[cc-community] Not sure does cc apply to a copy or 'original' work
zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Jun 2 13:58:19 EDT 2008
On Monday 02 June 2008 13:04, Peter Brink wrote:
> drew Roberts skrev:
> > On Monday 02 June 2008 10:16, Peter Brink wrote:
> >> drew Roberts skrev:
> >> Exclusive and non-exclusive are fairly well defined legal terms.
> >> "EXCLUSIVE, rights. Debarring one from participating in a thing. An
> >> exclusive right or privilege, is one granted to a person to do a thing,
> >> and forbidding all others to do the same. A patent right or copyright,
> >> are of this kind."
> >> An exclusive license is the same as a total transfer of all rights from
> >> A to B.
> > Surely not. I can give an exclusive on some rights only. Or some rights
> > only for some regions, etc. Exclusive surely doesn't equate to a transfer
> > of copyright. Your language seems to imply this.
> An exclusive license is not exclusive unless it covers all rights a
> copyright holder has. So issuing an exclusive license is, in practice,
> the same as a transfer a copyright from A to B.
> I may have confused you when I used the term "exclusive" to state that
> the publisher got a monopoly on publishing X in print. The deal between
> A and B is really a non-exclusive license. B gets a limited set of A:s
> rights. The copyright holder is able to slice and dice her rights pretty
> much as she likes and this can of course from time to time create a real
OK, so there needs to be some terminology clearing up but I think the
misunderstanding goes further.
I can sell print rights to a book toperson X for region Y (I want to say
exclusive, but perhaps that would be an incorrect term) and contract with
them that I will give no one else print rights for that region.
If I did that, I could not put my book under a cc license later as that would
violate my agreement with person X as the cc license will allow anyone to
print copies of my book.
Do you agree or disagree with this point I am making?
> >> There is nothing (baring other existing agreements that she is bound by)
> >> that restricts the licensor from issuing whatever other licenses she
> >> sees fit.
> > This is the case in your example though. Since A has already given B the
> > exclusive on print, A cannot now issue a cc license on the same work at
> > all. This would conflict with the exclusive agreement that B already has.
> Well, as I said A would be wise to inform her publisher. She could argue
> that since the license is non-exclusive it allows her to issue a license
> that only gives a right to use the form of the work that has a license
> statement attached to it. That is the CC license would only apply to the
> pdf-file and any derivatives of it. B might or might not agree...
Except, nothing in the cc license would prevent some other person using the cc
license from printing a copy from the pdf...
> The point is that as a licensee you can really only with certainty use
> copies of works that have a license statement in or on it.
I think I know what you are trying to say here and I don't necessarily
disagree with that, but I do disagree with what you have said.
If I know you wrote a song, and I send you a letter that informs you that I
have a million dollars on deposit with a lawyer and that I have bought two
copies of your lyric at my local music store, one of which is enclosed as a
reference. I further tell you that the million dollars can be yours if you
will execute the enclosed agreement agreeing to put your lyric under the cc
BY-SA license in front of my lawyer.
If you do this and my lawyer informs me of such, I would think I am quite safe
treating the lyric I have in my posession, which I bought at a store and
which even says "all rights reserved" on it or osme such, as being now under
the cc BY-SA license. And there is no cc BY-SA licensed attached to the
> If you find a
> copy of a work that you know is licensed under CC in another form but
> lacks a license statement, it _may_ be so that that version of the work
> is licensed under a propriety license.
Again, I think this confusion would be best cleared up by a change of the
wording of the license....
> /Peter Brink
all the best,
More information about the cc-community