[cc-community] Not sure does cc apply to a copy or 'original' work

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Jun 2 16:55:42 EDT 2008


On Monday 02 June 2008 15:46:06 Peter Brink wrote:
> Terry Hancock skrev:
> > Peter Brink wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > Certainly that is not the usual meaning of "exclusive" in US law. Here,
> > it means that you have certain rights to the exclusion of any other
> > party. The most common example is "exclusive first serial rights", for
> > example, which is limited to one particular license. What the
> > "exclusive" means is that you are binding yourself not to sell the same
> > rights to another party.
> >
> > I was under the impression that this was the meaning of "exclusive" in
> > essentially all copyright systems.
>
> Well, a difference in terminology then. Here in Sweden the term
> "exclusive" is commonly used when A lets B use all A:s (economic) rights
> to a given work, which is the same as a full transfer of rights, even if
> (of course) the transfer may be limited in time.

So, which exclusive is cc's non-exclusive intending to be a non of?
>
> /Peter Brink

all the best,

drew


More information about the cc-community mailing list