[cc-community] Collective Licensing & Creative Commons
drew Roberts
zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Jan 22 07:58:02 EST 2009
On Thursday 22 January 2009 04:02:54 Davide d'Atri wrote:
> as long as the collecting societies allow non exclusive agreements with
> their members (ASCAP/BMI), I do not see a problem with licensing your work
> under a NC license and collecting "back end" royalties for commercial
> airplay for example.
Sure, and if you licensed your work BY or BY-SA, you could also license it
ARR.
>
> There is a problem when the collecting societies force their members to
> sign an exclusive agreement (almost all collecting socities in the world).
Indeed and this sucks big time in my opinion. Also, someone correct me if I am
wrong, but I think it has been explained to me here on the cc lists that
(some of) these societies will collect for the use of everyone's works but
only pay you what they have collected for the use of your work if you join.
Is that so? And how do the exclusive societies interface with the
non-exclusive ones? Anyone know?
> In that case it is unclear how a CC license would be compatible with
> collecting back end royalties. Actually in that case it is unclear whether
> a member of that collecting society would be able to license his/her work
> under a CC license....
I have a feeling that the latter is the case. I think they no longer have
enough rights to their own works to issue a CC license of any sort but
perhaps they retain enough rights to issue some of the cc licenses.
Anyone have any further to add here to educate the rest of us?
>
> Let's ask the collecting societies to change their statute in favour of non
> exclusive agreements.
Hear! Hear!
>
> There is also another argument :
> practically speaking, an artist who is a member of a collecting society
> that requires exclusive agreement and has licensed his/her work under a
> creative commons license can still collect back end royalties as the
> broadcaster will fill in a cue sheet for commercial airplay and wont bother
> to double check that the artist has previously released his/her work under
> a CC license (neither will bother the collecting society). in that case the
> artist ends up collecting back end royalties even if he/she has licensed
> his/her work under a collecting society... confusing?
Not really actually. It may be more advantageous to pay the fee than to do the
accounting and to ensure that the BY clause is properly followed much less a
possible SA clause. (Just think that all cc works could be dual licensed with
whatever cc license and whatever license the CS gives, the "customer" would
just be bypassing the cc license entirely and going with the CS license for
simplicity of operations.) (my thoughts and subject to change with further
learning.)
>
> Davide d'Atri
> BeatPick.com
all the best,
drew
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Atom Smasher <atom at smasher.org> wrote:
> > i'd really like to see this gain momentum:
> > A Better Way Forward: Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File
> > Sharing
> >
> > http://www.eff.org/wp/better-way-forward-voluntary-collective-licensing-m
> >usic-file-sharing
> >
> > question: under collective licensing system, such as described in the
> > link, above, or systems such as ASCAP/BMI/SESAC, can an artist collect
> > fees for CC licensed works?
> >
> > ok, that's a trick question... maybe...? i'm sure it depends on which
> > license and whether or not the use is commercial... and other factors?
> >
> > i would think that any NC license would justify charging fees to
> > commercial airplay and such, but what about p2p? what about other license
> > types?
> >
> > if the system proposed in the above link became reality, would CC
> > licensed works be ineligible to collect fees for p2p sharing?
> >
> > under current systems such as ASCAP/BMI/SESAC, (which are primarily
> > commercial) how do the different licenses affect the ability to collect
> > fees?
> >
> > is this something that needs to be addressed (fixed?) in the CC licenses?
> >
> > thanks...
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ...atom
> >
> > ________________________
> > http://atom.smasher.org/
> > 762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
> > -------------------------------------------------
> >
> > KGB = Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti
> > Translation: Department of Homeland Security
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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