[pdb-discuss] Draft funding proposal

Fri Apr 20 15:24:48 UTC 2007

Thanks for your contribution, Tim, to which i respond below.

Anyone else have comments on the draft funding proposal (see last
Friday's email, happy to resend if necessary).

On 4/16/07, Tim Cowlishaw <tim at timcowlishaw.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Looks good to me! a couple of comments below:
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim
>
> On 4/13/07, Michael Holloway < michael at openrightsgroup.org> wrote:
> >
> > 1. Should the focus be on sound recordings rather than 'all categories of
> copyright subject matter'?
>
> I think Sound Recordings are a great example, as the complexity of the
> copyright status of musical recordings is a great illustration of why such a
> registry is needed. Perhaps we could highlight that whil PD-Bun is
> *initially* focusing on sound recordings, as the code is GPL'd, it would be
> available for re-use by others for calculating the copyright status of any
> other type of work, without us needing to broaden the scope of the project
> unnecessarily at this point.

I like this approach. What do others think on this point?

>
> > 2. I have noted intention to become self-funding after 6 months, but have
> not included suggestions for income.
>
> I liked the 'sponsor a work' idea that was discussed at OK-CON. It might be
> worth stressing the conservational benefit of the project (the ability to
> easily determine rights status aids digitisation, which aids preservation)
> at this point.
>
> In addition, I'm really keen on the idea of selling copies of digitised
> PD-works, complete with added value in the form of liner notes and artwork.

Will include money-making suggestions when i come to revise
1. 'Sponsor a work'
2. PD compilations
3. Some form of subscriptions model?
4.Sponsorship from wealthy firms and artists who wish to be associated
with the 'progressive' side of digital music – AIM? Merlin? Last FM?
eMusic?
5. Advertising (last resort!)

>
> > 3. Should we specify what data we already have?
>
> Best double check we have the right to use it first (I jokingly suggested at
> OK-CON that we need a sort of meta-PDW-database, to calculate the rights
> status of the metadata we are planning to use. :-) ). Otherwise, yes, I
> think it would be good to mention it - having access to this data adds to
> the appeal of the project, IMO.

Will do.
>
>
> > (Paragraph on remix / reuse creativity, or are we keeping a formal tone?
> Perhaps we can do this with a formal tone … )
> >
> >
> IMO, this can and should be mentioned, and can be done while maintining the
> formal tone of the proposal. However, it might be best to talk about
> 'appropriation' and 'collage' as opposed to 'remixing' and 'mash-ups'. Am
> happy to draft a paragraph or two for this if required.

Yeah, please do have a crack at this. I'll do the same, then we can
compare notes.

>
> Cheers!
>
> Tim
>

-- 
Michael H Holloway
+44 (0) 7974 566 823

http://www.openrightsgroup.org