4V license. One for Music and One for Podcasting as the ISRC is very important to music and I would almost always recommend an artist get one, even a brand new fully independent artist and really should be "required" at upload for tracking the sound recording and legal copyright protections (only in terms of when it first was distributed.)

[daveajones]

Ok, started the list. How does this look? This is just a start, to see if this format will work.

https://github.com/Podcastindex-org/podcast-namespace/blob/main/licenses.json

[Marzal]

The format looks good, but I would use the Canonical URL
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ instead of https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.en

And I think would be a good idea to put the licenses in order by openness, in case the apps list them as they are in the json.
It would help get a sense of how they work.

• CC0-1.0
• CC-BY-4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution)
• CC-BY-SA-4.0
• CC-BY-ND-4.0
• CC-BY-NC-4.0
• CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0
• CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0
• All Rights Reserved
• None/Undefined

[Dwev]

I would put them in the reverse order, in descending openness, as this feels it is more protective of the copyright holder's rights, in that they have to make more effort to give away more rights.

There should probably be a strong recommendation that implementation should come with a "custom" option as well, in case there is licensed content that isn't covered by any of the ones in the list.

[Phantom-Power-Music-JC]

@joksas Not sure how to add someone to the conversation.

[joksas]

All good, this repository is public so I can see it :)

Later today, I'll summarize our discussion for others.

[dhk2]

Nothing in the V4V process requires retaining rights in a corrupt and broken system, and to do so just leads to revokation issues down the road.

There should be a released into the public domain option.

[Phantom-Power-Music-JC]

@dhk2 I agree that if an artist wants to fully release "at their own risk" in public domain, they should be free to do that. Just want to make the distinction here that we are in no way attempting to make this license something that works within the existing system. This license is an agreement generated by the artist to allow the song to be played in a very limited capacity within the "valueverse", on a "value cast" and in partnership with a "value host" and only when value-4-value features are enabled. For someone that is "professionally aspiring" this is important since we don't want a hit song scraped from the "Valueverse" and put into a huge blockbuster movie without some renumeration. Since there is no label or collection society involved (at least for now) this all happens outside of the mainstream music industry. Independence does not negate the need for an artist to protect their original work or to make licensing available for limited purposes (if so desired). Folks often see "license" and equate this with trying to fit into the music industry. That could not be further from what we are attempting to do here. As the owner of the work you should have the right to distribute freely, or with limitations, if so desired. **Not an attorney either... so just trying to take in everyone's ideas to make the best license we can for independent users.

[adamc199]

I recommend we use language that makes this a podcast license. Not a music license or "value cast" license.

Feeds with mp3's are podcasts. Regardless of content or length.

The medium tag describes type of content.

This is a copyright license that should describe use for inclusion as a remote item in another medium type.