[cc-community] using Creative Commons as a fig leave
drew Roberts
zotz at 100jamz.com
Fri Jul 10 10:45:38 EDT 2009
Oops, meant to reply to this but replied to a reply by mistake - please check
that.
drew
On Friday 10 July 2009 06:41:46 Hessel van Oorschot wrote:
> *In reaction to Paul's article 'using CC as a fig leaf':*
>
> 1.
>
> 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.
>
> 2.
>
> 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.
>
> 3.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> !DSPAM:4a571b31298671804284693!
More information about the cc-community
mailing list