[cc-community] Collective Licensing & Creative Commons

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Jan 22 19:07:31 EST 2009


On Thursday 22 January 2009 12:16:17 Davide d'Atri wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:58 PM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> exactly. collecting societies seems to collect back end royalties even if
> the artist is not a member of a collecting society. money that are
> collected and not claimed by an artist or publisher are split according to
> the collector statute.

To me, this is just so wrong. If they have already collected for the use of 
one's work, they should have to pay that person even if that person is not a 
member. (Hey, even perhaps with a slightly larger fee.)
>
> > > 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.
>
> it seems that some collecting societies are trying to open their statute to
> CC licenses (BUMA/STEMRA and as far as i know there is a something going on
> with the Italian SIAE). Unfortunately they are only considering non
> commercial CC licenses (as far as i know..).

I think you are right wrt NC and I think that is failing to think "outside the 
box" as they say.
>
> > 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.)
>
> yes. i think there are two sides to this problem:
> 1. industry standard practice. broadcasters being used to fill in cue sheet
> and collecting societies collecting royalties by default.
> 2. legal problem.
>
> it is also unclear whose this problem is:
> artist may be happy to license music under a CC license and still collect
> royalties through the collecting societies (and so may be the publishers).
> collecting societies may avoid a direct conflict with CC artists and still
> collect, get their split and forward the rest of the pie to the artists.
> broadcasters have always paid royalties and still continue to pay them.
> and even if the collecting societies would not be happy about this, what
> could they do? would they sue their own artists for their two sided
> approach?
>
> i think we may have a conflict between collecting societies and
> artists/publishers/content distributors when the artists sign a waiver to
> collect royalties for audio streaming...
>
> even more confusing?

I am not sure it needs to be confusing.

A CS could let me be a member while still allowing me to offer licenses on the 
side. I would empower them to give out one of their standard licenses on the 
same track which I offer a BY-SA license on. The it would be up to the user 
to decide which license it made sense for them to use. The CS and the users 
could work out the situation between them but if the deal ended up with funds 
collected on my work they I would get paid.

all the best,

drew
>
> 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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