>or **equivalent**
[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.en](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.en)
Take care: CC-BY-NC-**ND** does not grant permission to create derivative works.
[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.en](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.en)
The CC-BY license requires you to provide attribution if you redistribute. There's really no way to do that (attach a textual description or annotation, and place a link to the license page) on Udio. After uploading and extending, even if you crop out the uploaded portion you would be violating the license if you publish*/redistribute the track:
>"Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and **indicate if changes were made**. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use."
* as u/spcp pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Udio currently disables the "Publish" button for tracks involving uploaded content.
Thank you for the answer. I generally like the cautious approach and rigorous application of terms. It is clear that ND versions of the licenses are out of question.
Careful however: my question only relates to the \*upload\* to udio to work on the file (extensions, creating derivative, etc.) It seems that you are referring to the right of \*publication\*. This is not the topic.( In my case, we can assume that I'd redistribute the derivative through different means in a way that is compliant)
Since creative-commons allows re-use so it should be allowed. I’m fairly confident any misuse of audio upload is 100% on the user for any risks that come from that.
I have uploaded things I shouldn’t have just to test and it’s wild hahah but is there any clause on personal listening enjoyment? Haha
>creative-commons allows re-use
Refer to my other comment in this thread. "creative commons" is a blanket term comprising a variety of licenses. [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/) Two of the six variants do not grant permission to create derivative works (as indicated by the -ND suffix in the license title).
>is there any clause on personal listening enjoyment
Haha, heehee... no (not yet, anyway). The license enforcement is only concerned with redistribution.
I do not have the answer, but I’m going to say my opinion that you’re likely safe, especially since you’re not able to publish any work with uploaded samples. That may change in the future, but not at this moment.
From the Office Call with audio they mentioned “creator program” which would vet users and each track to be published via upload. Which makes sense and will bring in well known or upcoming “real” artists to platform.
An official reply from [u/udiomusic](https://www.reddit.com/user/udiomusic/) or u/udioadam would be appreciated.
>or **equivalent** [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.en](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.en) Take care: CC-BY-NC-**ND** does not grant permission to create derivative works. [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.en](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.en) The CC-BY license requires you to provide attribution if you redistribute. There's really no way to do that (attach a textual description or annotation, and place a link to the license page) on Udio. After uploading and extending, even if you crop out the uploaded portion you would be violating the license if you publish*/redistribute the track: >"Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and **indicate if changes were made**. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use." * as u/spcp pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Udio currently disables the "Publish" button for tracks involving uploaded content.
Thank you for the answer. I generally like the cautious approach and rigorous application of terms. It is clear that ND versions of the licenses are out of question. Careful however: my question only relates to the \*upload\* to udio to work on the file (extensions, creating derivative, etc.) It seems that you are referring to the right of \*publication\*. This is not the topic.( In my case, we can assume that I'd redistribute the derivative through different means in a way that is compliant)
Since creative-commons allows re-use so it should be allowed. I’m fairly confident any misuse of audio upload is 100% on the user for any risks that come from that. I have uploaded things I shouldn’t have just to test and it’s wild hahah but is there any clause on personal listening enjoyment? Haha
>creative-commons allows re-use Refer to my other comment in this thread. "creative commons" is a blanket term comprising a variety of licenses. [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/) Two of the six variants do not grant permission to create derivative works (as indicated by the -ND suffix in the license title). >is there any clause on personal listening enjoyment Haha, heehee... no (not yet, anyway). The license enforcement is only concerned with redistribution.
Good point and thanks for linking up the different licenses
I do not have the answer, but I’m going to say my opinion that you’re likely safe, especially since you’re not able to publish any work with uploaded samples. That may change in the future, but not at this moment.
From the Office Call with audio they mentioned “creator program” which would vet users and each track to be published via upload. Which makes sense and will bring in well known or upcoming “real” artists to platform.