[cc-community] BY-SA license in the UK has non-waivered collection society fees?
Kevin Phillips (home)
tacet at qmpublishing.com
Sun Aug 17 14:27:57 EDT 2008
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Hancock" <hancock at anansispaceworks.com>
To: <cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: [cc-community] BY-SA license in the UK has non-waivered
collection society fees?
> drew Roberts wrote:
>> Wow!
>>
>> "2.5. All rights not expressly granted by the Licensor are hereby
>> reserved,
>> including but not limited to, the exclusive right to collect, whether
>> individually or via a licensing body, such as a collecting society,
>> royalties
>> for any use of the Work which results in commercial advantage or private
>> monetary compensation."
>>
>> That seems seriously out of place in a BY-SA license. Fine for NC, but
>> this is
>> crazy on first glance from someone sitting where I am.
>
> OTOH, "SA" "expressly grants" rights to reuse the work commercially. So
> this would basically restrict anything that isn't granted by that part
> of the license.
>
> So maybe it isn't as far reaching as it sounds?
As I've mentioned before (in other threads) it kind of makes more sense to
my simple mind that an SA license is non-waivered, because I see it as a
"commercially open" license more so than NC. My understanding of SA is that
you (the next in the chain) need to share alike otherwise you need a
different license or agreement from me, the author (and other authors along
the chain). If remix my music and you do share alike your remix, there's no
restictions on you making money through ad streams or some other cunning
route. Right? Well that seems like a whole lot more enterprise friendly
than an NC release :) Yet the US & unported SA license contain the waiver.
I would have thought with this in mind for instance, a popular group might
want to experiement with SA, knowning that they'll at least be paid via
their CS if their songs become popular enough to gain internet/radio play.
It seems to me that NC has too many restrictions for such cunning
enterprise.
>> However, once again, I would ask that we consider only waiving the fees
>> when
>> it will actually benefit the user if we do so. I see no reason to ever
>> waive
>> the fees to benefit the CS or their members when it will not help us or
>> our
>> licensees.
>
> I wonder if that is the effect of the above? Since that's apparently an
> unnecessary provision in the US, maybe that's one reason it isn't in the
> US license (not sure about the unported).
Here in the UK the CS organisations seem to be very much pulling strings as
far as the law is concerned. It took me unawares but really doesn't
surprise me that the waiver isn't there in the UK license.
> BTW, this is "2.0" -- is that the latest version of the UK license?
I've not seen anything more recent. This is the one the
creativecommons.co.uk web site offers.
Intersting eh?
Kevin
> Cheers,
> Terry
>
> --
> Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
> Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
>
More information about the cc-community
mailing list