ASCAP's essay, "Common Understanding: 10 Things Every Music Creator Should Know About Creative Commons Licensing" nicely highlights some important considerations that any musician should review before using a CC license. Unfortunately, however, it also continues some common misunderstandings about Creative Commons. I've reprinted, and responded, to these in the extended entry below. But before the details, there is one important fact of agreement to keep in view, and one important disagreement:

We certainly agree with ASCAP that "music creators should fully understand the terms to which they are agreeing and the implications down the line." That applies to CC licenses as much as to a recording contract. And we're as keen as anyone to make sure that understanding is there.

Nature Magazine's announced that it's going to share all its human genome papers under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical-ShareAlike licenses. The genomes themselves are not copyrightable and go into a public database, but the papers -- which are a vital part of the science -- may now be freely copied by any non-commercial publisher.

In the continuing drive to make papers as accessible as possible, NPG is now introducing a 'creative commons' licence for the reuse of such genome papers. The licence (see http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/license.html) allows non-commercial publishers, however they might be defined, to reuse the pdf and html versions of the paper. In particular, users are free to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt the contribution, provided this is for non-commercial purposes, subject to the same or similar licence conditions and due attribution.

An animated tribute to the internet people of the world, wherever you may be. Animated by Dan Meth, with music by Dan Meth and Micah Frank.

Sad that I recognize almost every thing in that video. (Hooray, flugel horns and creative commons!)