Hi Gouessej and Madjack,
I appreciate you taking the time to let me know your thoughts, all comments are of course welcome.
I would like to address the above topics and share the reasons.
I understand the use of a more widely used and accepted license such as Creative Commons may be of benefit especially as developers may well have used them previously.
The main reason for the deployment and use of a proprietary license is that it is custom and can be designed to cover each and every element that may need to be included.
In addition there are a few points within the Creative Commons license that would perhaps not work so well with how I wanted the music to be distributed. One being the stipulation that users would be free to distribute the tracks themselves, and in some cases even sell them commercially, this of course would be extremely detrimental the copyright associated with the musical works. There also seemed to be other instances in the various Creative Commons licenses that wouldn’t be so fitting.
With regard to vagueness, one thing in particular I wanted to make sure of, was that the license should be clear & concise. Although the term “free to use” is vague, I feel the license itself does pinpoint what can and cannot be done with regards to use of the music and sound effects.
A majority of sites that distribute production music also charge for the service, I wanted to offer this to developers & filmmakers for free, in order to give people who are either starting out, or don’t have the financial means the opportunity to use production music in their work.
The reason for the implementation of an income limit was to make sure it was being aimed specifically at developers within this area, and separates large scale developers that may be looking to distribute at a much higher level.
A common set up for music licensing is where there may be one cost for use, but with a stipulation on how many copies of the finished product can be sold. There would then be a higher cost if that number exceeds the limit in some cases that number is as low as 500. This is a concept that stretches to many industries, it’s a measure for companies to maintain control over their copyrights and intellectual properties. An example would be where software developers may limit use, or only allow installation on a specific number of machines, if more are needed then a different license could be purchased. I on the other hand never wanted to limit the amount of copies you could sell, therefore it is an unlimited amount.
In these situations the developer may perhaps have a rough idea of how many copies they would be looking to distribute, based on things such as advertising and prospective user or customer base, in the same way you might pre-workout a business plan. And opt for the most fitting license.
With regard to the naming of the Free Commercial license, I can see exactly where you’re coming from, but in this case it’s designed for people/companies with an annual revenue of less than £100,000 at the point of use, there will never be any fees payable. Music under this license will always be free.
I hope I’ve managed to address your concerns, if you have any questions whatsoever please don’t hesitate to ask.