[cc-community] using Creative Commons as a fig leave
Paul Keller
pk at kl.nl
Fri Jul 10 07:24:08 EDT 2009
here is the reply from my blog (hessel also posted this as a comment
there:
Hessel,
you are right about the attribution part, my oversight, i have
corrected it in the main text.
also happy to hear that you are considering revising the way you
provide information (my suggestion is that you also inform users about
which rights they grant to ToN and how you intend to use them in the
upload ageement). I also think that it is a good thing that you
consider revising the wording in the first part of section 9.1 of the
terms of use, so that the grant of rights to ToN is better defined. Do
let me know when you make these changes and i will post that on my blog.
best, paul
On 10 Jul 2009, at 12:41, Hessel van Oorschot wrote:
> In reaction to Paul’s article ‘using CC as a fig leaf’:
>
> •
> Tribe of Noise is off course aware of the synchronization problem as
> described by Paul. This is why Tribe of Noise developed a format to
> use CC+ licenses. CC+ is THE solution for this synch problem and a
> reasonable way how an artist can be reimbursed, which some of the
> Tribe of Noise artists already experienced.
>
> •
> Paul describes how the use of section 9 § 1 of the Tribe of Noise
> terms of use could lead to a situation where Tribe of Noise can do
> whatever they want with the uploaded works without giving the artist
> a reasonable fee for this use.
>
> The problem of not giving a fee to the original author/artist
> actually also counts for the CC-BY-SA license, but is this not one
> of the main characteristics of the license? This is why Tribe of
> Noise uses CC+ licenses.
>
> Nevertheless there are still possibilities to earn money with or
> without a CC-license for the author/artist. Besides this the main
> reason to upload on Tribe of Noise could be to become well known, to
> enlarge the network of the author/artist and to a have stronger
> negotiating power for their future repertoire.
>
> Paul’s statement about the possibility for Tribe of Noise to sub
> license without giving attribution is not accurate. Dutch law
> applies to the Tribe of Noise terms of use. According to Dutch law
> third parties need to attribute if they are using an original work.
> A Dutch author has moral rights, which always give the right to
> attribution to his work, except when he waives this right. Such a
> waiver is off course not implemented in the terms of use. The right
> to attribution is one of the moral rights which prevent third
> parties from doing whatever they want with original works.
>
> The suggestion of misusing section 9, is an hasty assumption and in
> reality has never happened. Section 9 is created to give Tribe of
> Noise more freedom to use the uploaded works to improve their
> services and their website, as stated in the article. Maybe the term
> ‘business operations’ can be interpreted in several ways and
> deserves some clarification. Tribe of Noise is always open to
> improvement.
>
> •
> Finally Paul's arguments seem to be based on the fact that he did
> not get fully exposed to all the info/only partially explored all
> available information, updates etc. that are provided to members.
>
> If this means Tribe of Noise needs to clarify some of it's choices
> we are happy to oblige.
>
> Although we do not get a lot of legal questions surrounding the used
> licenses, the ones we get are always answered extensively. Artists
> that are uncomfortable with CC or are for example BUMA members are
> still invited as member without uploading any music. This way they
> can still engage with their fellow musicians around the globe and
> just check out what Tribe of Noise is about.
>
> <hessel.vcf>_______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
--
Kennisland | Knowledgeland
t: +31 20 5756720 | m: +31 6 41374687
www.kennisland.nl | www.knowledgeland.org
More information about the cc-community
mailing list