From mercat at darboux.math.univ-montp2.fr Mon Mar 1 08:25:20 2004 From: mercat at darboux.math.univ-montp2.fr (Christian Mercat) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 14:25:20 +0100 Subject: Web sites? Message-ID: <404339C0.8020900@math.univ-montp2.fr> Hi there, There is an issue unaddressed in the FAQ: it seems to me that my website (a celtic knotwork tutorial) is begging for a CC licence (shareAlike to be specific), is it a proper use to tag each and every page of my website with the "some rights reserved" and CC logo, meaning the text and the pictures are covered by the licence? Another unrelated question, for each picture I use on my site, I've asked the authorization to reproduce and usually place a link to the original site where I found the original picture, the copyright appears as a pop-up (title and alt tags). Is it enough or should I place a little text, next to the picture stating the copyright? Thanks, regards, -- http://entrelacs.net/ Christian Mercat Universit? Montpellier 2 Case courrier 051 F-34095 Montpellier cedex 5 Tel: +33 4 67 14 42 33 Fax: +33 4 67 14 35 58 From cc at iblist.com Mon Mar 1 13:33:05 2004 From: cc at iblist.com (cc at iblist.com) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 13:33:05 -0500 Subject: Open database, closed site Message-ID: <1078165985.404381e1b98d5@207.142.133.125> I run a site that is a database of books and other printed media (see e-mail address for domain). I want to open the database for download through me only under the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0 license (I wish 2.0 would get out already). What I want is for the website itself to be completely restricted, but they can download the database through me under the above license (I ddon't want them running a harvester bot or anything). Does anyone see any problems with using the above license on this kind of site? Steven Jeffery From wouter.vanden.hove at pandora.be Mon Mar 1 14:07:00 2004 From: wouter.vanden.hove at pandora.be (Wouter Vanden Hove) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 20:07:00 +0100 Subject: Open database, closed site In-Reply-To: <1078165985.404381e1b98d5@207.142.133.125> References: <1078165985.404381e1b98d5@207.142.133.125> Message-ID: <404389D4.8000208@pandora.be> cc at iblist.com wrote: > I run a site that is a database of books and other printed media (see e-mail > address for domain). I want to open the database for download through me only > under the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0 license (I wish 2.0 would > get out already). What I want is for the website itself to be completely > restricted, but they can download the database through me under the above > license (I ddon't want them running a harvester bot or anything). Does anyone > see any problems with using the above license on this kind of site? It seems that your website is a collective project. So why don't you adopt a real open source strategy, like for example theassayer.org? Wouter Vanden Hove www.opencursus.org www.open-education.org From CC at iblist.com Mon Mar 1 15:53:34 2004 From: CC at iblist.com (CC at iblist.com) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:53:34 -0500 Subject: Open database, closed site In-Reply-To: <404389D4.8000208@pandora.be> References: <1078165985.404381e1b98d5@207.142.133.125> <404389D4.8000208@pandora.be> Message-ID: <1078174414.4043a2cee7f89@207.142.133.125> For various reasons, adopting a completely open source policy is not what I and the users want. Steven Jeffery Quoting Wouter Vanden Hove : > cc at iblist.com wrote: > > I run a site that is a database of books and other printed media (see > e-mail > > address for domain). I want to open the database for download through me > only > > under the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0 license (I wish 2.0 > would > > get out already). What I want is for the website itself to be completely > > restricted, but they can download the database through me under the above > > license (I ddon't want them running a harvester bot or anything). Does > anyone > > see any problems with using the above license on this kind of site? > > It seems that your website is a collective project. > So why don't you adopt a real open source strategy, like for example > theassayer.org? > > > Wouter Vanden Hove > www.opencursus.org > www.open-education.org > _______________________________________________ > cc-licenses mailing list > cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses > From evan at wikitravel.org Mon Mar 1 16:00:05 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 16:00:05 -0500 Subject: Open database, closed site In-Reply-To: <1078174414.4043a2cee7f89@207.142.133.125> (CC@iblist.com's message of "Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:53:34 -0500") References: <1078165985.404381e1b98d5@207.142.133.125> <404389D4.8000208@pandora.be> <1078174414.4043a2cee7f89@207.142.133.125> Message-ID: <87r7wc706i.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> >>>>> "C" == CC writes: C> For various reasons, adopting a completely open source policy C> is not what I and the users want. If the content is identical, why do you care where people download it from? Is the question is about not using bots against your site? That sounds like a TOU question rather than a license question. Or does it have to do with other content on your site that won't be released under the license? That can be handled with metadata or well-placed notices. Anyways, AFAIK, no, there's no way with the current CC licenses to say "you can download it from here, but not there". Then again, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I don't speak for Creative Commons. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From email at greglondon.com Mon Mar 1 16:12:17 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 13:12:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Open database, closed site Message-ID: <20040301131217.8580.h010.c001.wm@mail.greglondon.com.criticalpath.net> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 13:33:05 -0500, cc at iblist.com wrote: > I run a site that is a database of books and other printed media (see e-mail > address for domain). I want to open the database for download through me only > under the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0 license (I wish 2.0 would > get out already). What I want is for the website itself to be completely > restricted, but they can download the database through me under the above > license (I ddon't want them running a harvester bot or anything). Does anyone > see any problems with using the above license on this kind of site? If you want to be the sole source for the database, you want to use "All Rights Reserved". People will be able to get Copies of the database from you, but they will not be able to Copy, Distribute, or Create Derived Works. That's what All Rights Reserved means. If you want to create Open Content, then you will have to release some rights back to the public so that they have incentive to contribute to the project. The idea being that you give away enough rights to make the project belong ot the Community rather than holding it as your personal property. According to the iblist "about" page: "All the data on IBList has been entered by its users." "We do not claim any ownership over the user-submitted data. " If you are not claiming ownership, you have no Copyrights to claim "All Rights Reserved" There is also nothing on the "Submit Form" where people contribute book information to indicate how their contribution is to be licensed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_content From email at greglondon.com Mon Mar 1 16:34:20 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 13:34:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Open database, closed site Message-ID: <20040301133421.13867.h010.c001.wm@mail.greglondon.com.criticalpath.net> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:53:34 -0500, CC at iblist.com wrote: > For various reasons, adopting a completely open source > policy is not what I and the users want. There is no CC license, nor any Open Content license, that prohibits verbatim copy/distribute of a work. That is a fundamental requirement of openness. See: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php If you are unwilling to allow verbatim copy/distribute of the work, you do not wish to adopt ANY open source policy, and you should use the license "All rights Reserved". People will be able to go to your website and peruse your database, but they will not be able to copy/paste it into their own works. Your stats claim 18,000 titles have all been submitted by its users, and that "We do not claim any ownership over the user-submitted data." But your email states your intent is to now claim ownership on these 18,000 user contributions, declaring "All Rights Reserved". Did you inform your contributers of your intent to take ownership of their works? Doing so without their permission would be, at the very least, majorly uncool. From email at greglondon.com Mon Mar 1 16:34:20 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 13:34:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Open database, closed site Message-ID: <20040301133421.13867.h010.c001.wm@mail.greglondon.com.criticalpath.net> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:53:34 -0500, CC at iblist.com wrote: > For various reasons, adopting a completely open source > policy is not what I and the users want. There is no CC license, nor any Open Content license, that prohibits verbatim copy/distribute of a work. That is a fundamental requirement of openness. See: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php If you are unwilling to allow verbatim copy/distribute of the work, you do not wish to adopt ANY open source policy, and you should use the license "All rights Reserved". People will be able to go to your website and peruse your database, but they will not be able to copy/paste it into their own works. Your stats claim 18,000 titles have all been submitted by its users, and that "We do not claim any ownership over the user-submitted data." But your email states your intent is to now claim ownership on these 18,000 user contributions, declaring "All Rights Reserved". Did you inform your contributers of your intent to take ownership of their works? Doing so without their permission would be, at the very least, majorly uncool. From CC at iblist.com Mon Mar 1 16:40:59 2004 From: CC at iblist.com (CC at iblist.com) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 16:40:59 -0500 Subject: Open database, closed site In-Reply-To: <20040301133421.13867.h010.c001.wm@mail.greglondon.com.criticalpath.net> References: <20040301133421.13867.h010.c001.wm@mail.greglondon.com.criticalpath.net> Message-ID: <1078177259.4043adebb98fe@207.142.133.125> I can see I worded that very badly. My intent of the comment about downloading through me only was to (legally) prevent people from using an automated program to scour the site. There are a few programs out there now that do this to major book sites, and I don't agree with it. As for the copyright information, here is the system I am planning on using (something I put together quickly, so ignore spelling): The book, author, and series information from the database : *Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license Identical to this one (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v 1.0). *Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes. *Attribution. You must give the original author credit. In this case, the author is the Internet Book List (iblist.com) and Steven Jeffery. The pages from the site itself (code): All rights are reserved. The code and layout/design of the Internet Book List is the property of its owner. Reviews, comments, and user information User reviews and comments are the property of the individual that posted them. By submitting reviews and comments, that person is giving iblist.com permission to display them on iblist.com only. Users can ask to have their content removed at any time by following the procedure outlined in the review section of the FAQ. User information gathered through registration (names, e-mail addresses, etc) is for use of iblist.com staff only. These will never be sold to third parties. We respect your right to privacy. Quoting email at greglondon.com: > On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:53:34 -0500, CC at iblist.com wrote: > > For various reasons, adopting a completely open source > > policy is not what I and the users want. > > There is no CC license, nor any Open Content license, > that prohibits verbatim copy/distribute of a work. > > That is a fundamental requirement of openness. See: > http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php > > If you are unwilling to allow verbatim copy/distribute > of the work, you do not wish to adopt ANY open source > policy, and you should use the license "All rights > Reserved". People will be able to go to your website > and peruse your database, but they will not be able > to copy/paste it into their own works. > > Your stats claim 18,000 titles have all been submitted > by its users, and that "We do not claim any ownership > over the user-submitted data." > > But your email states your intent is to now claim > ownership on these 18,000 user contributions, > declaring "All Rights Reserved". > > Did you inform your contributers of your intent > to take ownership of their works? Doing so without > their permission would be, at the very least, > majorly uncool. > _______________________________________________ > cc-licenses mailing list > cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses > From email at greglondon.com Mon Mar 1 17:12:12 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 14:12:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Open database, closed site Message-ID: <20040301141213.19914.h010.c001.wm@mail.greglondon.com.criticalpath.net> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 16:40:59 -0500, CC at iblist.com wrote: > I can see I worded that very badly. My intent of the > comment about downloading through me only was to > (legally) prevent people from using an automated program > to scour the site. There are a few programs out > there now that do this to major book sites, and I > don't agree with it. I don't think anything in Copyright law covers bots. You can license the work Non-Commercial only, that won't prevent bots, but it will prevent anyone from using the bot-gathered info commercially. as for bots themselves: http://www.chami.com/tips/internet/010198I.html > The book, author, and series information from the database : > *Share Alike. > User reviews are the property of the individual that posted them. > (users give) iblist.com permission to display them on iblist.com only. A couple of things. If all iblist really owns is the book/author/isbn information, then that may be treated a bit differntly than "artistic expressions". I don't know what the current standing is on whether or not you can copyright the phone book. Secondly, if users own their reviews, granting iblist the right to copy/distribute their works verbatim, then iblist has no right to license the reviews as ShareAlike. The reviews effectively become CC-NoDeriv. From jayfar at jayfar.com Mon Mar 1 18:17:35 2004 From: jayfar at jayfar.com (Jayfar) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 18:17:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Open database, closed site In-Reply-To: <20040301141213.19914.h010.c001.wm@mail.greglondon.com.criticalpath.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 email at greglondon.com wrote: > I don't think anything in Copyright law covers > bots. You can license the work Non-Commercial only, > that won't prevent bots, but it will prevent anyone > from using the bot-gathered info commercially. robots.txt is your friend. http://www.robotstxt.org/ Cheers, Jayfar -- From gm3x0ql02 at sneakemail.com Tue Mar 2 07:19:02 2004 From: gm3x0ql02 at sneakemail.com (S T) Date: 2 Mar 2004 12:19:02 -0000 Subject: Restrictions on derivative works based on content? Message-ID: <31293-56768@sneakemail.com> Hi, I have a question regarding the Creative Commons License. Suppose I create a cartoon character that is suitable for young children. I want to give people the freedom to copy, modify, prepare derivative works using this character. Now since this character is targeted for young children, I certainly wouldn't want somebody to take this character, put it in a tasteless porno flash animation, thus demoralizing my character. Does the Creative Commons License have any restrictions on the nature of derivative works? or there is no limit on what can be done with derivative works? Would it be bad idea to have a "No Adult-Oriented Derivative" license? Any help is useful. S. XXXX From melanie.dulong-de-rosnay at medialive.fr Tue Mar 2 08:00:49 2004 From: melanie.dulong-de-rosnay at medialive.fr (Melanie Dulong de Rosnay) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 14:00:49 +0100 Subject: Restrictions on derivative works based on content? In-Reply-To: <31293-56768@sneakemail.com> Message-ID: Hello, Works under CC licenses are already protected by applicable law. According to moral rights, authors can object against modifications which would be prejudicial to their honor or reputation. The idea to add conditions on derivative licenses is interesting and enhances compatibility with national legislations having stronger moral prerogatives; it is indeed legally difficult to authorize in advance any modification, without giving up right to respect and integrity. Melanie -----Message d'origine----- De : cc-licenses-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:cc-licenses-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]De la part de S T Envoy? : mardi 2 mars 2004 13:19 ? : cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org Objet : Restrictions on derivative works based on content? Hi, I have a question regarding the Creative Commons License. Suppose I create a cartoon character that is suitable for young children. I want to give people the freedom to copy, modify, prepare derivative works using this character. Now since this character is targeted for young children, I certainly wouldn't want somebody to take this character, put it in a tasteless porno flash animation, thus demoralizing my character. Does the Creative Commons License have any restrictions on the nature of derivative works? or there is no limit on what can be done with derivative works? Would it be bad idea to have a "No Adult-Oriented Derivative" license? Any help is useful. S. XXXX _______________________________________________ cc-licenses mailing list cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses From wouter.vanden.hove at pandora.be Tue Mar 2 08:31:08 2004 From: wouter.vanden.hove at pandora.be (Wouter Vanden Hove) Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 14:31:08 +0100 Subject: Restrictions on derivative works based on content? In-Reply-To: <31293-56768@sneakemail.com> References: <31293-56768@sneakemail.com> Message-ID: <40448C9C.6000500@pandora.be> S T wrote: > Now since this character is targeted > for young children, Why should a derived work be targeted to the same audience? Modifying a work to make it suitable for another target audience seems the best reason the create derivatives in the first place. Wouter From evan at wikitravel.org Tue Mar 2 08:32:45 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 08:32:45 -0500 Subject: Restrictions on derivative works based on content? In-Reply-To: <31293-56768@sneakemail.com> (S. T.'s message of "2 Mar 2004 12:19:02 -0000") References: <31293-56768@sneakemail.com> Message-ID: <87ishn4bnm.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> >>>>> "ST" == S T writes: ST> Hi, I have a question regarding the Creative Commons License. Hi, ST. So, there's not one "Creative Commons License". There are several. See here: http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses ST> Suppose I create a cartoon character that is suitable for ST> young children. I want to give people the freedom to copy, ST> modify, prepare derivative works using this character. Your following discussions say that you in fact DON'T want to give people freedom to create derivative works; you want to retain control what kind of derivative works are made. Yes, you've got broad categories, but that doesn't mean you're not trying to retain those rights. I think what you're looking for is a NoDerivatives license. You can then offer to allow derivative works to selected people under another, private license. You'll need to talk to a lawyer about it. BTW, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I don't speak for Creative Commons. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From email at greglondon.com Tue Mar 2 11:31:31 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 08:31:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Restrictions on derivative works based on content? Message-ID: <20040302083131.15127.h022.c001.wm@mail.greglondon.com.criticalpath.net> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 08:32:45 -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote: > >>>>> "ST" == S T writes: > ST> Suppose I create a cartoon character that is suitable for > ST> young children. I want to give people the freedom to copy, > ST> modify, prepare derivative works using this character. > > Your following discussions say that you in fact DON'T want to give > people freedom to create derivative works; you want to retain control > what kind of derivative works are made. Yes, you've got broad > categories, but that doesn't mean you're not trying to retain those > rights. > > I think what you're looking for is a NoDerivatives license. You can > then offer to allow derivative works to selected people under another, > private license. You'll need to talk to a lawyer about it. I would agree. The Open Source Definition seems to agree in spirit. http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php =6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor =The license must not restrict anyone from making =use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. =For example, it may not restrict the program from =being used in a business, or from being used for =genetic research. The idea being that "Open" licenses is NOT the place for political activism. If you're against genetic engineering, you shouldn't put that in your license, you should start a campaign to change genetic research laws. A technically related problem to specialized licenses that single out particular fields of endeavor is that such licenses cause incompatibility problems with other licenses. a work under CC-SA-NP (no porn) cannot be automatically joined with a work under CC-SA. SA-NP requires that all derived works be No-Porn as well. However the plain SA work requires that the derived work be plain SA. The only way to join the works is to contact ALL the authors of the SA work and get permission to create a derived work that is SA-NP. That makes it near impossible for a community to operate openly. Having to get author permissions whenever derived works are created becomes too burdernsome for a community working in a gift economy contributing works to a project. If you want it to be "open" use plain CC-SA. If you have issues with pornography, write your congressman. Othewise, if pornography is more important to you than openness, then use CC-ND. From bclark at radzone.org Tue Mar 2 15:27:56 2004 From: bclark at radzone.org (Brian Clark) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 15:27:56 -0500 Subject: Changing Licenses, Defaulting Licenses Message-ID: First off, congrats on the new search engine, I've been playing around with it some today. I thought, "What a great way to find pieces to collaborate with ... I wonder if this is even a good clipart library?" The results that I found suggest that it might be startlingly good for that -- but is everything marked as "public domain" by a CC license really as public domain as certified? In the process, I stumbled upon a series of questions (that I couldn't find answered at the CC site anywhere that I thought I'd post to the list) from some of the stuff at Buzznet (www.buzznet.com), the photoblog site. When a new user signs up and starts posting photos to their blog through that service, the system (by default) publishes each of those with a CC public domain license -- while the user can change that license, they aren't notified that it is the default setting. Therefore, a goodly majority of the photos (from landscapes to family photos to paparazzi shots) are being published right now as "public domain" no rights reserved, even though they may or may not have been certified as such (as the user may or may not know that they have been published that way.) But from a control panel, the user can change that ... so what happens if three months later a user now providing photos (perhaps not realizing it) as public domain changes their mind, and changes the CC license (automatically across all their photos) to be "some rights reserved." Are people using it under rights that weren't reserved before under a burden to discover that change? The question of online services that default to the least (ie, no) right reserved but offer the potential to re-restrict those rights poses some questions that I'm not sure there are answers to. Has this been discussed somewhere else I'm just late to the party? Brian Clark (PS: I'm on daily digest mode, so forgive me if I'm slow to respond on-list.) From matt at haughey.com Tue Mar 2 15:44:14 2004 From: matt at haughey.com (Matthew Haughey) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 12:44:14 -0800 Subject: Changing Licenses, Defaulting Licenses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5E1DC1C0-6C8A-11D8-8518-000393D00DFA@haughey.com> On Mar 2, 2004, at 12:27 PM, Brian Clark wrote: > In the process, I stumbled upon a series of questions (that I couldn't > find > answered at the CC site anywhere that I thought I'd post to the list) > from > some of the stuff at Buzznet (www.buzznet.com), the photoblog site. > When a > new user signs up and starts posting photos to their blog through that > service, the system (by default) publishes each of those with a CC > public > domain license -- while the user can change that license, they aren't > notified that it is the default setting. I helped steer the buzznet folks to CC licenses and the docs on how to integrate it with apps, and to be honest I believe they made an implementation mistake by reverting everyone to public domain. By default, new accounts should be all rights reserved, with the option to change it in your prefs (and make it public domain only if you really want to). I've contacted the founder and lead on the project about it in the past but I'll follow up with him today and see if they can get it changed soon. Matt From email at greglondon.com Tue Mar 2 15:52:42 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 12:52:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Changing Licenses, Defaulting Licenses Message-ID: <20040302125243.28735.h018.c001.wm@mail.greglondon.com.criticalpath.net> On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 15:27:56 -0500, "Brian Clark" wrote: > what happens if three months later a user now providing photos > (perhaps not realizing it) as public domain changes their mind, > and changes the CC license (automatically across all their photos) > to be "some rights reserved." Are people using it under rights > that weren't reserved before under a burden to discover that > change? [I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.] My understanding of Copyright law would say that if the work is distributed PD, those distributions remain PD. Changing the license at a later time affects the work from that point forward. Any previous licenses remain in effect for those previous versions. for example, if you license a work to me SA, but then later you decide to change the license on the work to "All rights reserved", my distribution of the work is still SA, and I can copy, distribute, and create derived works under the SA license. Otherwise a "bait and switch" is possible. "Oh, now my CC-SA song is really popular, I'm going to revoke EVERYONE'S license to my work, including the CC-SA version you downloaded last week, and change it to All Rights Reserved." From matt at haughey.com Tue Mar 2 17:04:42 2004 From: matt at haughey.com (Matthew Haughey) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 14:04:42 -0800 Subject: Changing Licenses, Defaulting Licenses In-Reply-To: <5E1DC1C0-6C8A-11D8-8518-000393D00DFA@haughey.com> References: <5E1DC1C0-6C8A-11D8-8518-000393D00DFA@haughey.com> Message-ID: <9B7353B0-6C95-11D8-8518-000393D00DFA@haughey.com> On Mar 2, 2004, at 12:44 PM, Matthew Haughey wrote: > I've contacted the founder and lead on the project about it in the > past but I'll follow up with him today and see if they can get it > changed soon. Just as a follow-up, I spoke with the buzznet folks and they'll be defaulting everyone to no license, making CC something you have to choose in your prefs. This does leave open the question of the photos that have been marked as PD, but on the positive side, new accounts won't have this problem in the future. Matt From christiane at creativecommons.org Wed Mar 3 09:37:25 2004 From: christiane at creativecommons.org (Christiane Asschenfeldt) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:37:25 +0100 Subject: time stamping and digitally signing licenses Message-ID: <003701c4012d$0e9c58e0$0301000a@jane> time stamping and digitally signing licenses What's about time stamping and digitally signing the licenses Creative Commons issues via its great WEB-page? The idea behind: title, authors name and time stamp in the license - which cannot be altered afterwards - documents who holds the rights and what permissions were given. Being new to this list maybe I've missed the discussion of this point before. Jochen U. Bruening Universitaet Konstanz, FB Informatik und Informationswissenschaft Tel.: 07531/88-2410 Mobil: 0170-7422617 Email: jochen.bruening at uni-konstanz.de -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20040303/4f39168e/attachment.htm From evan at wikitravel.org Wed Mar 3 10:24:28 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 10:24:28 -0500 Subject: time stamping and digitally signing licenses In-Reply-To: <003701c4012d$0e9c58e0$0301000a@jane> (Christiane Asschenfeldt's message of "Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:37:25 +0100") References: <003701c4012d$0e9c58e0$0301000a@jane> Message-ID: <87wu62eyxf.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> >>>>> "CA" == Christiane Asschenfeldt writes: CA> time stamping and digitally signing licenses Just out of curiosity, whom am I addressing? Are you Christiane or Jochen? Is one a pseudonym for the other? Was this message just bounced to the list? Also, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I don't speak for Creative Commons. CA> What's about time stamping and digitally signing the licenses CA> Creative Commons issues via its great WEB-page? ?? This might be a language issue, but I'm not sure what the hell this is supposed to mean. Creative Commons doesn't issue licenses from the Web site. Creative Commons develops licenses (at an alarming rate), and there's a special form to choose which license works best for you. CA> The idea behind: title, authors name and time stamp in the CA> license - which cannot be altered afterwards - documents who CA> holds the rights and what permissions were given. Being new to CA> this list maybe I've missed the discussion of this point CA> before. I doubt there's been discussion on the issue before. I think what you're saying is this: someone fills in a Web form identifying the work, their name, and the license they've chosen, and the Web form spits back some kind of metadata, digitally signed by Creative Commons. That sounds like a really bad idea to me. First, Creative Commons is not a party to the license between creator and the world. It probably also should not act as a notary or witness to that license -- especially since it has no means to verify that the Web user is who they say they are, or that they have any ownership of the work they've entered under the license. Having a record that says this: I hereby certify that {http://www.microsoft.com/} is put under the {Creative Commons Share-Alike License} by its owner, {John Q. Fakename}. Signed this {30 Jan 2004}, Creative Commons ...doesn't do anything except make Creative Commons look like an idiot. I also fail to see what benefits the timestamps or digital signatures provide. If the _creator_ digitally signed the work, and users had some way of verifying the signature, there would be some advantage. You would know that the person really did offer you this license, and if you were sure they created the work, you would know that the work was really licensed. But having Creative Commons do it? False security. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From bclark at radzone.org Wed Mar 3 14:36:07 2004 From: bclark at radzone.org (Brian Clark) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 14:36:07 -0500 Subject: time stamping and digitally signing licenses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >I also fail to see what benefits the timestamps or >digital signatures provide. Actually, it would have helped in the situation I posted about yesterday. Yesterday, this photo was marked as "public domain": http://cjid.buzznet.com/user/?id=99597 But, since Buzznet took off "public domain" as the default, the page no longer has any CC license. So if someone used the file when it was marked as "public domain" and now the rights have changed ... how would they now prove that on the date they used that photo the rights were displayed as open? Short of having a cache file or an archive.org cache, there'd be no ability to prove that the CC mark was displayed there. If CC acted as a repository of timestaps, then we've got something different ... if I'm in doubt as to whether a public domain notice is legitimate, I can check to see if it has been reported to CC (perhaps as part of the search engine?) It doesn't mean that CC has to certify ... just chronicle in case of future issues. Brian From evan at wikitravel.org Wed Mar 3 15:02:36 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 15:02:36 -0500 Subject: time stamping and digitally signing licenses In-Reply-To: (Brian Clark's message of "Wed, 3 Mar 2004 14:36:07 -0500") References: Message-ID: <87oerdd7hf.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> >>>>> "BC" == Brian Clark writes: Me> I also fail to see what benefits the timestamps or digital Me> signatures provide. BC> Actually, it would have helped in the situation I posted about BC> yesterday. Yesterday, this photo was marked as "public BC> domain": BC> http://cjid.buzznet.com/user/?id=99597 BC> But, since Buzznet took off "public domain" as the default, BC> the page no longer has any CC license. And rightly so, correct? Buzznet was labeling the image as public domain without the copyright holder's permission, if I remember right. BC> So if someone used the file when it was marked as "public BC> domain" and now the rights have changed ... how would they now BC> prove that on the date they used that photo the rights were BC> displayed as open? Short of having a cache file or an BC> archive.org cache, there'd be no ability to prove that the CC BC> mark was displayed there. Label or no, the image was not released to the public domain. So, what would the value be in being able to prove that the item was labelled as PD? To limit damages in a lawsuit or something by showing that copyright violation was not intentional? BC> If CC acted as a repository of timestaps, then we've got BC> something different ... if I'm in doubt as to whether a public BC> domain notice is legitimate, I can check to see if it has been BC> reported to CC (perhaps as part of the search engine?) BC> It doesn't mean that CC has to certify ... just chronicle in BC> case of future issues. So, I have to admit, I'm starting to warm to the idea of some kind of registry. But I don't think it should be Creative Commons that does it, and I don't think it should occur at license-choice time. I wonder if Common Content (http://www.commoncontent.org/) would be more appropriate. They keep a catalog of CC-licensed material, which Creative Commons does not. People reporting available works give a lot more information than people choosing a license. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From email at greglondon.com Wed Mar 3 15:11:44 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 12:11:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: time stamping and digitally signing licenses Message-ID: <20040303121145.26285.h017.c001.wm@mail.greglondon.com.criticalpath.net> On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 15:02:36 -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote: > And rightly so, correct? Buzznet was labeling the image as public > domain without the copyright holder's permission, if I remember right. uhm, did it ask people what license to use when they uploaded works and simply default to CC-PD? if so, then that might be 'giving permission'. if it simply slapped CC-PD on all uploaded works and users had to go in after the fact and change it, then that is a different thing. I'm not sure what a judge or jury would say, though. this really comes down to "lawsuit-protection" though, which is not a business I want to get into right now. From bclark at radzone.org Wed Mar 3 15:19:40 2004 From: bclark at radzone.org (Brian Clark) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:19:40 -0500 Subject: time stamping and digitally signing licenses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >And rightly so, correct? Buzznet was labeling the image as >public domain without the copyright holder's permission, >if I remember right. True. And I when I saw it, I was suspicious. Having a "registry" at CC that I could have searched would have served as a confirmation -- if it wasn't there, I'd have confirmed my seed of doubt, and if it was there I would have eliminated it. Otherwise, I would have had to email the individual user to inquire if those rights were open (no different than if it had said "all rights reserved.") >To limit damages in a lawsuit or something by showing that >copyright violation was not intentional? I'm not a lawyer, so I still don't understand the details of how that all works (if it was reported as "public domain" in error and someone used it, where does the liability lay? I have no clue.) Your observation seems correct to me, though -- especially in the case of where a user changes the licensing in the future (to either more restrictive or less restrictive.) >But I don't think it should be Creative Commons that does >it, and I don't think it should occur at license-choice time. Sure thing -- I popped my head in because I thought I at least understood what the original poster was aiming towards, and a registry does seem like a good thing (and making it take an active submission rather than just spider-harvested from web examination reinforces that it really was a user's choice, even when housed in a aggregated site like Buzznet.) Brian From christiane at creativecommons.org Wed Mar 3 18:02:19 2004 From: christiane at creativecommons.org (Christiane Asschenfeldt) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 00:02:19 +0100 Subject: AW: time stamping and digitally signing licenses In-Reply-To: <87wu62eyxf.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> Message-ID: <001401c40173$968ce760$0301000a@jane> Dear Evan, Jochen's message bounced and I forwarded it to the mailing list for him. Thanks for stating your opinion so strongly, even though I think you could be a little friendlier to a new list member! :) Welcome Jochen! All the best, Christiane Christiane Asschenfeldt International Commons Coordinator Alte Schoenhauser Strasse 35 D-10119 Berlin, Germany +49.163.77.64.828 christiane at creativecommons.org www.creativecommons.org -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Evan Prodromou [mailto:evan at wikitravel.org] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. M?rz 2004 16:24 An: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts Cc: Discussion of the Creative Commons Metadata work; christiane at creativecommons.org; jochen.bruening at uni-konstanz.de Betreff: Re: time stamping and digitally signing licenses >>>>> "CA" == Christiane Asschenfeldt >>>>> writes: CA> time stamping and digitally signing licenses Just out of curiosity, whom am I addressing? Are you Christiane or Jochen? Is one a pseudonym for the other? Was this message just bounced to the list? Also, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I don't speak for Creative Commons. CA> What's about time stamping and digitally signing the licenses CA> Creative Commons issues via its great WEB-page? ?? This might be a language issue, but I'm not sure what the hell this is supposed to mean. Creative Commons doesn't issue licenses from the Web site. Creative Commons develops licenses (at an alarming rate), and there's a special form to choose which license works best for you. CA> The idea behind: title, authors name and time stamp in the CA> license - which cannot be altered afterwards - documents who CA> holds the rights and what permissions were given. Being new to CA> this list maybe I've missed the discussion of this point CA> before. I doubt there's been discussion on the issue before. I think what you're saying is this: someone fills in a Web form identifying the work, their name, and the license they've chosen, and the Web form spits back some kind of metadata, digitally signed by Creative Commons. That sounds like a really bad idea to me. First, Creative Commons is not a party to the license between creator and the world. It probably also should not act as a notary or witness to that license -- especially since it has no means to verify that the Web user is who they say they are, or that they have any ownership of the work they've entered under the license. Having a record that says this: I hereby certify that {http://www.microsoft.com/} is put under the {Creative Commons Share-Alike License} by its owner, {John Q. Fakename}. Signed this {30 Jan 2004}, Creative Commons ...doesn't do anything except make Creative Commons look like an idiot. I also fail to see what benefits the timestamps or digital signatures provide. If the _creator_ digitally signed the work, and users had some way of verifying the signature, there would be some advantage. You would know that the person really did offer you this license, and if you were sure they created the work, you would know that the work was really licensed. But having Creative Commons do it? False security. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From nkemboms6 at z6.com Thu Mar 4 05:59:34 2004 From: nkemboms6 at z6.com (Mr Nkem Boms) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 14:59:34 +0400 Subject: VERY IMPORTANT Message-ID: <20040304105605.20468200A8@happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu> FROM THE DESK OF MR NKEM BOMS BILL AND EXCHANGE MANAGER, BANK OF AFRICA COTONOU BENIN WEST AFICA Dear Friend With due respect and humility, I write to you this proposal. I am a South African working in Bank of Africa Benin Republic as the manager of bill and exchange at the foreign remittance department of Bank of Africa(BOA). I am writing following the impressive information about you, l got your contact from a friend of mine who work in Benin chamber of commerce and industry who assured me of your capability and reliability to champion this business opportunity. In my department, we discovered an abandoned sum of U.S$18.5M US dollars (Eighteen million five hundred thousand united states dollar only).In an account that belongs to Mr Burke Sean a (BOA) foreign customer who died with Korean Air Flight 801 Boeing 747 that was carrying 254 passengers when it crashed into the dense jungle early Wednesday August 5, 1997 morning three miles (five kilometers) southwest of the airport. At least 225 people died. Since we got information about his death, we have been expecting his next of kin to come forward and claim his money because we cannot release it unless somebody applies for it as next of kin or relation to the deceased as indicated in our banking guidelines and policies but unfortunately we learnt that all his supposed next of kin or relation died alongside with him at Urgly attack at the World Trade Centre leaving nobody behind for the claims. It is therefore upon this discovery that I have decided to make this business proposal to you to transact this DEAL with you and to act as the next of kin or relation to the deceased for safety and subsequent disbursement since nobody is coming forth and l don't want this money to go into the Bank treasury as unclaimed Bill. According to our Banking policies and guideline here which stipulates that if such money remained unclaimed after five years, the money will automatically be transferred into the Bank treasury as unclaimed fund. My request for a foreigner to act as next of kin in this business is by the fact that the customer was a foreigner and a citizen of this country cannot stand or put claims as next of kin to a foreigner. l agreed to offer 25% of the total fund to you, for your assistance, to act as the next of Kin to the foreigner, to provide account, 5% will be for reimbursement of any expenses incurred during the curse of the transaction. There after, I and my family will visit your country for disbursement and for investment in your country. Therefore to enable the immediate transfer of this fund to you as arranged, you must apply first to the bank as relation or next of kin of the deceased indicating your bank name, your bank account number, your private telephone and fax number for easier and effective communication and location where the money will be transfer. Upon receipt of your reply, I will send to you by fax or email the text of the application. I will not fail to bring to your notice that this transaction is hitch free and that you should not entertain any atom of fear as all required arrangements have been made for the transfer. You should contact me immediately as soon as you receive this letter. Hope to hear from you immediately, Regards MR NKEM BOMS From glenn at creativecommons.org Tue Mar 2 21:54:03 2004 From: glenn at creativecommons.org (Glenn Otis Brown) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 11:54:03 +0900 Subject: [cc-info] Creative Commons News, March 3, 2004 Message-ID: <07E0CB72-6CBE-11D8-AAC0-000393864E40@creativecommons.org> Creative Commons News March 3, 2004 ----------------- A monthly newsletter from Creative Commons. To unsubscribe, visit and scroll down. ----------------- Contents: *GET CREATIVE! Contest Winners *iCommons Japan is Live *Search Engine Prototype Debuts *On the Horizon *Choice Blog Entries and News from February 2004 ----------------- *GET CREATIVE! Contest Winners http://creativecommons.org/getcontent/features/movingimagecontest We're very happy to announce the winners of the GET CREATIVE! Moving Images Contest: First Place goes to Justin Cone, for the inspired and powerful short film "Building on the Past," which uses all sorts of Prelinger Archives footage to great effect.Second Place: Sheryl Seibert, for "Mix Tape," which perfectly captures the found-art ethos of Creative Commons and uses the Creative Commons-licensed song "Mix Tape" by Jim's Big Ego. Third Place: Alek and Kuba Tarkowski, for "CCC," an historical look at free culture. Check them out on our site, download them, mirror them, share them with friends. Thanks to all of you who made submissions! http://creativecommons.org/getcontent/features/movingimagecontest ------------------ *iCommons Japan is Live Our Japanese-law and -language licenses are now available for use from our site. Just select "Jurisdiction: Japan" when choosing a license [1], and the site will point you to the right document. For those with browsers set to English, the Commons Deed will appear in English [2]. For those with broswers set to Japanese, in Japanese [3]. And the underlying legal code is in Japanese [4] with an unofficial English translation. This is a major milestone for Creative Commons, and I'd like to extend a special thank you to GLOCOM [5] for driving iCommons Japan, to Yuko Noguchi and Emi Wakatsuki for their extraordinary efforts, and to Machina [6] for her keen insights at various points in the drafting process. More countries soon to follow. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] ------------------ *Search Engine Prototype More big news. The prototype [1] of our CC-enabled search engine is now available. It still needs some polish, but it's the first glimpse of our dream world, where you can search for noncommercial music and photos and culture to re-use as easily as finding out the weather. [1] ------------------ *On the Horizon: In coming weeks, look out for a few big developments. Here's a tease: --CC at South by Southwest in Austin, Texas, USA --Licenses Version to 2.0 ------------------ *Choice Blog Entries and News from February 2004 T-minus a fortnight 2004-02-27 Just a little over two weeks until South by Southwest[1], the wonderful tech-film-music conference in Austin, Texas, USA (my beloved hometown). If you're in town, come check out our two panels on music (Sample, Share, or Both?) and film (Can Copyright Bring the Audience to the Director?) the morning of March 15. That night we'll have a free party at El Sol y La Luna[2], a great Mexican spot on South Congress, co-hosted by our friends at the EFF[3] and Common Content[4] . Let us know if you think you'll make it by. [1] http://sxsw.com [2] http://www.austinchronicle.com/gbase/Guides/Location?oid=oid:44833 [3] http://eff.org [4] http://commoncontent.org ----------------- Alt.Publishing 2004-02-27 Annalee Newitz has a nice article[1] in this week's SF Bay Guardian[2] about independent publishing and the some rights reserved copyright model. [1] http://www.sfbg.com/38/22/lit_copyright.html [2] http://www.sfbg.com ----------------- iCommons expands to Croatia, Spain -- plus Catalonia 2004-02-26 Creative Commons has recently expanded the iCommons[1] project further to include Croatian[2], Spanish[3], and Catalan[4] drafts in progress. They join the other jurisdictions in the effort to port Creative Commons licenses to the framework of international law. Every country has an ongoing discussion[5] so if you're interested in helping bring the licenses to these places, feel free to join in. The associated press[6] releases[7] are also online. [1] http://creativecommons.org/projects/international/ [2] http://creativecommons.org/projects/international/hr/ [3] http://creativecommons.org/projects/international/es/ [4] http://creativecommons.org/projects/international/es-ca/ [5] http://creativecommons.org/discuss [6] http://creativecommons.org/press-releases/entry/4015 [7] http://creativecommons.org/press-releases/entry/4014 ----------------- Get creative and remix culture 2004-02-26 The source materials for both "Get Creative[1]" and "Remix Culture[2]" are now available. Download the .fla file for either and you can get creative and remix "Get Creative" or "Remix Culture" with ease. Quicktime versions of both movies are also now available. Now it's easier than ever to download, display and share "Get Creative[3]" and "Remix Culture[4]" (right-click on links to download and save). Thanks to Ibiblio[5] for hosting all of these files. The Quicktime movies are also available at the Internet Archive here[6] and here[7]. The Internet Archive will also host your Creative Commons-licensed movies and music free of charge. Get started[8]. [1] http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/getcreative/ [2] http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/reticulum_rex/ [3] http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/getcreative/Creative_Commons_- _Get_Creative.mov [4] http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/reticulum_rex/Creative_Commons_- _Remix_Culture.mov [5] http://www.ibiblio.org/ [6] http://www.archive.org/movies/movies-details-db.php? collection=opensource_movies&collectionid=Creative_Commons_- _Get_Creative [7] http://www.archive.org/movies/movies-details-db.php? collection=opensource_movies&collectionid=Creative_Commons_- _Remix_Culture [8] http://www.archive.org/contribute.php ----------------- World66 travel site 2004-02-25 This week's featured content is the entire World66 travel site[1]. It features comprehensive guides[2] built by vistors in a collaborative fashion and the site also features tools[3] like the popular visited states[4] and visited countries[5] apps seen on weblogs like this[6]. The photos, guides, and generated images are all licensed under commercial-friendly Creative Commons licenses, allowing people to share the places they've been and build upon the information shared on the site. [1] http://www.world66.com/ [2] http://www.world66.com/destinations [3] http://www.world66.com/myworld66 [4] http://www.world66.com/myworld66/visitedStates [5] http://www.world66.com/myworld66/visitedCountries [6] http://a.wholelottanothing.org/archives.blah/007685 ----------------- zug.com's prank song 2004-02-19 This week's featured content is a protest song at zug.com[1]. Zug.com has been producing humorous articles for almost ten years online and this protest song is part of a larger set of RIAA pranks they pulled last summer. The song has been remixed as well and they actively encourage others to share the song online to get their message across, in a humorous way. [1] http://www.zug.com/pranks/riaa/ ----------------- The Grey Album 2004-02-16 A few months ago, hip-hop artist Jay Z released what is reportedly his last album, titled The Black Album[1]. He also released a vocals-only version, specifically for DJs to incorporate into new mixes. One of those mixes was done by DJ Dangermouse[2], using only samples from The Beatles' White Album. This new mix was dubbed The Grey Album and a limited pressing was made. After a mention in the New Yorker[3], copies quickly showed up online[4] and spread like wildfire. EMI, the rights holders to The Beatles' recordings issued a cease and desist order to record stores and online merchants selling it last week, since the sampling was done without permission from either Jay Z or The Beatles. Executive Director of the Creative Commons, Glenn Otis Brown was quoted in a Wired News piece about the album[5] and points out the problems of copyright being used to silence DJ Dangermouse and his popular mix. [1] http://www.hiphopmusic.com/archives/000214.html [2] http://djdangermouse.com/ [3] http://newyorker.com/talk/content/?040209ta_talk_greenman [4] http://www.illegal-art.org/audio/grey.html [5] http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,62276,00.html ----------------- CC metadata in PDFs, images with XMP 2004-02-13 You can now add Creative Commons license metadata to PDFs and image files, enabled by XMP[1] (eXtensible Metadata Platform). XMP is an open, RDF/XML-based format developed by Adobe for managing metadata embedded in files. Please see information[2] about Creative Commons metadata in XMP, instructions[3] for marking files with Creative Commons metadata for users of Adobe's Creative Suite, and a "custom panel[4]" to enhance viewing of Creative Commons metadata within Adobe apps. We've also posted a related technology challenge[5]: add XMP and Creative Commons licensing support to open source apps, including Open Office[6]. [1] http://creativecommons.org/technology/xmp [2] http://creativecommons.org/technology/xmp [3] http://creativecommons.org/technology/xmp-help [4] http://creativecommons.org/technology/xmp-help#cc-panel [5] http://creativecommons.org/technology/challenges#challenge_entry_4005 [6] http://www.openoffice.org ----------------- Down and Out relicensed today 2004-02-12 Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom[1], Cory Doctorow's first novel released a little over a year ago, has just been relicensed under an Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike license[2]. Previously the book did not allow derivative works and any "lost chapters[3]" or comic versions were unauthorized. With this change in place, the door is wide open to people writing prequels, sequels, and side stories, you can make a movie, cartoon, or graphic novel, you can write songs for it, rewrite it in haiku, and/or turn it all into one giant flowchart, as long as your new Down and Out-inspired work isn't released in a commercial context or sold. Let the re-creativity begin! [1] http://www.craphound.com/down/buy.php [2] http://www.craphound.com/down/archives/2004_02.php#000117 [3] http://www.worldnewyork.net/lostkingdom/ ----------------- mozCC Gets Better and Gets Noticed 2004-02-12 mozCC[1], an extension for Mozilla-based browsers that exposes Creative Commons license metadata as you surf, got noticed by Slashdot [2] last weekend. The resulting surge of new users brought new bug reports, fixes for which creator Nathan Yergler has already incorporated in mozCC 0.7.7[3] along with new features. The new version looks for license metadata in SMIL[4] and SVG[5] multimedia files in addition to HTML. Install mozCC[6] with the latest Mozilla Firefox[7] browser for the best CC-enhanced browsing experience available. mozCC was inspired by one of our technology challenges[8]. The challenge remains open for non-Mozilla browsers (e.g., Safari, Opera, IE, hint, hint, hint). [1] http://yergler.net/projects/mozcc/ [2] http://www.yergler.net/averages/archives/2004/02/10/mozcc_on_slashdot [3] http://www.yergler.net/averages/archives/2004/02/12/ mozcc_077_now_available [4] http://web.resource.org/cc/modules/smil/ [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/metadata.html [6] http://yergler.net/projects/mozcc/install.html [7] http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ [8] http://creativecommons.org/technology/challenges#challenge_entry_3848 ----------------- The insanely great MacBand 2004-02-06 Last month, Apple released Garageband[1] at MacWorld, letting any budding musician create music from its suite of sophisticated but simple audio tools. Given the potential for thousands of musicians recording new songs at home, we knew it was a great fit for Creative Commons and we're very happy to see a new community has sprung up around the software, at MacBand[2]. They've just launched but have a system setup to categorize dozens of song styles and loops, with every song available under a Creative Commons license, letting you make remixes and new songs from others work. Garageband has the great potential to become a collaborative music tool and MacBand[3] looks like a great way to facilitate that. [1] http://www.apple.com/ilife/garageband/ [2] http://macband.com/ [3] http://macband.com/ ----------------- Ron Suskind posts government public domain documents online 2004-02-05 Government documents supplied by Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill to Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Ron Suskind for his book, The Price of Loyalty[1], are now available online[2]. The site makes use of the Creative Commons public domain mark. These documents, drawn from a collection of 19,000 files, are called "The Bush Files" and Suskind is encouraging other administration officials to contribute to the database, "to encourage more productive, fact-based public dialogues," as stated on the website. [1] http://thepriceofloyalty.ronsuskind.com/ [2] http://thepriceofloyalty.ronsuskind.com/thebushfiles/ ----------------- Fading Ways Music, indie label, announces 2004 releases will be CC! 2004-02-04 _Fading Ways Music_[1], an indie record label based out of Toronto, announced their 2004 releases will be sold under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike[2] licenses. Fading Ways Music is the first internationally-distributed label to adopt Creative Commons licensing for its new physical CD releases. Fading Ways articulates its philosophy for open-licenses nicely on its mission page[3]. Neil Leyton, the label's manager, makes a great quote here: "Music Publishing as a concept is wrong. No one creates songs out of thin air." Fading Ways joins other labels, such as Opsound[4], Magnatune[5], and Loca Records[6] that embrace Creative Commons licenses, enabling fans to rip, mix, and burn their favorite tunes without legal doubt. [1] http://www.fadingwaysmusic.com [2] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/1.0/ [3] http://www.fadingwaysmusic.com/mission.html [4] http://www.opsound.org [5] http://www.magnatune.com [6] http://www.locarecords.com ----------------- New Doctorow novel out under license 2004-02-03 Cory Doctorow, author of the acclaimed sci-fi book Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom[1], has a new novel out in stores called Eastern Standard Tribe[2]. Like Down and Out, it is both available for purchase[3] as well as for free download[4], under a Creative Commons license. [1] http://craphound.com/down [2] http://craphound.com/est/ [3] http://craphound.com/est/buy.php [4] http://craphound.com/est/download.php ----------------- Some words from a remixer 2004-02-03 Victor Stone writes a remixer-readable[1] description on how the new Creative Commons Sampling license compares to our standard licenses[2] . He also mentions that it's important to have format specific metdata, so that search engines can find Creative Commons licensed audio, as opposed to text, images, or video. This way remixers can easily find sounds they can remix legally, rather than having to wade through a mass of content. You get format specific metadata when you choose a license[3] and designate what format your content is in. We'll soon launch a seach engine that reads this metadata so that you can find works to use as part of your own creations. Unfortunately, currently no major search engine offers this service. [1] http://virtualturntable.biz/archives/000107.php [2] http://creativecommons.org/licenses [3] http://creativecommons.org/license ----------------- iRATE Radio Application reads MP3 files to identify CC licensed songs 2004-02-03 iRATE Radio[1], an open-source application that sends users free-legal MP3s through its radio client, is now able to read the ID3 tags of MP3 files to identify Creative Commons license information. Enabling this kind of feature is exactly why Creative Commons put forth its MP3 embedding strategy[2] many months ago, which defines a standard way to embed Creative Commons metadata in the ID3 tag of an MP3. Our hope was that file-sharing networks, and applications like iRATE, would read the ID3 tags, and tell users if there was a Creative Commons license attached. This way, users could feel assured to trade these MP3s online, or even make remixes of them. Check out some[3] screenshots[4] of the CC enabled iRATE Radio application. iRATE has yet to enable the second part of our MP3 strategy[5], where MP3s are validated through an automatic web page verification process. (Validation can be done manually, though). This step is important because it prevents people from making fraudulent license claims about the MP3s. Beyond being able to read ID3 tags, iRATE Radio has a catalogue of over 46,000 MP3s it can send you. It's also really smart in that it enables users to rate songs and then sends you more songs based on your ratings and preferences. We hope that more applications follow the lead of iRATE! [1] http://irate.sourceforge.net/ [2] http://creativecommons.org/technology/embedding#1 [3] http://www.ibiblio.org/cccr/irate-cc-small.png [4] http://www.ibiblio.org/cccr/irate.png [5] http://creativecommons.org/technology/embedding#2 ----------------- Magnatune making money for Creative Commons musicians 2004-02-03 Linux Journal has a great interview with John Buckman from Magnatune [1], the non-evil record label that sells Creative Commons licensed music on a sliding scale. It's turning out to be lucrative for the artists involved, with the average musician taking in $1,500 in royaltes last year and the top artists making over $6,000 in royalties (which are 50% of sales). While six thousand dollars won't buy you a Bentley or a mansion for MTV Cribs, most artists listed at Magnatune are independent musicians that record at home. Considering that for most Magnatune artists, it means sending a few high quality recordings to a server and later getting thousands of dollars in royalties, it's a pretty good system for the struggling musician. Combined with the services of something like Pump Audio[2], today's independent artist has a lot of avenues to make money off their music while still letting others share it freely online. [1] http://linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7220 [2] http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/3970 ----------------- SRR 2004-02-01 So nice to see our tagline continue to catch on. There's a nice profile[1] of Creative Commons in the InfoTech[2] section of the Singaporean news outlet Today[3]. It's entitled "Some Rights Reserved [4]." [1] http://www.todayonline.com/articles/13561.asp [2] http://www.todayonline.com/supp_txt_main.asp?supp_id=20 [3] http://www.todayonline.com/txt_main.asp [4] http://www.todayonline.com/articles/13561.asp _______________________________________________ cc-info mailing list cc-info at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-info From mgr at x-oz.com Thu Mar 4 21:48:36 2004 From: mgr at x-oz.com (selussos) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 21:48:36 -0500 Subject: software licenses Message-ID: <00e001c4025d$8c9c63d0$2a05a8c0@Persephone> Hi I was looking at the Sleepycat.com site and I see that I links to CC for a human understandable version of their license, yet no where on CC do you really say that you cover Software. I would like to use the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ to explain our license in plain English but should I or would that be misleading? Thanks so much. Sue From ml at creativecommons.org Thu Mar 4 22:08:45 2004 From: ml at creativecommons.org (Mike Linksvayer) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:08:45 -0800 Subject: software licenses In-Reply-To: <00e001c4025d$8c9c63d0$2a05a8c0@Persephone> References: <00e001c4025d$8c9c63d0$2a05a8c0@Persephone> Message-ID: <4047EF3D.8000500@creativecommons.org> selussos wrote: > I was looking at the Sleepycat.com site and I see that I links to CC for a human understandable version of their license, yet no where on CC do you really say that you cover Software. > I would like to use the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ to explain our > license in plain English but should I or would that be misleading? I guess you must be looking at . Only the documentation is under a CC license. Unfortunately they have copied the deed rather than linked to . Sleepycat's software is under their own license, see , also linked to from the above licensinginfo page. Creative Commons licenses aren't intended for software , but in theory you could use one. Note that we're now offering CC packaging (human readable deed and machine readable metadata) for the GPL and LGPL , and could do the same for other software licenses in the future. -- Mike Linksvayer http://creativecommons.org/learn/aboutus/people#21 From mgr at x-oz.com Thu Mar 4 22:35:00 2004 From: mgr at x-oz.com (selussos) Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 22:35:00 -0500 Subject: software licenses References: <00e001c4025d$8c9c63d0$2a05a8c0@Persephone> <4047EF3D.8000500@creativecommons.org> Message-ID: <011c01c40264$191ccec0$2a05a8c0@Persephone> Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. - Mark Twain. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Linksvayer" To: "selussos" ; "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:08 PM Subject: Re: software licenses > selussos wrote: > > I was looking at the Sleepycat.com site and I see that I links to CC for a human understandable version of their license, yet no where on CC do you really say that you cover Software. > > I would like to use the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ to explain our > > license in plain English but should I or would that be misleading? > > I guess you must be looking at > . Only the > documentation is under a CC license. Unfortunately they have copied the > deed rather than linked to . Yes I noticed that. > > Creative Commons licenses aren't intended for software > , but in theory you could > use one. > > Note that we're now offering CC packaging (human readable deed and > machine readable metadata) for the GPL > and LGPL > , and could do the same > for other software licenses in the future. I think it funny that you link to the GNU.org site instead of the alias FSF.org for the Free Software Foundation link ;-) We use on our site the FSF one. Unfortunately we cannot do GPL but must offer something in the MIT/X/BSD variation see: http://www.x-oz.com/licenses.html, which is why I thought the link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ would be good. Will you be doing something like that in the near future? If so I could justw wait and link then if you think that would be clearer. As you can I am looking for _clarity_ since we've been getting so many questions on our rather simple license. Thanks for your quick response. Best Regards SUe > -- > Mike Linksvayer > http://creativecommons.org/learn/aboutus/people#21 > From ml at creativecommons.org Fri Mar 5 02:41:19 2004 From: ml at creativecommons.org (Mike Linksvayer) Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 23:41:19 -0800 Subject: software licenses In-Reply-To: <011c01c40264$191ccec0$2a05a8c0@Persephone> References: <00e001c4025d$8c9c63d0$2a05a8c0@Persephone> <4047EF3D.8000500@creativecommons.org> <011c01c40264$191ccec0$2a05a8c0@Persephone> Message-ID: <40482F1F.1060602@creativecommons.org> selussos wrote: > Unfortunately we cannot do GPL but must offer something in the MIT/X/BSD > variation see: http://www.x-oz.com/licenses.html, which is why I thought > the link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ would be good. > Will you be doing something like that in the near future? If so I could justw > wait and link then if you think that would be clearer. I don't see a link to CC there, but it wouldn't make much sense, as you aren't actually using the license you propose to link to. > As you can I am looking for _clarity_ since we've been getting so many > questions on our rather simple license. Thanks for your quick response. Well, that's what you get for creating your own license. :-) You could create a commons deed-like summary. Whether that would help depends upon the nature of the questions you're getting. -- Mike Linksvayer http://creativecommons.org/learn/aboutus/people#21 From mgr at x-oz.com Fri Mar 5 07:34:58 2004 From: mgr at x-oz.com (selussos) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 07:34:58 -0500 Subject: software licenses References: <00e001c4025d$8c9c63d0$2a05a8c0@Persephone> <4047EF3D.8000500@creativecommons.org> <011c01c40264$191ccec0$2a05a8c0@Persephone> <40482F1F.1060602@creativecommons.org> Message-ID: <017d01c402af$15f3d450$2a05a8c0@Persephone> Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. - Mark Twain. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Linksvayer" To: "selussos" Cc: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 2:41 AM Subject: Re: software licenses > selussos wrote: > > Unfortunately we cannot do GPL but must offer something in the MIT/X/BSD > > variation see: http://www.x-oz.com/licenses.html, which is why I thought > > the link to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ would be good. > > Will you be doing something like that in the near future? If so I could just > > wait and link then if you think that would be clearer. > > I don't see a link to CC there, but it wouldn't make much sense, as you > aren't actually using the license you propose to link to. How do you mean? > > > As you can I am looking for _clarity_ since we've been getting so many > > questions on our rather simple license. Thanks for your quick response. > > Well, that's what you get for creating your own license. :-) Seems so. I had no idea that that was going to cause such an uproar. > > You could create a commons deed-like summary. Whether that would help > depends upon the nature of the questions you're getting. Okay, what's that? Best Regards Sue From gslondon at greglondon.com Fri Mar 5 14:46:00 2004 From: gslondon at greglondon.com (gslondon at greglondon.com) Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:46:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: software licenses In-Reply-To: <00e001c4025d$8c9c63d0$2a05a8c0@Persephone> References: <00e001c4025d$8c9c63d0$2a05a8c0@Persephone> Message-ID: <41356.206.67.17.2.1078515960.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> looking at http://www.x-oz.com/licenses.html : Copyright ? 2003, 2004 X-Oz Technologies. All Rights Reserved. : Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright : notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer. uhm, you require redistributions to retain the copyright notice, but the copyright notice says "All Rights Reserved". "ARR" is a license that says the Author is witholding all rights to Copy, Distribute, and Create Derived Works. I think you want to take "all rights reserved" off of that page. : The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, : if any, must include the following acknowledgment: : "This product includes software developed by X-Oz Technologies : (http://www.x-oz.com/)." > I was looking at the Sleepycat.com site and I see that I links to CC for a > human understandable version of their license, yet no where on CC do you > really say that you cover Software. > I would like to use the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ to > explain our > license in plain English but should I or would that be misleading? uhm, that would be confusing. I read your license, and I have a suggestion (I am not a lawyer, this it not legal advice, I am not a member of Creative Commons) Use an OSI approved license so you can apply the "OSI-Certified" Trademark to your software distribution. http://www.opensource.org It looks like your license pretty much gives away all rights, but requires the attribution with the URL. I'm not familiar with all the OSI approved licenses, but one license that might fit is: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lucent1.02.php A quick email to OpenSource.org would tell you if you could use the lucent license adn do a search and replace with your company nam/address. From info at hboutdoors.com Sat Mar 6 03:01:13 2004 From: info at hboutdoors.com (HB Outdoors) Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 02:01:13 -0600 Subject: Adv:Accommodations, Hunting, Fishing, Recreation Message-ID: <6l3u5lnnybwt1wacetajpopc9fn78l> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20040306/8904ebfc/attachment.htm From email at greglondon.com Mon Mar 8 12:26:47 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 12:26:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: (no subject) Message-ID: <48172.206.67.17.2.1078766807.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> I'm looking for constructive feedback on this document I've written which attempts to explain Open Content to the uninitiated. http://www.greglondon.com/draftingthegiftdomain.pdf please send comments off list. DELETEALLCAPSemail at greglondon.com Thanks From jglover at bright.net Sat Mar 13 15:42:01 2004 From: jglover at bright.net (James Glover) Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 15:42:01 -0500 Subject: Burn Sony Games / Dvds to Cd! Message-ID: <000601c4093b$a473f600$a6afdb42@S0029351368> Hi Can I buy on a CD how to burn DVD to CD and what is the cost of the CD Please reply. James jglover at bright.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20040313/75411301/attachment.htm From keith at cs.stanford.edu Tue Mar 16 04:06:36 2004 From: keith at cs.stanford.edu (Keith Coleman) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 01:06:36 -0800 Subject: Sampling + BY-NC-SA-2.0 = ? Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20040316004829.02a5ea28@localhost> I've been reviewing the new 2.0 licenses (for inclusion a Stanford CS research project) and have noticed some odd interactions between licenses. For example: Let's say I combine a worked issued under a Sampling license with a work issued under a BY-NC-SA v2 license. Sampling permits Sharing but does not permit Distribution, a condition which is MORE restrictive than BY-NC-SA's permission of NonCommercial Distribution but LESS restrictive than BY-NC-SA's permission of only NonCommercial Derivatives. (The matter is additionally complicated by the unidimensiality of the CC metadata, wherein every clause or no clause is affected by things like "requires noncommercial.") So under which license must I issue my derivative work? Option 1: BY-NC-SA But this violoates BY-NC-SA's use-the-most-restrictive clause regarding combined works. Option 2: Sampling But this violoates BY-NC-SA's use-the-most-restrictive clause regarding combined works. Option 3: Some new mutant license But this could get confusing from a marketing/biz perspective. What do you recommend in this case? Keith =========================== Keith Coleman Graduate Student Department of Computer Science Stanford University keith at cs.stanford.edu http://cs.stanford.edu/~keith From thomas at shuttleworthfoundation.org Tue Mar 16 07:12:32 2004 From: thomas at shuttleworthfoundation.org (Thomas Black) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:12:32 +0200 Subject: Derivative works and noting changes Message-ID: <4056EF30.9020603@shuttleworthfoundation.org> Hi All I represent a non-profit organisation in South Africa doing work in promoting open source software in South Africa. We prove that open source software works within various contexts and then encourage risk averse organisations to continue our projects that work. Now, we want to relase all our strategy documents, reports, etc. under a CC license so that others can benefit from our work. The licence which seems to fit most naturally is the Attribution licence. Now, how do you enhance this license so that if an organisation makes changes to our original docs, all the changes are clearly indicated. For example, we're happy if people use our docs to develop their own strategies based on our work - what we don't want people to do is make changes to our strategy docs and then distribute them, without the recepient knowing that these are now 'unofficial' docs? Help with this would be great appreciated. -Thomas -- Thomas Black Open Source Program Manager The Shuttleworth Foundation Tel. +27 21 9701208 Fax. +27 21 9701209 http://www.shuttleworthfoundation.org/oscp/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 2919 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20040316/fca2a490/attachment.bin From tompoe at amihost.com Tue Mar 16 08:23:04 2004 From: tompoe at amihost.com (tom poe) Date: 16 Mar 2004 05:23:04 -0800 Subject: Sampling + BY-NC-SA-2.0 = ? In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20040316004829.02a5ea28@localhost> References: <5.2.1.1.2.20040316004829.02a5ea28@localhost> Message-ID: <1079443393.8241.5.camel@aether.raven.cxm> Hi, Keith: Would this not be a good example of why the CC-license is so desirable in the first instance, i.e., when a question on the use of another's work comes up, they can easily contact the owner to discuss terms that work for both parties? The simplest example would be someone that wanted to use a work restricted to noncommercial use, would contact the owner to arrange terms to use the work for commercial purpose? Tom On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 01:06, Keith Coleman wrote: > I've been reviewing the new 2.0 licenses (for inclusion a Stanford CS > research project) and have noticed some odd interactions between licenses. > For example: > > Let's say I combine a worked issued under a Sampling license with a work > issued under a BY-NC-SA v2 license. Sampling permits Sharing but does not > permit Distribution, a condition which is MORE restrictive than BY-NC-SA's > permission of NonCommercial Distribution but LESS restrictive than > BY-NC-SA's permission of only NonCommercial Derivatives. (The matter is > additionally complicated by the unidimensiality of the CC metadata, wherein > every clause or no clause is affected by things like "requires noncommercial.") > > So under which license must I issue my derivative work? > > Option 1: BY-NC-SA > But this violoates BY-NC-SA's use-the-most-restrictive clause regarding > combined works. > > Option 2: Sampling > But this violoates BY-NC-SA's use-the-most-restrictive clause regarding > combined works. > > Option 3: Some new mutant license > But this could get confusing from a marketing/biz perspective. > > What do you recommend in this case? > > > Keith > > > =========================== > Keith Coleman > Graduate Student > Department of Computer Science > Stanford University > keith at cs.stanford.edu > http://cs.stanford.edu/~keith > > _______________________________________________ > cc-metadata mailing list > metadata at creativecommons.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-metadata From email at greglondon.com Tue Mar 16 10:22:27 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:22:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Sampling + BY-NC-SA-2.0 = ? In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20040316004829.02a5ea28@localhost> References: <5.2.1.1.2.20040316004829.02a5ea28@localhost> Message-ID: <7288.206.67.17.2.1079450547.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Keith Coleman said: > some odd interactions between licenses. > > Let's say I combine a worked issued under a Sampling > license with a work issued under a BY-NC-SA v2 license. Creative Commons has a number of incompatible licenses. ShareAlike cannot play with any of the more restrictive licenses, such as Sampling, NonCommercial, EducationOnly, NoDerivatives, etc. The only CC license that ShareAlike can play with is CC-PublicDomain. All other licenses are too restrictive. You cannot combine works under these incompatible licenses. "but you can contact the author and get permision" some might argue. Which is true, but if the author was going to give permission anyway, just put it in the license and save everyone the pain in the arse you're causing by using a restrictive license. If you wish to create works to place in a Gift Economy, the only license that does that is ShareAlike or Copyleft style licenses. All other licenses are the product of either good but misguided intentions or the author's ego refusing to release the work as a true gift. http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/pdf/draftingthegiftdomain.pdf From email at greglondon.com Tue Mar 16 10:46:15 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 10:46:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Derivative works and noting changes In-Reply-To: <4056EF30.9020603@shuttleworthfoundation.org> References: <4056EF30.9020603@shuttleworthfoundation.org> Message-ID: <26663.206.67.17.2.1079451975.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> there is no "official" version of an Open Source work. The idea is to give it away so others can expand upon, improve, and modify the work as they see fit. You can use 'branding' techniques to get people to identify your version of the work as the version to use. RedHat has branded themselves as "THE" place to get Linux, even though Linux itself is Open Source and anyone can use it. If someone creates a derived version of your work, they should keep your original copyright notice in place and append their copyright notice to yours, so anyone getting the derived version can see the notice and know its not the original. If you look at any open source files that have been around for a while, you'll see a laundry list of copyright notices as the files went through major revisions. Copyright 2004 John Doe Copyright 2001 Jane Smith Copyright 1998 Alan Smithee Copyright 1996 Original Author This by itself should distinguish your version of the document from any other version of the document. It's then up to you to "brand" yourself as the best source to get your document. Greg London Perl Training manual (licensed GNU-FDL) http://www.greglondon.com/iperl/pdf/iperl.pdf Drafting the Gift Domain (licensed GNU-FDL) http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/pdf/draftingthegiftdomain.pdf Thomas Black said: > Hi All > > I represent a non-profit organisation in South Africa > doing work in > promoting open source software in South Africa. We prove > that open > source software works within various contexts and then > encourage risk > averse organisations to continue our projects that work. > Now, we want to relase all our strategy documents, > reports, etc. under a > CC license so that others can benefit from our work. The > licence which > seems to fit most naturally is the Attribution licence. > > Now, how do you enhance this license so that if an > organisation makes > changes to our original docs, all the changes are clearly > indicated. For > example, we're happy if people use our docs to develop > their own > strategies based on our work - what we don't want people > to do is make > changes to our strategy docs and then distribute them, > without the > recepient knowing that these are now 'unofficial' docs? > > Help with this would be great appreciated. > > -Thomas > > -- > Thomas Black > Open Source Program Manager > The Shuttleworth Foundation > Tel. +27 21 9701208 > Fax. +27 21 9701209 > http://www.shuttleworthfoundation.org/oscp/ > > _______________________________________________ > cc-licenses mailing list > cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses > -- Do What I Mean and Autovivification Sometimes Unwanted From ml at creativecommons.org Tue Mar 16 12:38:07 2004 From: ml at creativecommons.org (Mike Linksvayer) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:38:07 -0800 Subject: Sampling + BY-NC-SA-2.0 = ? In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20040316004829.02a5ea28@localhost> References: <5.2.1.1.2.20040316004829.02a5ea28@localhost> Message-ID: <40573B7F.8010808@creativecommons.org> Keith Coleman wrote: > Let's say I combine a worked issued under a Sampling license with a work > issued under a BY-NC-SA v2 license. Sampling permits Sharing but does > not permit Distribution, a condition which is MORE restrictive than > BY-NC-SA's permission of NonCommercial Distribution but LESS restrictive > than BY-NC-SA's permission of only NonCommercial Derivatives. (The > matter is additionally complicated by the unidimensiality of the CC > metadata, wherein every clause or no clause is affected by things like > "requires noncommercial.") Actually Sampling doesn't permit verbatim distribution at all. You must be thinking of Sampling+, which permits non-commercial distribution ("Sharing" in the metadata, which means "non-commercial distribution" to work around the problem you mention above -- we can't have a NonCommercial property, as that applies to all others, and Sampling does allow commercial transformative derivative works). Anyway, in terms of distribution Sampling+ and BY-NC-SA are equivalent AFAICT -- they both allow non-commercial distribution. For derivative works they have different restrictions -- Sampling+ requires that derivative uses must be transformative, BY-NC-SA requires that derivative uses must not be commercial. None of that really matters for your question though -- > So under which license must I issue my derivative work? BY-NC-SA. Your use of the work issued under a Sampling license must be transformative, but otherwise your work incorporating Sampling or Sampling+ material may be licensed under any license, including standard "all rights reserved" copyright. BY-NC-SA requires you to release derivatives under By-NC-SA. > Option 1: BY-NC-SA > But this violoates BY-NC-SA's use-the-most-restrictive clause regarding > combined works. I think this was only intended to apply to combining SA licenses, but it is going away in the final 2.0 licenses anyway -- you have to use the same SA license. IANAL, etc. -- Mike Linksvayer http://creativecommons.org/learn/aboutus/people#21 From evan at wikitravel.org Tue Mar 16 12:40:06 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 12:40:06 -0500 Subject: Sampling + BY-NC-SA-2.0 = ? In-Reply-To: <1079443393.8241.5.camel@aether.raven.cxm> (tom poe's message of "16 Mar 2004 05:23:04 -0800") References: <5.2.1.1.2.20040316004829.02a5ea28@localhost> <1079443393.8241.5.camel@aether.raven.cxm> Message-ID: <87u10o1yix.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> >>>>> "tp" == tom poe writes: tp> Hi, Keith: Would this not be a good example of why the tp> CC-license is so desirable in the first instance, i.e., when a tp> question on the use of another's work comes up, they can tp> easily contact the owner to discuss terms that work for both tp> parties? Isn't that how "All Rights Reserved" works -- you have to contact me and negotiate a deal before doing anything? What is it about the Creative Commons licenses that makes it easier to contact the original creator? The advantage of having explicit licenses is exactly the _opposite_ of this: you don't _have_ to contact me to negotiate terms. You have the same terms as anyone else, and they're explicitly spelled out. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From charybdis at deja-x.co.uk Tue Mar 16 15:34:26 2004 From: charybdis at deja-x.co.uk (Richard Cobbett) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:34:26 -0000 Subject: Derivative works and noting changes In-Reply-To: <4056EF30.9020603@shuttleworthfoundation.org> Message-ID: In the case of reports, presumably the reason they're reading is to either integrate the results into their own cases or to build on your research, in which case they're going to take the credit for the additional work. As for strategies and business plans, it's unlikely that your experiences are going to fit completely seamlessly into their requirements, making them more useful for educational purposes when people are writing up their own specific plans, rather than being used as a straight-up template. The result of that is always going to be their strategy rather than yours, even if they copy/pasted every last word of the original document. In both cases, the fact that you could still have them for the public peanut gallery on your main site gives you a way of showing people if and when your work has been misrepresented, and exactly how. If it's an accident, that should be sufficient to resolve any problems - and if it's as the result of anyone being malicious, well, a CC sticker's not exactly going to scare someone away in the first place. At least you could say quite simply "Look, it's been out there since whenever. Look on iArchive or the Google Cache or this FTP site, or these quotes on our forum - we have nothing to hide." Ultimately, if you're worried about unofficial docs, the obvious thing is to drop Attribution completely and focus on Derivs. That doesn't stop the other party crediting you if they choose (and if they're using your research, or using your company as a case study, they're going to have to just to provide context) without forcing them to outright put your name on something that you may not approve of. __________________ Richard Cobbett | http://www.richardcobbett.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: cc-licenses-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:cc-licenses-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Black Sent: 16 March 2004 12:13 To: cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Derivative works and noting changes Hi All I represent a non-profit organisation in South Africa doing work in promoting open source software in South Africa. We prove that open source software works within various contexts and then encourage risk averse organisations to continue our projects that work. Now, we want to relase all our strategy documents, reports, etc. under a CC license so that others can benefit from our work. The licence which seems to fit most naturally is the Attribution licence. Now, how do you enhance this license so that if an organisation makes changes to our original docs, all the changes are clearly indicated. For example, we're happy if people use our docs to develop their own strategies based on our work - what we don't want people to do is make changes to our strategy docs and then distribute them, without the recepient knowing that these are now 'unofficial' docs? Help with this would be great appreciated. -Thomas -- Thomas Black Open Source Program Manager The Shuttleworth Foundation Tel. +27 21 9701208 Fax. +27 21 9701209 http://www.shuttleworthfoundation.org/oscp/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: charybdis at deja-x.co.uk (charybdis at deja-x.co.uk).vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 230 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20040316/546ae47e/attachment.vcf From evan at wikitravel.org Thu Mar 18 05:13:32 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 05:13:32 -0500 Subject: NoDerivatives Message-ID: <877jxiv4xf.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> I have a quick question about ND content. Some Open Source software is not modifiable -- you're not allowed to change the source, even if it's available to you. TeX is a good example. But you _can_ distribute patch files along with the source, and end users can use the patches to modify the source themselves. I take it that this isn't possible with ND content. Even if the document remains unmodified during redistribution, the patch would be a derivative work. Or the patch + document would be a derivative work. Is this correct? Incorrect? ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From wouter.vanden.hove at pandora.be Thu Mar 18 17:45:21 2004 From: wouter.vanden.hove at pandora.be (Wouter Vanden Hove) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:45:21 +0100 Subject: NoDerivatives In-Reply-To: <877jxiv4xf.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> References: <877jxiv4xf.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> Message-ID: <1079649921.2618.1687.camel@localhost> Op do 18-03-2004, om 11:13 schreef Evan Prodromou: > I have a quick question about ND content. > > Some Open Source software is not modifiable -- you're not allowed to > change the source, even if it's available to you. TeX is a good > example. But you _can_ distribute patch files along with the source, > and end users can use the patches to modify the source themselves. > > I take it that this isn't possible with ND content. Even if the > document remains unmodified during redistribution, > the patch would be a derivative work. No. for example, you distribute a ND picture + a recipe how to apply some edits or filters in a photo editing program. The recipe is not a derived work of the picture, but the result is. But with ND you can't distribute the picture, or even put it on your own website. > Or the patch + document would be a derivative work. Yes, sort of. the resulting document of applying the patch to the document is the derivative work. Wouter, IANAL -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20040318/564194b6/attachment.bin From email at greglondon.com Thu Mar 18 18:03:02 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:03:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: NoDerivatives In-Reply-To: <1079649921.2618.1687.camel@localhost> References: <877jxiv4xf.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> <1079649921.2618.1687.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <19056.206.67.17.2.1079650982.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> > Op do 18-03-2004, om 11:13 schreef Evan Prodromou: >> I have a quick question about ND content. >> >> Some Open Source software is not modifiable -- you're >> not allowed to >> change the source, even if it's available to you. TeX is >> a good >> example. But you _can_ distribute patch files along with >> the source, >> and end users can use the patches to modify the source >> themselves. >> >> I take it that this isn't possible with ND content. Even >> if the >> document remains unmodified during redistribution, > >> the patch would be a derivative work. I think patches are considered derivative works because they are expressions based on the original work, rather than new expressions created from scratch. version1: "No man is an Island entire of itself" patch: replace "man" with "one" version2: "No one is an Island entire of itself" The patch could not have been developed except by looking at version 1 of the work, so I would think that since the patch is an artistic expression based on Version1, it is a derived work. I don't think "derived" is tied to the structure of words in the original writing. A patch is a totally different structure (replace "this" with "that") from the original (no man is an island), but the patch is an expression based on the original, so it is derived from the original. The "recipe" metaphor is interesting, but recipes are functional descriptions of how to cook physical objects that you supposedly own all rights to, (private property) not other writings that someone has exclusive rights to create derived works, so I'm not sure if the metaphor extends into patch files or not. if "patch" files are allowed, would it not be possible to create audio "patch" files that say soemthing like "ArtistA:AlbumB:TrackC:TimeStartD:TimeEndE" "ArtistF:AlbumG:TrackH:TimeStartI:TimeEndJ" and create a "mix recipe"? hm, interesting. if you own the CD's, you may own the right to create a new mix. I know I've pasted songs onto video clips I've created. which is a "derived work" that I doubt anyone would argue against. Ah, wait, the gist is that I wouldn't be able to distribute that video clip because its a derived work. So I wouldn't be able to distribute a patch either, since that's a derived work too. Copyright law is pretty much "gated" by distribution, since you can only sue for damages, and no one is damaged if you invest the effort to create a derived work for your personal use. If you create a "music patch" and distribute that, you are not only creating a derived work, but your also distributing it in competition with the original artist's sales. The artist could argue that they could have made a mixed version of their original and sold it for money, but since you distribute the 'patch' for free, your "patch" cut into their sales, and you could be liable for damages. The NoDerivatives person is likely hoping that their NoDerivs song will be free advertising to get them noticed, and then they could make a "dance mix" version of the song and sell it for big bucks. NoDerivatives is a Market Economy license, not a Gift Economy license. I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/html/draftingthegiftdomain.html#7.4.Creative%20Commons|outline From email at greglondon.com Thu Mar 18 18:03:02 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:03:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: NoDerivatives In-Reply-To: <1079649921.2618.1687.camel@localhost> References: <877jxiv4xf.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> <1079649921.2618.1687.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <19056.206.67.17.2.1079650982.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> > Op do 18-03-2004, om 11:13 schreef Evan Prodromou: >> I have a quick question about ND content. >> >> Some Open Source software is not modifiable -- you're >> not allowed to >> change the source, even if it's available to you. TeX is >> a good >> example. But you _can_ distribute patch files along with >> the source, >> and end users can use the patches to modify the source >> themselves. >> >> I take it that this isn't possible with ND content. Even >> if the >> document remains unmodified during redistribution, > >> the patch would be a derivative work. I think patches are considered derivative works because they are expressions based on the original work, rather than new expressions created from scratch. version1: "No man is an Island entire of itself" patch: replace "man" with "one" version2: "No one is an Island entire of itself" The patch could not have been developed except by looking at version 1 of the work, so I would think that since the patch is an artistic expression based on Version1, it is a derived work. I don't think "derived" is tied to the structure of words in the original writing. A patch is a totally different structure (replace "this" with "that") from the original (no man is an island), but the patch is an expression based on the original, so it is derived from the original. The "recipe" metaphor is interesting, but recipes are functional descriptions of how to cook physical objects that you supposedly own all rights to, (private property) not other writings that someone has exclusive rights to create derived works, so I'm not sure if the metaphor extends into patch files or not. if "patch" files are allowed, would it not be possible to create audio "patch" files that say soemthing like "ArtistA:AlbumB:TrackC:TimeStartD:TimeEndE" "ArtistF:AlbumG:TrackH:TimeStartI:TimeEndJ" and create a "mix recipe"? hm, interesting. if you own the CD's, you may own the right to create a new mix. I know I've pasted songs onto video clips I've created. which is a "derived work" that I doubt anyone would argue against. Ah, wait, the gist is that I wouldn't be able to distribute that video clip because its a derived work. So I wouldn't be able to distribute a patch either, since that's a derived work too. Copyright law is pretty much "gated" by distribution, since you can only sue for damages, and no one is damaged if you invest the effort to create a derived work for your personal use. If you create a "music patch" and distribute that, you are not only creating a derived work, but your also distributing it in competition with the original artist's sales. The artist could argue that they could have made a mixed version of their original and sold it for money, but since you distribute the 'patch' for free, your "patch" cut into their sales, and you could be liable for damages. The NoDerivatives person is likely hoping that their NoDerivs song will be free advertising to get them noticed, and then they could make a "dance mix" version of the song and sell it for big bucks. NoDerivatives is a Market Economy license, not a Gift Economy license. I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/html/draftingthegiftdomain.html#7.4.Creative%20Commons|outline From evan at wikitravel.org Thu Mar 18 18:24:19 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:24:19 -0500 Subject: NoDerivatives In-Reply-To: <1079649921.2618.1687.camel@localhost> (Wouter Vanden Hove's message of "Thu, 18 Mar 2004 23:45:21 +0100") References: <877jxiv4xf.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> <1079649921.2618.1687.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <873c85pwm4.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> >>>>> "WVH" == Wouter Vanden Hove writes: WVH> No. for example, you distribute a ND picture + a recipe how WVH> to apply some edits or filters in a photo editing program. WVH> The recipe is not a derived work of the picture, but the WVH> result is. But with ND you can't distribute the picture, or WVH> even put it on your own website. I'm pretty sure that's entirely untrue. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/nd/1.0/ Me> Or the patch + document would be a derivative work. WVH> Yes, sort of. the resulting document of applying the patch WVH> to the document is the derivative work. Well, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but: "derived work" has some meaning in beyond the "Modified Version" we see in GNU licenses. A derived work doesn't have to incorporate the body of the original work to be "derived". A common example is "fanfic": more or less fresh content using the characters, themes, and/or milieu of a previously copyrighted work. Copyright holders can restrict or prohibit the creation and distribution of fanfic because they have rights to derived works, too. AFAICT the NoDerivatives licenses don't specify that you can't modify the work; they just don't grant any rights to make derivative works. So, any normal "all rights reserved" right to control derived works would still be reserved by the copyright holder. I was just checking to see if this was the case. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From evan at wikitravel.org Thu Mar 18 19:04:19 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 19:04:19 -0500 Subject: Music Sharing License Commentary Message-ID: <873c85ln24.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> I realize I'm becoming something of a cc-licenses crackpot, but I still have a few comments. 0) I think it's a bad idea for Creative Commons to be a license factory. Information about how the _current_ licenses work is still pretty shaky: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2003-November/000189.html ...and there are a lot of questions people have that go unanswered, like how the licenses work together. Wouldn't it be better to stabilize, popularize, and iteratively improve the current licenses, rather than popping out new licenses every few months? I realize that CC is under pressure from folks who say, "I want a Creative Commons license except it does X or Y instead of Z or W", but maybe it'd be better to concentrate on doing a few things well before spreading out all over the place. 1) Branding issues. It's hard enough already for people to grok that there's more than one CC license. That there's 11... no, plus the Public Domain dedication... and then the Sampling... don't forget Founders' Copyright... plus these iCommons things... and what's this CC-GPL about?... oh and now the Music Sharing license. Dilute your brand and you have no brand. Marketing 101. 2) Bad names. The Sampling license is not the license that allows you to sample music; it's the license that _just_ allows you to sample music. The Music Sharing License is not the license that allows you to share music; it's the license that _just_ allows you to share music. 3) What happened to the public review period? I thought that was how new licenses happened: http://creativecommons.org/discuss ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From evan at wikitravel.org Fri Mar 19 03:33:22 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 03:33:22 -0500 Subject: Free Culture Message-ID: <87fzc5i6ct.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> There's a new Web site and organization dedicated to the advancement of Free Culture: http://www.freeculture.org/ The site is running a sizeable wiki that could probably use the help and support of folks interested in Open Content and such: http://www.freeculture.org/wiki/wiki.phtml ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From robmyers at mac.com Fri Mar 19 04:57:32 2004 From: robmyers at mac.com (Rob Myers) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:57:32 +0000 Subject: Music Sharing License Commentary Message-ID: <839262.1079690252159.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> On Friday, March 19, 2004, at 00:04AM, Evan Prodromou wrote: >0) I think it's a bad idea for Creative Commons to be a license > factory. I covered some of these points a couple of months back. :-) IMHO CC has three projects: writing licenses, explaining licenses and advocating licenses. CC are doing very well with all three projects, but the three may interact, and it's important to keep them separate and get the priority right. Too many licenses will dilute the brand as you point out. But just a few licenses that aren't really commons/open/free licenses will destroy value in the brand and, worse, give that value to people who have no intention of returning it. Being popular by writing weaker licenses would not be as great a success as educating people to use stronger licenses. IMVVVHO CC should leave the licenses that aren't really commons/open/free to the corporate and cultural wannabees, then describe those licenses clearly so people can make an informed choice and encourage them to make the right choice. This would be a win-win-win scenario. Really I agree with Greg London that you only need two licenses: a GPL-style one and a BSD-style one (I reached the same conclusion a couple of years ago based on aesthetics rather than any deep understanding of the issues involved :-)), but licensing and sharing licenses are important steps in the right direction (whereas IMVVHO NC, etc. aren't). - Rob. From robmyers at mac.com Fri Mar 19 05:34:34 2004 From: robmyers at mac.com (Rob Myers) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:34:34 +0000 Subject: Music Sharing License Commentary Message-ID: <6063682.1079692474465.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> On Friday, March 19, 2004, at 09:57AM, Rob Myers wrote: > licensing and sharing licenses are important steps in the right direction Whoops, should have been "sampling-licenses and sharing-licenses". :-) - Rob. From evan at wikitravel.org Fri Mar 19 06:22:31 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 06:22:31 -0500 Subject: Free as in freedom (was Re: Music Sharing License Commentary) In-Reply-To: <839262.1079690252159.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> (Rob Myers's message of "Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:57:32 +0000") References: <839262.1079690252159.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> Message-ID: <8765d1rsi0.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> >>>>> "RM" == Rob Myers writes: RM> Too many licenses will dilute the brand as you point out. But RM> just a few licenses that aren't really commons/open/free RM> licenses will destroy value in the brand and, worse, give that RM> value to people who have no intention of returning it. Being RM> popular by writing weaker licenses would not be as great a RM> success as educating people to use stronger licenses. I happen to agree with you on this, and I think that just as we've seen free-beer licenses fall by the wayside in the Free Software world, we're going to see them disappear in the Free Culture world, too. But realistically I don't think that Free-as-in-Freedom Culture is a goal of Creative Commons. Which is fine: CC does great work. I think it might be something that another group could or should do: * make a definition of Free Culture or Open Culture along the same lines as the Open Source Definition * list and comment on available Open Culture licenses (GFDL, by-sa, by, sa, DSL, Green Music License, etc.) * make arguments to artists, publishers, and aficionados about the value of Free Culture Anyways, that's my thoughts on the matter. I'm not sure if it's pertinent to the too-many-licenses problem, but that's beside the point. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From email at greglondon.com Fri Mar 19 10:06:35 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:06:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Free as in freedom (was Re: Music Sharing License Commentary) In-Reply-To: <8765d1rsi0.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> References: <839262.1079690252159.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> <8765d1rsi0.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> Message-ID: <30041.206.67.17.2.1079708795.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Evan Prodromou said: >>>>>> "RM" == Rob Myers writes: > RM> Being popular by writing weaker licenses > RM> would not be as great a success as educating > RM> people to use stronger licenses. here's my education document: http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/pdf/draftingthegiftdomain.pdf Its a total of 80 pages long, but it covers everything from an introduction to copyright and patent law, to Open Source licenses, to Open Content licenses, distinguishing the difference between Copyleft/ShareAlike licenses, PublicDomain type licenses, and licenses that are not open/free at all. one big problem, as I see it, is that the vocabulary doesn't yet quite match up with the intent. "open" and "free" and "public" are all trying to describe somethign that is really best called a "gift". Hence the name of the document is "Drafting the Gift Domain", which is like Public Domain, but rather than having rights expire and enter a Public Domain, authors GIFT their rights to a gift domain so that people can use them immediately. DtGD attempts to distinguish what a Gift Economy is in reference to Writings (software, literature, music, etc) as opposed to the Market Economy that we all know in the form of "All Rights Reserved". From there, licenses such as NoDerivatives, NonCommercial, EduOnly quickly show themselves to NOT be in a Gift Economy, but rather to be more closer to a Market Economy. The intent was to create a document that would educate someone who is interested in contributing a Writing to a Gift Domain, but doesn't know anything about Copyright law, licensing, or how long-term successful Gift Economies, such as Linux, survive alongside a Market Competitor such as Microsoft Windows. (Pssst, the secret is Copyleft. and is explained in the document) The contributer would then be left with enough knowledge to know how to license their work as a gift and that their contribution can survive in and alongside a Market Economy. Or if they are looking for a marketing license, they will understand how NoDerivatives would support them. The document itself is licensed GNU-FDL. And I welcome any comments to improve it. please send comments off-list. > But realistically I don't think that Free-as-in-Freedom > Culture is a goal of Creative Commons. Which is fine: > CC does great work. It's not their goal. However, their mission statement and "about" page actually make matters worse in some respects because they throw "Gift" style vocabulary (open, free, public) in the mixer with 'market' vocabulary, without really distinguishing the two. People read that and then leave thinking that NoDerivs is a "Free" license. Drafting the Gift Domain was intended for any Author who wished to contribute their Writing to a Gift Economy, be it music, or software, or literature, or whatever. I'm looking for feedback on the document from people "in the know" about open content. Any comments welcome. Please send them to me off-list. Greg From email at greglondon.com Fri Mar 19 10:06:35 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:06:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Free as in freedom (was Re: Music Sharing License Commentary) In-Reply-To: <8765d1rsi0.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> References: <839262.1079690252159.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> <8765d1rsi0.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> Message-ID: <30041.206.67.17.2.1079708795.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Evan Prodromou said: >>>>>> "RM" == Rob Myers writes: > RM> Being popular by writing weaker licenses > RM> would not be as great a success as educating > RM> people to use stronger licenses. here's my education document: http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/pdf/draftingthegiftdomain.pdf Its a total of 80 pages long, but it covers everything from an introduction to copyright and patent law, to Open Source licenses, to Open Content licenses, distinguishing the difference between Copyleft/ShareAlike licenses, PublicDomain type licenses, and licenses that are not open/free at all. one big problem, as I see it, is that the vocabulary doesn't yet quite match up with the intent. "open" and "free" and "public" are all trying to describe somethign that is really best called a "gift". Hence the name of the document is "Drafting the Gift Domain", which is like Public Domain, but rather than having rights expire and enter a Public Domain, authors GIFT their rights to a gift domain so that people can use them immediately. DtGD attempts to distinguish what a Gift Economy is in reference to Writings (software, literature, music, etc) as opposed to the Market Economy that we all know in the form of "All Rights Reserved". From there, licenses such as NoDerivatives, NonCommercial, EduOnly quickly show themselves to NOT be in a Gift Economy, but rather to be more closer to a Market Economy. The intent was to create a document that would educate someone who is interested in contributing a Writing to a Gift Domain, but doesn't know anything about Copyright law, licensing, or how long-term successful Gift Economies, such as Linux, survive alongside a Market Competitor such as Microsoft Windows. (Pssst, the secret is Copyleft. and is explained in the document) The contributer would then be left with enough knowledge to know how to license their work as a gift and that their contribution can survive in and alongside a Market Economy. Or if they are looking for a marketing license, they will understand how NoDerivatives would support them. The document itself is licensed GNU-FDL. And I welcome any comments to improve it. please send comments off-list. > But realistically I don't think that Free-as-in-Freedom > Culture is a goal of Creative Commons. Which is fine: > CC does great work. It's not their goal. However, their mission statement and "about" page actually make matters worse in some respects because they throw "Gift" style vocabulary (open, free, public) in the mixer with 'market' vocabulary, without really distinguishing the two. People read that and then leave thinking that NoDerivs is a "Free" license. Drafting the Gift Domain was intended for any Author who wished to contribute their Writing to a Gift Economy, be it music, or software, or literature, or whatever. I'm looking for feedback on the document from people "in the know" about open content. Any comments welcome. Please send them to me off-list. Greg From robmyers at mac.com Fri Mar 19 10:24:22 2004 From: robmyers at mac.com (Rob Myers) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 15:24:22 +0000 Subject: Free as in freedom (was Re: Music Sharing License Commentary) Message-ID: <2187317.1079709862698.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> On Friday, March 19, 2004, at 03:06PM, wrote: >one big problem, as I see it, is that the vocabulary >doesn't yet quite match up with the intent. "open" and >"free" and "public" are all trying to describe somethign >that is really best called a "gift". Hence the name of the >document is "Drafting the Gift Domain", which is like >Public Domain, but rather than having rights expire and >enter a Public Domain, authors GIFT their rights to a gift >domain so that people can use them immediately. IMVHO, "gift" will send people running more surely than "free". I think "shared" is better because it's what one actually does by participating in free/open/commons/gift culture. Technically, "defensively copyrighted" is a good description: free/open/commons/gift contributors copyright their work to prevent its use being limited, traditional "offensively copyrighted" work is designed to limit its use. The GPL as an ironization of copyright law is a nice angle as well. >Drafting the Gift Domain was intended for any Author who >wished to contribute their Writing to a Gift Economy, be >it music, or software, or literature, or whatever. > >I'm looking for feedback on the document from people "in >the know" about open content. Any comments welcome. Please >send them to me off-list. It's an excellent document, thank you for producing it. I was interested to see that you settled on GPL and BSD for quite different reasons from myself. :-) One point I'd make is that having shared cultural material available helps companies in easily costablke ways: it's usually quicker and cheaper to add to something that already exists than to start from scratch. Making modifications open as well can be regarded as payment. I've worked at startups, and on new projects in existing companies, and if open source/content isn't available it takes a lot more work to get going. Sadly this goes against the asset-stripping mindset of much contemporary business. :-( - Rob. From email at greglondon.com Fri Mar 19 10:49:24 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:49:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Gift as in Barn-Raising (was Free as in freedom) In-Reply-To: <2187317.1079709862698.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> References: <2187317.1079709862698.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> Message-ID: <42938.206.67.17.2.1079711364.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Rob Myers said: > On Friday, March 19, 2004, at 03:06PM, > wrote: > > IMVHO, "gift" will send people running more surely than > "free". I think "shared" is better because it's what one > actually does by participating in free/open/commons/gift > culture. unfortunately, "Shareware" has tainted the term a bit. "Gift Economy" is a term that predates computers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy and it also describes the 'snow ball effect' that happens when someone contributes a gift to a community and it crystalizes into something much bigger. Linux is the computer age equivalent of a barn-raising, and a barn-raising is an outcome of a self-sustaining gift economy. When you think of it in terms of a culture that can sustain a gift economy indefinitely and to the level of being able to build something as work intensive and complex as a barn (or linux), then you begin to see how you fit into the model as a carpenter. So it's not "gift" as in getting a gift for your birthday, its 'gift' as in 'gift economy' as in a culture that is able to give someone the gift of a barn raising. From email at greglondon.com Fri Mar 19 10:49:24 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:49:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Gift as in Barn-Raising (was Free as in freedom) In-Reply-To: <2187317.1079709862698.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> References: <2187317.1079709862698.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> Message-ID: <42938.206.67.17.2.1079711364.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Rob Myers said: > On Friday, March 19, 2004, at 03:06PM, > wrote: > > IMVHO, "gift" will send people running more surely than > "free". I think "shared" is better because it's what one > actually does by participating in free/open/commons/gift > culture. unfortunately, "Shareware" has tainted the term a bit. "Gift Economy" is a term that predates computers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy and it also describes the 'snow ball effect' that happens when someone contributes a gift to a community and it crystalizes into something much bigger. Linux is the computer age equivalent of a barn-raising, and a barn-raising is an outcome of a self-sustaining gift economy. When you think of it in terms of a culture that can sustain a gift economy indefinitely and to the level of being able to build something as work intensive and complex as a barn (or linux), then you begin to see how you fit into the model as a carpenter. So it's not "gift" as in getting a gift for your birthday, its 'gift' as in 'gift economy' as in a culture that is able to give someone the gift of a barn raising. From robmyers at mac.com Fri Mar 19 11:00:39 2004 From: robmyers at mac.com (Rob Myers) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:00:39 +0000 Subject: Gift as in Barn-Raising (was Free as in freedom) Message-ID: <311993.1079712039176.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> On Friday, March 19, 2004, at 03:49PM, wrote: >unfortunately, "Shareware" has tainted the term a bit. Hmmm. You're right. :-) >So it's not "gift" as in getting a gift for your birthday, >its 'gift' as in 'gift economy' as in a culture that is >able to give someone the gift of a barn raising. I'm unfamiliar with that use of the term but if it has that historical precedent that's good. How do you feel about the "commons" label? - Rob. From email at greglondon.com Fri Mar 19 11:29:24 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:29:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Gift as in Barn-Raising (was Free as in freedom) In-Reply-To: <311993.1079712039176.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> References: <311993.1079712039176.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> Message-ID: <35570.206.67.17.2.1079713764.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Rob Myers said: > On Friday, March 19, 2004, at 03:49PM, > wrote: >>So it's not "gift" as in getting a gift for you birthday, >>its 'gift' as in 'gift economy' as in a culture that is >>able to give someone the gift of a barn raising. > > I'm unfamiliar with that use of the term but if it has > that historical precedent that's good. take a quick look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy :: Gift economies were first formally recognized :: in the potlatch rituals of Native American :: societies in the Pacific Northwest. The term "Indian Giver" came from early settler's misunderstanding their encounters with Native American gift cultures. I've read and recommend Lewis Hyde: "The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property", 1983 (ISBN 0394715195 If you want to get a glimpse of how a gift economy can become self sufficient and long-term-viable, then read this book. Nothing describes Linux evolving and developing over a 20 year period better than a Gift Economy. > How do you feel about the "commons" label? "Commons" refers to common property shared by a group, to which all members have free access and can use as they will. The only license that fits "commons" is "Public Domain". This is the source of my main beef with the name "Creative Commons" and the "Cow in pasture" as their mascot. Their "image" is "Public Domain" but they offer a NoDerivatives license. So, in the way that "shareware" has tainted the term "Shared Content", "Creative Commons" has tainted the term "Commons". The "Commons" also is subject to the "tragedy of the commons", which is a Game Theory analogy that explains overfishing in oceans, and overgrazing in a commons pasture. While Writings cannot be "overgrazed", a Public Domain style license is open to Competition with Market driven forces that take the Public Domain licensed work, add new features to it and compete with the original Public Domain work. This market competition can cause a Gift Economy of open/free/public works to collapse. The only defense against Market competition is Copyleft or ShareAlike, which allows market forces to alter the work, but the new work must remain within the Gift Economy. See section 8 of Drafting the Gift Domain for an more indepth explanation. Section 8.3 has a side-by-side comparison of how Copyleft and PublicDomain licenses fair against Market Competition. Which is NOT to say that Market Economy practices are bad or should be replaced with Gift Economies, but that for a Gift Economy to survive, it must be designed to survive alongside a Market Economy. Copyleft/ShareAlike is the only license that guarantees a Gift Economy of writings enough protection to survive alongside a Market Economy. From email at greglondon.com Fri Mar 19 11:29:24 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:29:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Gift as in Barn-Raising (was Free as in freedom) In-Reply-To: <311993.1079712039176.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> References: <311993.1079712039176.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> Message-ID: <35570.206.67.17.2.1079713764.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Rob Myers said: > On Friday, March 19, 2004, at 03:49PM, > wrote: >>So it's not "gift" as in getting a gift for you birthday, >>its 'gift' as in 'gift economy' as in a culture that is >>able to give someone the gift of a barn raising. > > I'm unfamiliar with that use of the term but if it has > that historical precedent that's good. take a quick look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy :: Gift economies were first formally recognized :: in the potlatch rituals of Native American :: societies in the Pacific Northwest. The term "Indian Giver" came from early settler's misunderstanding their encounters with Native American gift cultures. I've read and recommend Lewis Hyde: "The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property", 1983 (ISBN 0394715195 If you want to get a glimpse of how a gift economy can become self sufficient and long-term-viable, then read this book. Nothing describes Linux evolving and developing over a 20 year period better than a Gift Economy. > How do you feel about the "commons" label? "Commons" refers to common property shared by a group, to which all members have free access and can use as they will. The only license that fits "commons" is "Public Domain". This is the source of my main beef with the name "Creative Commons" and the "Cow in pasture" as their mascot. Their "image" is "Public Domain" but they offer a NoDerivatives license. So, in the way that "shareware" has tainted the term "Shared Content", "Creative Commons" has tainted the term "Commons". The "Commons" also is subject to the "tragedy of the commons", which is a Game Theory analogy that explains overfishing in oceans, and overgrazing in a commons pasture. While Writings cannot be "overgrazed", a Public Domain style license is open to Competition with Market driven forces that take the Public Domain licensed work, add new features to it and compete with the original Public Domain work. This market competition can cause a Gift Economy of open/free/public works to collapse. The only defense against Market competition is Copyleft or ShareAlike, which allows market forces to alter the work, but the new work must remain within the Gift Economy. See section 8 of Drafting the Gift Domain for an more indepth explanation. Section 8.3 has a side-by-side comparison of how Copyleft and PublicDomain licenses fair against Market Competition. Which is NOT to say that Market Economy practices are bad or should be replaced with Gift Economies, but that for a Gift Economy to survive, it must be designed to survive alongside a Market Economy. Copyleft/ShareAlike is the only license that guarantees a Gift Economy of writings enough protection to survive alongside a Market Economy. From npavlos1 at swarthmore.edu Fri Mar 19 14:10:53 2004 From: npavlos1 at swarthmore.edu (Nelson Pavlosky) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:10:53 -0500 Subject: Free Culture In-Reply-To: <87fzc5i6ct.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> References: <87fzc5i6ct.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> Message-ID: <405B45BD.9010500@swarthmore.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Evan Prodromou wrote: | There's a new Web site and organization dedicated to the advancement | of Free Culture: | http://www.freeculture.org/ Hey Evan, thanks for the props! I'm one of the founders, and we certainly will need all the help we can get with promoting the site once it is officially launched (we're getting there). I would like to point out that what makes our website and organization unique is that it is an international student movement, as far as we know the first of its kind. ~ Although "adults" are more than welcome to join us, our focus is the next generation, where the true hope for change lies. ~Nelson~ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFAW0W9XQ/3nj2y54kRAt2pAJ4uTiSRGuTjs95KMqb0dYcUpJjBPwCfZkN1 Mn+NsmlfcWVlWTweysjnUoE= =+5zV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From evan at wikitravel.org Fri Mar 19 17:14:44 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:14:44 -0500 Subject: Founders' Copyright Online Registry Message-ID: <878yhweb6z.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> So, I've been reading up on the Founders' Copyright. These two documents: http://creativecommons.org/press-releases/entry/3675 http://creativecommons.org/projects/founderscopyright/ ...talk about an "online registry" that will/would/does list works that have been licensed under the Founders'. But I can't seem to find that online registry. Does it exist? What's the URL? ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From evan at wikitravel.org Fri Mar 19 17:25:40 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:25:40 -0500 Subject: O'Reilly Attribution licensed works Message-ID: <87n06ccw4b.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> While we're on the subject of the April 23 2003 press release, I notice that this page: http://creativecommons.org/projects/founderscopyright/oreilly ...lists a number of out-of-print books that "will" be made available under the Attribution license. It says, "The following O'Reilly technical books are out of print and set to be released under an Attribution license once O'Reilly obtains author permission. At that point, the Status field will change to "cleared" and soon contain a download link to obtain a copy of the book." None of the links is enabled, though: even the ones marked "cleared". O'Reilly has an Open Books Project: http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/ ...but the Attribution license isn't mentioned, and the books listed on the CC page above aren't on there. Just wondering what the deal is. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From andrew at originaltraditional.net Sat Mar 20 17:04:02 2004 From: andrew at originaltraditional.net (Andrew Gianni) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:04:02 -0500 Subject: commercial performance under at-nc-sa Message-ID: <001f01c40ec7$41caff80$6503a8c0@Heron> A question was posed by a composer a couple of months ago as to differentiation between various commercial uses of compositions. I have just launched a new Web site (www.originaltraditional.net) that was developed as a resource for composers of music influenced by the world's folks traditions. I am offering them the ability to assign creative commons licenses through the site, and while the at-nc-sa license seems to come closest to what most musicians are looking for, I'm not sure it quite cuts it. Like the previous poster, we aren't expecting to receive royalties if our works are performed (often by our colleagues at dances) but would like to be compensated if our compositions are recorded or possibly if they are published in print. What I've told a few folks who have asked me about this is that while there is a little bit of a conundrum about this, it is definitely a step in the right direction and they would have the same issue if they just slapped copyright on it. With at-nc-sa they can make sure that others feel free to make copies and distribute the composition. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Does the at-nc-sa license realistically restrict performers from charging for their performances? Andrew --- Andrew Gianni - Technologist New Kenmore Nonprofit IT Strategies Technology Planning and Implementation web: http://www.newkenmore.com phone: 413.367.9719 mobile: 413.575.2046 fax: 413.254.4004 post: PO Box 975, Montague, MA 01351 email: andrew at newkenmore.com aim: andrewsgianni yahoo: asgianni msn: andrewgianni0175 icq: 75849277 From evan at wikitravel.org Sat Mar 20 18:51:46 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 18:51:46 -0500 Subject: commercial performance under at-nc-sa In-Reply-To: <001f01c40ec7$41caff80$6503a8c0@Heron> (Andrew Gianni's message of "Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:04:02 -0500") References: <001f01c40ec7$41caff80$6503a8c0@Heron> Message-ID: <87k71fyt4d.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> >>>>> "AG" == Andrew Gianni writes: AG> Like the previous poster, we aren't expecting to receive AG> royalties if our works are performed (often by our colleagues AG> at dances) but would like to be compensated if our AG> compositions are recorded or possibly if they are published in AG> print. I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I do not speak for Creative Commons. Now: is this a "like to" or a "have to" question? For "like to", one possibility is to get rid of the NC clause and set up a voluntary donations, payment, or tipping system from your site. You might want to check out these URLs: http://www.amazon.com/honor/ http://www.futureofmusic.org/tipjars/ I believe there are some other such systems -- you should search around. Another possibility is to retain NC and have performers contact the composer to negotiate another license, outside the Creative Commons framework. A third option is to create your own license explicitly detailing what is and is not allowed. You should contact a lawyer in your area for help on this. AG> Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Does the at-nc-sa AG> license realistically restrict performers from charging for AG> their performances? As I read it, yes. It's about as difficult to enforce as "all rights reserved", though. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From email at greglondon.com Sun Mar 21 17:47:54 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:47:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: commercial performance under at-nc-sa In-Reply-To: <001f01c40ec7$41caff80$6503a8c0@Heron> References: <001f01c40ec7$41caff80$6503a8c0@Heron> Message-ID: <2654.207.180.130.165.1079909274.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> Andrew Gianni said: > we aren't expecting to receive royalties if our works > are performed (often by our colleagues at dances) > but would like to be compensated if our compositions are > recorded or possibly if they are published in print. if your colleagues at dances dont charge admission, then at-nc-sa should do what you want. If they do, why pass up on milking that cash cow? Just license it "All rights reserved" and be done with it. From email at greglondon.com Sun Mar 21 17:47:54 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:47:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: commercial performance under at-nc-sa In-Reply-To: <001f01c40ec7$41caff80$6503a8c0@Heron> References: <001f01c40ec7$41caff80$6503a8c0@Heron> Message-ID: <2654.207.180.130.165.1079909274.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> Andrew Gianni said: > we aren't expecting to receive royalties if our works > are performed (often by our colleagues at dances) > but would like to be compensated if our compositions are > recorded or possibly if they are published in print. if your colleagues at dances dont charge admission, then at-nc-sa should do what you want. If they do, why pass up on milking that cash cow? Just license it "All rights reserved" and be done with it. From email at greglondon.com Sun Mar 21 17:54:20 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:54:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: new license request CC-FA In-Reply-To: <001f01c40ec7$41caff80$6503a8c0@Heron> References: <001f01c40ec7$41caff80$6503a8c0@Heron> Message-ID: <2634.207.180.130.165.1079909660.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> I'd like a Creative Commons license that lets people perform free advertisement for my (music,literature, video,photo), but I reserve all real and useful rights for myself. I want to be able to cash in on the remotest chance of making a buck. I'd use "All Rights Reserved", but a "Creative Commons" logo makes me look much more hip and trendy. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside, and I get to jump on that whole Open Source bandwagon, because that's the wave of the future. It's all about the free exchange of information, ya know... I'll call it CC-FA for Creative Commons-Free Advertising sorry, just feeling a little cynical right now. From robmyers at mac.com Mon Mar 22 04:16:59 2004 From: robmyers at mac.com (Rob Myers) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 09:16:59 +0000 Subject: new license request CC-FA Message-ID: <8881067.1079947019109.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> On Sunday, March 21, 2004, at 10:54PM, wrote: >I'll call it CC-FA for Creative Commons-Free Advertising > >sorry, just feeling a little cynical right now. Ironically, this is exactly the sort of license the RIAA don't want on peer-to-peer networks and that users of such systems would like (implicitly). I do think that a sharing (p2p) license, like the sampling license, would address a genuine need, but I think it's in there already. attribution noncommercial noderivs should do it. It's not commons/open/free/gift (COG? FOG?), but it does address the changing relationship between producers and consumers of cultural content in a clear, robust and positive way. Surely that's a good thing? - Rob. From email at greglondon.com Mon Mar 22 08:30:50 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:30:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: new license request CC-FA In-Reply-To: <8881067.1079947019109.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> References: <8881067.1079947019109.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> Message-ID: <54228.206.67.17.2.1079962250.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Rob Myers said: > On Sunday, March 21, 2004, at 10:54PM, > wrote: > It's not commons/open/free/gift (COG? FOG?), but it > does address the changing relationship between producers > and consumers of cultural content in a clear, robust and > positive way. Surely that's a good thing? I have a problem with a website called Creative Commons that cloaks itself in "Open" and "Public" and "Free" jargon, yet offers CC-FA style licenses, without separating them from the Open, Public, and Free areas. Creative Commons should be split into two websites. Creative Commons would offer CC-ShareAlike and CC-PublicDomain. A new website called Creative Licensing could take over all other CC licenses and would drop any reference to Open, Free, and Public. copyleft and open source and Public domain references would be non-existent on CreativeLicensing. CreativeLicensing would cloak itself in more appropriate terms like "advertising" and "marketing" and "vanity publishing". And it would offer all other CC licenses, such as NonCommercial, NoDerivs, EduOnly, If someone comes here and says "I'm looking for a license to give away my document (song, photo, whatever) to the world, but I want to be able to charge people if they use it commercially or change it. And I'd like to make sure that people can't present their version as better than my original. And I don't want anyone to use it for anything other than educational purposes." Don't you consider that "bad" in the sense of they think they're "giving" anything to the world when they really want All Rights Reserved? A Public Commons license would be CC-PD. A "Gift" license would be CC-SA. These licenses are designed with the interests of teh community first and the author second. An author has to be willing ot make a real contribution, a real gift, to use these licenses. all other licenses are designed with the interests of the Author first and the community second and have nothing to do with a "commons". From email at greglondon.com Mon Mar 22 08:30:50 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:30:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: new license request CC-FA In-Reply-To: <8881067.1079947019109.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> References: <8881067.1079947019109.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> Message-ID: <54228.206.67.17.2.1079962250.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Rob Myers said: > On Sunday, March 21, 2004, at 10:54PM, > wrote: > It's not commons/open/free/gift (COG? FOG?), but it > does address the changing relationship between producers > and consumers of cultural content in a clear, robust and > positive way. Surely that's a good thing? I have a problem with a website called Creative Commons that cloaks itself in "Open" and "Public" and "Free" jargon, yet offers CC-FA style licenses, without separating them from the Open, Public, and Free areas. Creative Commons should be split into two websites. Creative Commons would offer CC-ShareAlike and CC-PublicDomain. A new website called Creative Licensing could take over all other CC licenses and would drop any reference to Open, Free, and Public. copyleft and open source and Public domain references would be non-existent on CreativeLicensing. CreativeLicensing would cloak itself in more appropriate terms like "advertising" and "marketing" and "vanity publishing". And it would offer all other CC licenses, such as NonCommercial, NoDerivs, EduOnly, If someone comes here and says "I'm looking for a license to give away my document (song, photo, whatever) to the world, but I want to be able to charge people if they use it commercially or change it. And I'd like to make sure that people can't present their version as better than my original. And I don't want anyone to use it for anything other than educational purposes." Don't you consider that "bad" in the sense of they think they're "giving" anything to the world when they really want All Rights Reserved? A Public Commons license would be CC-PD. A "Gift" license would be CC-SA. These licenses are designed with the interests of teh community first and the author second. An author has to be willing ot make a real contribution, a real gift, to use these licenses. all other licenses are designed with the interests of the Author first and the community second and have nothing to do with a "commons". From evan at wikitravel.org Mon Mar 22 18:06:51 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 18:06:51 -0500 Subject: "Everyone can legally download when they see 'CC Share Music'" Message-ID: <87brmozdkk.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> That's not actually true. Sarah's mom is falsely confident. There's no warranty or representation of rights in the Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial 2.0 or in the Music Sharing License. In fact, there's an explicit disclaimer of any such representation. So I have no idea whether the music is legal to download or not. I'm equally unsure as to whether I have any right to redistribute it using a file-sharing client or any other means. The license tells me that I do so at my own risk -- just like if I was sharing All Rights Reserved music. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From email at greglondon.com Mon Mar 22 23:01:05 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:01:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: "Everyone can legally download when they see 'CC Share Music'" In-Reply-To: <87brmozdkk.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> References: <87brmozdkk.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> Message-ID: <2104.207.180.130.165.1080014465.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> Evan Prodromou said: > That's not actually true. Sarah's mom is falsely > confident. > > There's no warranty or representation of rights in the > Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial 2.0 or in the Music > Sharing License. In fact, there's an explicit disclaimer > of any such representation. So I have no idea whether > the music is legal to download or not. Say Sarah's evil twin, Sauramon, took some music that he had no rights to, something sufficiently evil like "Menudo", and put a CC-ShareMusic license on it. Sarah downloads the music. The Menudo Gestapo happens to be monitoring the site from where Sarah downloaded it. The MG sues Sarah's mom. I still don't understand how any claim made by Sauramon in his falsely labeled license will protect Sarah and her mom from the Evil Menudo Gestapo. can someone explain? From email at greglondon.com Mon Mar 22 23:01:05 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 23:01:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: "Everyone can legally download when they see 'CC Share Music'" In-Reply-To: <87brmozdkk.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> References: <87brmozdkk.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> Message-ID: <2104.207.180.130.165.1080014465.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> Evan Prodromou said: > That's not actually true. Sarah's mom is falsely > confident. > > There's no warranty or representation of rights in the > Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial 2.0 or in the Music > Sharing License. In fact, there's an explicit disclaimer > of any such representation. So I have no idea whether > the music is legal to download or not. Say Sarah's evil twin, Sauramon, took some music that he had no rights to, something sufficiently evil like "Menudo", and put a CC-ShareMusic license on it. Sarah downloads the music. The Menudo Gestapo happens to be monitoring the site from where Sarah downloaded it. The MG sues Sarah's mom. I still don't understand how any claim made by Sauramon in his falsely labeled license will protect Sarah and her mom from the Evil Menudo Gestapo. can someone explain? From robmyers at mac.com Tue Mar 23 05:28:10 2004 From: robmyers at mac.com (Rob Myers) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:28:10 +0000 Subject: "Everyone can legally download when they see 'CC Share Music'" Message-ID: <3039087.1080037690238.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> On Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 04:01AM, wrote: >I still don't understand how any claim made by >Sauramon in his falsely labeled license will >protect Sarah and her mom from the Evil Menudo Gestapo. IANAL, but there's several issues. The warranty thing, which SCO have majorly misrepresented, would mean that Sarahmon is representing that the music won't blow up your speakers. It just means that the product is safe to use and is usable for what you expect. Disclaimers of warranty are very common, see EULAs, book inside covers, etc. These mean you use the product at your own risk, which is important if producers don't want to get sued out of existence. The representation thing, which AFAICT is a no-brainer, is representing that you have the right to contribute or use a work as open content. I don't know why this is in some licenses but as those licenses have been drawn up by teams of experienced and well-paid lawyers it must be important. Possibly breach of license is easier than breach of copyright, I don't know. Possibly it does allow you to point your finger and say "but they said!". I don't know, and I don't think it compares to unknowingly receiving stolen goods. See films that include other films, CDs that include samples and novels that include songs or poems for examples of representing authority to use (not contribute...) other people's work. The indemnification thing, which will be increasingly important, means that Sarahmon (or someone) sells Sarah insurance so that if it turns out Sarahmon made a mistake with the source of the music, Sarah is insured against the RIAA trying to bankrupt her. See http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040113030146793 but do remember that open source is not trying to steal other people's stuff as currently understood, whereas p2p generally is (as currently understood. I think the radio comparison may be useful). There really should be a book on open source/content law, or at least a big wikipedia section. - Rob. From email at greglondon.com Tue Mar 23 09:08:27 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:08:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: "Everyone can legally download when they see 'CC Share Music'" In-Reply-To: <3039087.1080037690238.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> References: <3039087.1080037690238.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> Message-ID: <58645.206.67.17.2.1080050907.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Rob Myers said: > On Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 04:01AM, > wrote: > There really should be a book on open source/content law, > or at least a big wikipedia section. Well, I'm trying to understand the issue, and the solutions, well enough to put a section in my document: http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/html/draftingthegiftdomain.html It is an 80 page discussion of how Copyright law et al applies to Open Content projects. I think I need some better marketing. Greg From email at greglondon.com Tue Mar 23 09:08:27 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:08:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: "Everyone can legally download when they see 'CC Share Music'" In-Reply-To: <3039087.1080037690238.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> References: <3039087.1080037690238.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> Message-ID: <58645.206.67.17.2.1080050907.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Rob Myers said: > On Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 04:01AM, > wrote: > There really should be a book on open source/content law, > or at least a big wikipedia section. Well, I'm trying to understand the issue, and the solutions, well enough to put a section in my document: http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/html/draftingthegiftdomain.html It is an 80 page discussion of how Copyright law et al applies to Open Content projects. I think I need some better marketing. Greg From robmyers at mac.com Tue Mar 23 09:11:18 2004 From: robmyers at mac.com (Rob Myers) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:11:18 +0000 Subject: Online Legal Dictionary Message-ID: <16269243.1080051078754.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> This may be of use to non-lawyers on the list (such as myself), and to non-American legals: http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.htm You can look up warranty, indemnification, representation, but strangely not derivation. Very useful for understanding licenses and the terms used around them. - Rob. From robmyers at mac.com Tue Mar 23 09:23:34 2004 From: robmyers at mac.com (Rob Myers) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:23:34 +0000 Subject: "Everyone can legally download when they see 'CC Share Music'" Message-ID: <5440780.1080051814833.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> On Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 02:08PM, wrote: > >Rob Myers said: >> On Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 04:01AM, >> wrote: >> There really should be a book on open source/content law, >> or at least a big wikipedia section. > >Well, I'm trying to understand the issue, and the >solutions, well enough to put a section in my document: > >http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/html/draftingthegiftdomain.html > >It is an 80 page discussion of how Copyright law et al >applies to Open Content projects. Wow, yes, I commented on it before and it's well worth reading, I'd pay for a hardcopy. No slight intended. Warranties is page 33, isn't it? But I don't think that you cover indeminification or representation of authority to contribute / passing on of risk yet though, do you? - Rob. From email at greglondon.com Tue Mar 23 10:04:16 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:04:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: "Everyone can legally download when they see 'CC Share Music'" In-Reply-To: <5440780.1080051814833.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> References: <5440780.1080051814833.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> Message-ID: <14324.206.67.17.2.1080054256.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Rob Myers said: > Warranties is page 33, isn't it? But I don't think that > you cover indeminification or representation of authority > to contribute / passing on of risk yet though, do you? http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/html/draftingthegiftdomain.html#3_Warranties I only cover implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. This whole indemnification/representation thing only came to pass relatively recently from the SCO lawsuit. Like I said, I'm trying to understand it so I can put it in there. I've yet to find any good explanation on how indemnification and other proposed new additions would change the situation in any significant way and still support the Gift Economy. Insurance is impossible for individual contributors. So that would have to slide downhill to a company like IBM or RedHat, which could kill them as well. And I don't see how insurance is any different than getting sued. either way someone has to dish out a lot of money. And since insurance does not prevent SCO from suing IBM, IBM has no incentive to offer insurance because they're already at risk from lawsuits. The thing is that copyright law is set up such that a copyright holder's first line of defense is to sue infringers. Some actions are criminal offenses, but the government doesn't have to prosecute. So, I don't see anything that would prevent SCO from suing IBM if IBM was selling a version of Linux that contained large chunks of SCO's code. If Alice unknowingly sells a work that belongs to Bob, then I'm pretty sure that no amount of paperwork can prohibit Bob from suing Alice. That, or I'm missing a fundamental concept. From zak at mysql.com Tue Mar 23 11:26:47 2004 From: zak at mysql.com (Zak Greant) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 09:26:47 -0700 Subject: Correcting misinformation about the Government Open Code Collaborative Message-ID: Greetings All, Some of you may know that several US states and local governments are collaborating on a governmental open code repository and collaboration project called the Government Open Code Collaborative. The repository will be used for both Free/Libre and Open Source Software and non-FLOSS Software, however there is a strong emphasis on FLOSS. While information on the project was presented at the recent Open Source in Government Conference, there has not yet been a formal publicity event. However, an article has been published in InfoWeek (http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml? articleID=18401044) subsequent to the conference. One of the quotes in the article is very clearly wrong. The quote is: "A government agency using the repository must sign a contract that lets it license any open-source or proprietary software it finds in the repository, while prohibiting that software from being used to make a profit." The contract signed by Members does not have these restrictions (as they are clearly against the FSF Free Software definition, the OSI Open Source definition and other related community guidelines and definitions.) In fact, the members in the GOCC project only have to assert, via a contract, that they have the right to publish software contributed to the repository under the license that they choose to contribute it under or that is already attached to that software. If you encounter misinformation on this topic, feel free to correct the source or pass them on to me. Cheers! -- Zak Greant MySQL AB Community Advocate From evan at wikitravel.org Tue Mar 23 11:40:45 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:40:45 -0500 Subject: Warranty, Representation, Indemnification (was Re: "Everyone can legally download when they see 'CC Share Music'") In-Reply-To: <14324.206.67.17.2.1080054256.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> (email@greglondon.com's message of "Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:04:16 -0500 (EST)") References: <5440780.1080051814833.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> <14324.206.67.17.2.1080054256.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Message-ID: <87vfkv4iuq.fsf_-_@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> >>>>> "e" == email writes: e> I've yet to find any good explanation on how indemnification e> and other proposed new additions would change the situation in e> any significant way and still support the Gift Economy. (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I don't speak for Creative Commons.) The idea is that by releasing a work under a Creative Commons license you also assert that the licensee will be able to exercise those rights. If you can't assert that, then you shouldn't release it. The idea comes from traditional publishing contracts. When you sell a book to a publisher, or a record to a record label, or a photograph to a magazine, part of the contract you sign is (usually) that the work has its rights cleared. In other words, you're not plagiarizing, you're not using someone's image without getting a model release, you're not libelling someone, etc., etc. If it turns out that you did copy someone else's work without permission (or abuse privacy rights, or libel someone, or whatever), and that person sues your publisher/label/magazine, the publisher/label/magazine can turn around and sue you. Releasing a work under an Open Content license is kind of like making an agreement with every single publisher in the entire world. It's tempting to say, "Well, screw publishers! Those fat cats can pay for a lawsuit better than poor ol' artists can." But the fact is that publishers of Open Content are little guys -- people sharing files on a p2p network, or mirroring a book on their personal Web site, or using Open Content clip art in their club newsletter. Not only that, but people like our friend Sarah can't really afford to hire entertainment lawyers to make sure that each and every MP3 she's sharing has had all the rights for each sample cleared. The artist who created the music can, though. By warranting and/or representing that the work really is redistributable, the artist makes it easier for Sarah to share the file with her friends (without getting her uptight mom all cranky). Will having a warranty keep Sarah from getting sued? No, it won't. Anybody can sue anybody for anything at any time. It won't even keep Sarah from having to pay damages to the person who owns the rights to the samples. What it does allow is Sarah to sue the artist in turn to cover her costs and damages. The idea here is not to generate more lawsuits. The idea is to put the responsibility for making works redistributable in the hands of the people most able to do that: the artists who create them. There are warranties to this effect in all the 1.0 versions of the Creative Commons licenses. However, there was some backlash against this. Two major groups of creators are in the habit of using copyrighted work without permission: small-time electronic music producers who tend not to clear rights to their samples, and bloggers, who tend to just copy long excerpts or entire articles from newspapers. Having warranties made it hard for these people to release their work (*cough cough*) under CC licenses. (It is particularly hard for bloggers, since most just have the Some Rights Reserved logo on their blog page somewhere, and don't want to specify whether the picture in today's blog entry is really their own work available for free, or something they copied from Fark.) People who write and record their own music, or write fiction and reference manuals, or take photographs, or make movies, usually don't have to worry about this stuff. It's more "remixers" who tend to have concerns with these warranties. (People who remix other Open Content works that have a warranty provision in the license don't worry, though: after all, they've got a warranty that says they can reuse the work!) The other, less savory argument about warranties was that releasing something as Open Content is like throwing out your trash. You just give away the crap you don't want or need. After all, if it was worth anything, you'd sell it for a profit, right? So you shouldn't be held responsible for the quality or publishability of that work. It's just pocket lint. If somebody can use it, fine; if not, well, don't come crying to me. Personally, I hate this argument. If somebody wants to release their lame leftovers as Open Content, fine. Great. But don't call my work shit just because it's Open Content, and don't try to drag down all Free Culture to the level of their low expectations. Anyways, that's my take. Artists should take responsibility for the publishability of their work because they are the ones with the most power to make it publishable. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From robmyers at mac.com Tue Mar 23 11:59:33 2004 From: robmyers at mac.com (Rob Myers) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:59:33 +0000 Subject: Correcting misinformation about the Government Open Code Collaborative Message-ID: <1548861.1080061173998.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> On Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 04:26PM, Zak Greant wrote: >In fact, the members in the GOCC project only have to assert, via a >contract, that they have the right to publish software contributed to >the repository under the license that they choose to contribute it under >or that is already attached to that software. Hi. Thanks for fighting the FUD. :-) One question that's relevent to the discussion on this list is why project members have to make this assertion? Surely by contributing they are implicitly claiming that the software is theirs to contribute? What legal efect does making the assertion part of the contract have? Thanks. - Rob. From zak at mysql.com Tue Mar 23 12:17:04 2004 From: zak at mysql.com (Zak Greant) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:17:04 -0700 Subject: Correcting misinformation about the Government Open Code Collaborative In-Reply-To: <1548861.1080061173998.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> References: <1548861.1080061173998.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> Message-ID: On Mar 23, 2004, at 09:59, Rob Myers wrote: > On Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 04:26PM, Zak Greant > wrote: > >> In fact, the members in the GOCC project only have to assert, via a >> contract, that they have the right to publish software contributed to >> the repository under the license that they choose to contribute it >> under >> or that is already attached to that software. > > Hi. > > Thanks for fighting the FUD. :-) > > One question that's relevent to the discussion on this list is why > project members have to make this assertion? Surely by contributing > they are implicitly claiming that the software is theirs to > contribute? What legal efect does making the assertion part of the > contract have? Please note that I am not a member of the project, merely a friend helping out a very busy friend. :) In their place, I would do such a thing to ensure that there is a paper trail to show that the work was willfully put under a certain license by the copyright holder. I don't think that anyone wants a(nother) situation where a large organization asserts that a work was unlawfully put under an FLOSS-type license. Cheers! --zak From email at greglondon.com Tue Mar 23 12:43:28 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:43:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Warranty, Representation, Indemnification In-Reply-To: <87vfkv4iuq.fsf_-_@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.u s> References: <5440780.1080051814833.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com><14324.206.67.17.2.1080054256.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> <87vfkv4iuq.fsf_-_@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> Message-ID: <58841.206.67.17.2.1080063808.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Evan Prodromou said: > If it turns out that you did copy someone else's work > without permission (or abuse privacy rights, or libel > someone, or whatever), and that person sues your > publisher/label/magazine, the publisher/label/magazine > can turn around and sue you. hm, that's how I've heard it described so far, and I don't see it having any real effect. Alice, Bob, and Charlie are all contributers to a Open Movie project. They put a lot of work into the project and create an Open Content Movie titled "Haunted Blender". Ike-Incorporated sees this and decides that he could sell DVD's of the movie, make a little bit of money, and get some press for the movie project. He stamps out some DVD's, and sells a whole bunch, making a decent profit for his investment risk. ParamountPictures files a lawsuit against Ike-Incorporated because it turns out that "Haunted Blender" contains footage from their movie "Ghost" starring Patrick Swayze. Ike does some investigating and discovers that StupidSteve contributed the clip to the project, but no one recognized it as stolen footage. Patrick Swayze's acting was so bad, everyone thought it was just an amatur actor who looked like him. A court rules in Paramount's favor, and orders Ike to pay Paramount a sum equal to all his profits plus legal expenses for Paramount. Now, if I have this correct, indemnification means that Ike-Incorporated could now sue StupidSteve for whatever he had to pay Paramount. But this has a couple of basic problems. (1) Steve probably doesn't have that kind of money, so if Ike pursues and wins a lawsuit against Steve, Steve will file bankruptcy and Ike will never see a dime. So the point is mute, financially. (2) If Steve was really stupid, and not malicious, then Ike suing him will be nothing but possible bad press for Ike. Remember, Ike took a financial risk on the project to make some money and to support the project. Ike likes the Open Movie concept. And supporting it has generated Ike some good karma. Suing an overeager but brainless contributer could be seen as biting the hand that feeds you. These two concerns seem to point to indemnification being of no value to Ike. on the other hand, If Steve's intent was malicious, for example, he might be the paid lackey of WarnerBrothers who wants to see OpenMovies die a miserable death, then Steve would be subject to possible criminal prosecution for misrepresenting copyright information. And Warner Brothers would be subject to horribly bad press, at the very least. So, indemnification may work here, but there are other recourses to the law for this case already. That's Ike's point of view. then theres Alice, Bob, and Charlie's point of view: To me, saying "Copyright 2004 Greg London" is a declaration that the work is mine. and copyright law makes it a crime to misrepresent that. But its a whole other step to say: "If my stuff turns out to be someone else's propery, you can sue me to recover anything you had to pay out in a lawsuit." because it's a lawsuit happy world, and who's to say that ALL of Ike's damages were the result of solely MY contribution? it's a weird variation of the "hostage scenario" in game theory. If any single hostage draws attention to themselves and tries to resist the hostage taker, he'll likely get himself killed. If everyone stood up at once and attacked the hostage taker at the same time, the group would likely win. But the first individual would probably die, so no one does it. the first person to offer indemnity is opening themselves to the brunt of any lawsuit. if the others do not offer indeminity, they'll likely not be the first to be sued by Ike trying to recoup his losses. If Steve did the infringment, but Alice offers indemnity, then would Alice open herself up to be sued by Ike for Steve's stupidity? if you can sue for anything, a warranty of indemnification from Alice might be just enough to focus Ike on her. If EVERYONE offered indemnity, then Ike would probably go after Steve, but from the contributer's current position, its a 'hostage scenario' where the first person to draw attention to themselves is open to a world of hurt. To make matters worse, if StupidSteve did not contribute directly to "Haunted Blender", but instead contributed to some OTHER project that Alice, Bob, and Charlie then used with the assumption that the work is legit, then Alice, Bob, and Charlie are WIDE OPEN to being the first target of Ike's lawsuit. Since it acts like a chain or a domino effect, Ike would sue ABC, and ABC would then sue Steve. And from Alice's point of view, she's thinking "Why draw attention to myself when Steve caused the problem?" The last thing you'd want to say to a possible aggressor is "Bring it on." Unless you're the president and have 24 hour Secret Service protection for life, and knowing that saying "bring it on" will actually bring attacks on your military, not you the president, you're only opening yourself up to potential hurt. As president, it's good because it makes you look tough at someone else's expense. But for the volunteer contributer, indemnification will first occur as a hostage scenario (first person to offer it will get sued) and second as volunteering to be sued for someone elses stupidity. And it doesn't solve the problem of protecting Ike, Alice, Bob, and Charlie from being sued by Paramount. If it worked so that Paramount had to directly sue Steve, then maybe it would fly. but as it is, it seems to be problematic. From email at greglondon.com Tue Mar 23 12:43:28 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:43:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: Warranty, Representation, Indemnification In-Reply-To: <87vfkv4iuq.fsf_-_@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.u s> References: <5440780.1080051814833.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com><14324.206.67.17.2.1080054256.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> <87vfkv4iuq.fsf_-_@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> Message-ID: <58841.206.67.17.2.1080063808.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Evan Prodromou said: > If it turns out that you did copy someone else's work > without permission (or abuse privacy rights, or libel > someone, or whatever), and that person sues your > publisher/label/magazine, the publisher/label/magazine > can turn around and sue you. hm, that's how I've heard it described so far, and I don't see it having any real effect. Alice, Bob, and Charlie are all contributers to a Open Movie project. They put a lot of work into the project and create an Open Content Movie titled "Haunted Blender". Ike-Incorporated sees this and decides that he could sell DVD's of the movie, make a little bit of money, and get some press for the movie project. He stamps out some DVD's, and sells a whole bunch, making a decent profit for his investment risk. ParamountPictures files a lawsuit against Ike-Incorporated because it turns out that "Haunted Blender" contains footage from their movie "Ghost" starring Patrick Swayze. Ike does some investigating and discovers that StupidSteve contributed the clip to the project, but no one recognized it as stolen footage. Patrick Swayze's acting was so bad, everyone thought it was just an amatur actor who looked like him. A court rules in Paramount's favor, and orders Ike to pay Paramount a sum equal to all his profits plus legal expenses for Paramount. Now, if I have this correct, indemnification means that Ike-Incorporated could now sue StupidSteve for whatever he had to pay Paramount. But this has a couple of basic problems. (1) Steve probably doesn't have that kind of money, so if Ike pursues and wins a lawsuit against Steve, Steve will file bankruptcy and Ike will never see a dime. So the point is mute, financially. (2) If Steve was really stupid, and not malicious, then Ike suing him will be nothing but possible bad press for Ike. Remember, Ike took a financial risk on the project to make some money and to support the project. Ike likes the Open Movie concept. And supporting it has generated Ike some good karma. Suing an overeager but brainless contributer could be seen as biting the hand that feeds you. These two concerns seem to point to indemnification being of no value to Ike. on the other hand, If Steve's intent was malicious, for example, he might be the paid lackey of WarnerBrothers who wants to see OpenMovies die a miserable death, then Steve would be subject to possible criminal prosecution for misrepresenting copyright information. And Warner Brothers would be subject to horribly bad press, at the very least. So, indemnification may work here, but there are other recourses to the law for this case already. That's Ike's point of view. then theres Alice, Bob, and Charlie's point of view: To me, saying "Copyright 2004 Greg London" is a declaration that the work is mine. and copyright law makes it a crime to misrepresent that. But its a whole other step to say: "If my stuff turns out to be someone else's propery, you can sue me to recover anything you had to pay out in a lawsuit." because it's a lawsuit happy world, and who's to say that ALL of Ike's damages were the result of solely MY contribution? it's a weird variation of the "hostage scenario" in game theory. If any single hostage draws attention to themselves and tries to resist the hostage taker, he'll likely get himself killed. If everyone stood up at once and attacked the hostage taker at the same time, the group would likely win. But the first individual would probably die, so no one does it. the first person to offer indemnity is opening themselves to the brunt of any lawsuit. if the others do not offer indeminity, they'll likely not be the first to be sued by Ike trying to recoup his losses. If Steve did the infringment, but Alice offers indemnity, then would Alice open herself up to be sued by Ike for Steve's stupidity? if you can sue for anything, a warranty of indemnification from Alice might be just enough to focus Ike on her. If EVERYONE offered indemnity, then Ike would probably go after Steve, but from the contributer's current position, its a 'hostage scenario' where the first person to draw attention to themselves is open to a world of hurt. To make matters worse, if StupidSteve did not contribute directly to "Haunted Blender", but instead contributed to some OTHER project that Alice, Bob, and Charlie then used with the assumption that the work is legit, then Alice, Bob, and Charlie are WIDE OPEN to being the first target of Ike's lawsuit. Since it acts like a chain or a domino effect, Ike would sue ABC, and ABC would then sue Steve. And from Alice's point of view, she's thinking "Why draw attention to myself when Steve caused the problem?" The last thing you'd want to say to a possible aggressor is "Bring it on." Unless you're the president and have 24 hour Secret Service protection for life, and knowing that saying "bring it on" will actually bring attacks on your military, not you the president, you're only opening yourself up to potential hurt. As president, it's good because it makes you look tough at someone else's expense. But for the volunteer contributer, indemnification will first occur as a hostage scenario (first person to offer it will get sued) and second as volunteering to be sued for someone elses stupidity. And it doesn't solve the problem of protecting Ike, Alice, Bob, and Charlie from being sued by Paramount. If it worked so that Paramount had to directly sue Steve, then maybe it would fly. but as it is, it seems to be problematic. From sal at highlala.com Tue Mar 23 12:48:21 2004 From: sal at highlala.com (Sal Randolph) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:48:21 -0500 Subject: Warranty, Representation, Indemnification (was Re: "Everyone can legally download when they see 'CC Share Music'") In-Reply-To: <87vfkv4iuq.fsf_-_@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> References: <5440780.1080051814833.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> <14324.206.67.17.2.1080054256.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> <87vfkv4iuq.fsf_-_@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> Message-ID: <46780F7E-7CF2-11D8-BDF0-000A9575CA5C@highlala.com> On Mar 23, 2004, at 11:40 AM, Evan Prodromou wrote: > It's more "remixers" who tend to have > concerns with these warranties. I'd just like to comment that "remixers" are not some minor segment only applying to obscure electronic musicians. Besides the use of found sounds and samples in music there are also projects like Alice Randall's "The Wind Done Gone" a literary reworking (parody) of "Gone With the Wind" written from a slave's perspective. While the protectors of "Gone with the Wind" did eventually drop their lawsuit (intended to keep Randall's book from being published), "The Wind Done Gone" is certainly an example of an important literary and cultural project in legally controversial waters. Any kind of parody or commentary which tries to make "fair use" of copyrighted material is vulnerable to legal challenge in this climate. Also, virtually every imaginably possible movie will show some potentially trademarked or copyrighted material onscreen at some point. You certainly aren't free to film your own apartment, for instance. Every 'designed' object (and an increasing number of public architectural facades and locations) is potentially a legal bombshell. Big movie studios have whole departments devoted to getting clearances for every tiny thing that might appear, but obviously this is financially impossible for small independent producers. We can't make culture without using culture -- every creative act is building on things which already exist. Legally ambiguous situations abound for all creative artists. The warranties, as you point out, just make it easier to sue artists for their creative acts, and I continue to think that's a bad thing. From evan at wikitravel.org Tue Mar 23 14:13:32 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:13:32 -0500 Subject: Warranty, Representation, Indemnification In-Reply-To: <58841.206.67.17.2.1080063808.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> (email@greglondon.com's message of "Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:43:28 -0500 (EST)") References: <5440780.1080051814833.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> <14324.206.67.17.2.1080054256.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> <87vfkv4iuq.fsf_-_@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> <58841.206.67.17.2.1080063808.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Message-ID: <87y8prtm03.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> >>>>> "e" == email writes: e> These two concerns seem to point to indemnification being of no e> value to Ike. So, here's the value to Ike: Alice, Bob, and Charlie are doing the movie, and StupidSteve says, "Let's add this 30 minute verbatim clip from 'Ghost'"! (I'm trying to put Steve's infringement outside the range of fair use or fair dealing.) Alice says, "Steve, that's infringing material. We can't redistribute that; we'd put ourselves in legal jeopardy." Steve says, "Aw, copyright's just a lot of hoohaw! And this is a really good clip! It always makes me cry!" And Alice says, "Steve, if you [notice second-person singular] make that stuff available under a CC 1.0 license, you [notice second-person singular] give people a warranty. They can sue you [2nd person] personally if they get in any trouble over it." Steve says, "Uh... I can get sued?" Alice: "Yeah, for a lot of money, probably." Steve says, "But, like, if the 'Ghost' people threaten to sue us, we'll just take our movie off the Web site." Alice: "That doesn't matter. With a 1.0 license, we're responsible for any redistribution anyone else does." Steve: "Um... OK, I guess we can think up something else to put in here." In other words, the value isn't in the suit -- we never want to get there. The value is in keeping sloppy creators from trying to distribute infringing material under Open Content licenses in the first place. Let's take your example if there _wasn't_ a warranty (as there isn't in the 2.0 licenses). Steve wants to add the clip, and ABC don't like that it's infringing. Steve points out that the infringement isn't their problem, and that they explicitly disclaim any non-infringement representation. So, they release the work, Ike gets sued and loses his business. The press has a field day. "Open Content, a movement to infringe on copyright and steal intellectual property, suffered a crushing defeat today as copyright owners proved their right to control how their work is used. The Open Content piracy movement has been stopped -- hopefully for good." When Danny, Evelyn, and Frank go to publish _their_ Open Content movie next year, they're screwed. Despite the fact that it doesn't have any infringing material, nobody will publish it, redistribute it, or share it on networks. By this point, Open Content means "infringement". This is going to happen, anyways, sooner or later. But if we at least have some check on the StupidSteves of the world, by making them responsible for their stupid actions, maybe it'll be less drastic and less damaging. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From evan at wikitravel.org Tue Mar 23 14:27:14 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:27:14 -0500 Subject: Warranty, Representation, Indemnification In-Reply-To: <46780F7E-7CF2-11D8-BDF0-000A9575CA5C@highlala.com> (Sal Randolph's message of "Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:48:21 -0500") References: <5440780.1080051814833.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> <14324.206.67.17.2.1080054256.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> <87vfkv4iuq.fsf_-_@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> <46780F7E-7CF2-11D8-BDF0-000A9575CA5C@highlala.com> Message-ID: <87r7vjqs8d.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> >>>>> "SR" == Sal Randolph writes: Me> It's more "remixers" who tend to have concerns with these Me> warranties. SR> I'd just like to comment that "remixers" are not some minor SR> segment only applying to obscure electronic musicians. Absolutely true. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. That said, _verbatim_ copying is relatively rare. SR> Any kind of parody or commentary which tries to make "fair use" of SR> copyrighted material is vulnerable to legal challenge in this SR> climate. I know. Doesn't that suck? I hope we continue to build a corpus of great Open Content work that people can count on to use, reuse, remix, and redistribute. Then we can just toss out that ol' copyrighted stuff (or wait for it to revert the public domain, and then use it again!). But, of course, it takes care and attention to details to make that happen. If we're sloppy about it in this early stage, or we conflate Open Content with a lot of related but ancillary causes, we can queer the deal and ruin the prospects of having Free Culture for ours and future generations. Isn't that danger worth being just a teensy bit more careful? SR> The warranties, as you point out, just make it easier to sue SR> artists for their creative acts, and I continue to think SR> that's a bad thing. Actually, I think the main point is scaring the bejeesus out of artists and making them think twice before releasing works. "Do I really have rights to release this? Yes I do." I think it's better than putting off that responsibility on the consumers who use the artistic works, or redistributors like you and me. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From robmyers at mac.com Tue Mar 23 14:30:48 2004 From: robmyers at mac.com (Rob Myers) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:30:48 +0000 Subject: Warranty, Representation, Indemnification In-Reply-To: <87r7vjqs8d.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> References: <5440780.1080051814833.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> <14324.206.67.17.2.1080054256.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> <87vfkv4iuq.fsf_-_@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> <46780F7E-7CF2-11D8-BDF0-000A9575CA5C@highlala.com> <87r7vjqs8d.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> Message-ID: <962FCCFA-7D00-11D8-AA52-00306590A6B6@mac.com> On 23 Mar 2004, at 19:27, Evan Prodromou wrote: > Actually, I think the main point is scaring the bejeesus out of > artists and making them think twice before releasing works. "Do I > really have rights to release this? Yes I do." > > I think it's better than putting off that responsibility on the > consumers who use the artistic works, or redistributors like you and > me. I agree, but I think an OGL-style personal representation rather than a CC1.0-style general representation is more manageable. It creates a chain of responsibility rather than passing all the risk on to each deriver. - Rob. From evan at wikitravel.org Tue Mar 23 14:43:30 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:43:30 -0500 Subject: Warranty, Representation, Indemnification In-Reply-To: <962FCCFA-7D00-11D8-AA52-00306590A6B6@mac.com> (Rob Myers's message of "Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:30:48 +0000") References: <5440780.1080051814833.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com> <14324.206.67.17.2.1080054256.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> <87vfkv4iuq.fsf_-_@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> <46780F7E-7CF2-11D8-BDF0-000A9575CA5C@highlala.com> <87r7vjqs8d.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> <962FCCFA-7D00-11D8-AA52-00306590A6B6@mac.com> Message-ID: <8765cvqrh9.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> >>>>> "RM" == Rob Myers writes: RM> I agree, but I think an OGL-style personal representation RM> rather than a CC1.0-style general representation is more RM> manageable. It creates a chain of responsibility rather than RM> passing all the risk on to each deriver. Well, I think it's a moot point now. The 2.0 licenses are (half) out, and they not only don't have a representation, but explicitly disclaim any such representation. So, y'know, let's just hope we're wrong on this. B-) ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From email at greglondon.com Tue Mar 23 15:55:37 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:55:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Warranty, Representation, Indemnification In-Reply-To: <87y8prtm03.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> References: <5440780.1080051814833.JavaMail.robmyers@mac.com><14324.206.67.17.2.1080054256.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com><87vfkv4iuq.fsf_-_@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us><58841.206.67.17.2.1080063808.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> <87y8prtm03.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> Message-ID: <31377.206.67.17.2.1080075337.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Evan Prodromou said: >>>>>> "e" == email writes: > > e> These two concerns seem to point to > e> indemnification being of no value to Ike. > > And Alice says, "Steve, if you make > that stuff available under a CC 1.0 license, you give > people a warranty. They can sue you personally if they > get in any trouble over it." > > Steve: "Um... OK, I guess we can think up something else > to put in here." You're not presenting this quite fairly though. Steve knows he can get sued, but the reality is that Paramount goes after Ike. Ike goes after Alice. And then Alice goes after Steve (assuming the case where Steve contributed the "Ghost" clip to a different project and Alice used it under the assumption it was clean.) At the very least, there is a layer of protection to Steve from being sued by Paramount. If Indemnification meant Paramount had to sue Steve directly, then things change, but as it is, the further down the chain, the less likely the lawsuit is going to make it all the way back to Steve. Every civil suit has to prove beyond a 50 percent doubt that the person being sued did the damages. When you get to small time contributers, was Steve the one who posted the file? was he the ONLY one who posted infringing material? can you prove that beyond 50% doubt? If Napster 1.0 could have sued its users to recoup damages from all teh illegal file sharing for which it had to pay damages, would it have survived long enough for the millions of minor lawsuits to pan out, or would it have shriveled up in bankruptcy court before the papers were filed? And if Steve is an individual contributer, not a commercial entity, then Steve may have less to lose, and may view a lawsuit as less damaging than Ike views it. Bankruptcy could erase any awards Steve is supposed to pay. So, I don't think the Steve's of the world will view Indemnification as quite as large of a barrier as you portray it. Ike will view it as a caution because Ike has a lot to lose. But he did before indemnification too. Most Open projects have legitimate contributers like Alice, Bob, and Charlie, not morons like Steve. And you don't address the risk that ABC take on in offering indemnification because of morons like Steve. Even IF indemnification scares Steve into submission, you say nothing of any chilling effect indemnification may have on legitimate contributers. Theoretically, Alice should be safe from lawsuit, but what if Alice has deeper pockets than Steve? What if Alice were AliceIncorporated, a subsidiary of Pixar Animation? And AliceInc contributed to the project for good karma. then Ike went and sold it, and then Paramount comes in and looks at who to sue. the options are Ike and Alice. Steve isn't even on the radar. > The press has a field day. "Open Content, a movement to > infringe on copyright and steal intellectual property, > suffered a crushing defeat today as copyright owners > proved their right to control how their work > is used. The Open Content piracy movement has been > stopped hopefully for good." Have you ever read such a misinformed news article? Did it come from MicrosoftNewsNetwork? The counter-article would say how open projects such as linux have dried up because most people are not willing to risk a lawsuit for someone else's mistake. From wmorgan-cc-licenses at masanjin.net Wed Mar 24 11:46:24 2004 From: wmorgan-cc-licenses at masanjin.net (William Morgan) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:46:24 -0500 Subject: derivative works question: "cover" songs Message-ID: <20040324164624.GC24248@masanjin.net> Hello all, I have a question which I don't think has been covered before---but apologies in advance if it has. It concerns performing cover songs. We are a bluegrass band with some audio files we'd like to distribute under a CC license. The situation with bluegrass is a different from that of most other genres, in that, in addition to performing originals, artists typically also perform music drawn from a standard repetoire. Some of the standard repetoire is traditional and in the public domain, but some of the material is under copyright control, and performing these songs is essentially akin to what is called performing "cover" songs in other genres. What is involved in applying a CC license to this type of material? Is it enough to simply state that our copyright and licensing extends only over the recording of the song, and not over the lyrics and composition? Or must we procure some form of permission from the copyright holders before applying a CC license (a feat which is essentially impossible for us)? Or are we simply SOL in terms of releasing these recordings? Thanks in advance for any help. I am not an expert in copyright issues by any means, so I'm sorry if I'm making obvious mistakes in the above. -- William From johnston at vectaport.com Wed Mar 24 12:02:08 2004 From: johnston at vectaport.com (Scott Johnston) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:02:08 -0800 Subject: License that allows private copying? Message-ID: Has there been discussion at Creative Commons (or elsewhere) of developing a license that makes a distinction between public and private copying? Something that extends the fair-use privileges protected by the Sony video tape decision to allow a person to privately distribute copies to their associates, but forbids them from making it available to the public? Scott Johnston From email at greglondon.com Wed Mar 24 12:14:20 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:14:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: derivative works question: "cover" songs In-Reply-To: <20040324164624.GC24248@masanjin.net> References: <20040324164624.GC24248@masanjin.net> Message-ID: <30046.206.67.17.2.1080148460.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> cover songs are handled by "compulsory licenses" briefly explained here: http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/fair_use.html#licenses "compulsory licenses allow third parties to copy, perform, or distribute certain types of works without the copyright owners permission, in exchange for which the third parties must pay a predetermined royalty amount." So doing a "cover" means you have to pay predetermined royalties. I'm not sure how that works, but you may or may not be able to license a cover tune as CC-SA, since the predetermined royalties may or may not cover giving a work away for free, which is a requirement for any CC license. If the predetermined royalties do not cover giving the work away for free, then a cover tune is a derived work that the original author holds the rights to, requiring the original artists permission to license it SA. The above link on compulsory licenses ends by saying this: "Before taking advantage of any of these compulsory licenses, an individual should consult with a knowledgeable copyright attorney" William Morgan said: > Hello all, > > I have a question which I don't think has been covered before---but > apologies in advance if it has. It concerns performing cover songs. > > We are a bluegrass band with some audio files we'd like to distribute > under a CC license. The situation with bluegrass is a different from > that of most other genres, in that, in addition to performing originals, > artists typically also perform music drawn from a standard repetoire. > Some of the standard repetoire is traditional and in the public domain, > but some of the material is under copyright control, and performing > these songs is essentially akin to what is called performing "cover" > songs in other genres. > > What is involved in applying a CC license to this type of material? Is > it enough to simply state that our copyright and licensing extends only > over the recording of the song, and not over the lyrics and composition? > Or must we procure some form of permission from the copyright holders > before applying a CC license (a feat which is essentially impossible for > us)? Or are we simply SOL in terms of releasing these recordings? > > Thanks in advance for any help. I am not an expert in copyright issues > by any means, so I'm sorry if I'm making obvious mistakes in the above. > > -- > William > _______________________________________________ > cc-licenses mailing list > cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses > > -- Do What I Mean and Autovivification Sometimes Unwanted From email at greglondon.com Wed Mar 24 12:14:20 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:14:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: derivative works question: "cover" songs In-Reply-To: <20040324164624.GC24248@masanjin.net> References: <20040324164624.GC24248@masanjin.net> Message-ID: <30046.206.67.17.2.1080148460.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> cover songs are handled by "compulsory licenses" briefly explained here: http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/fair_use.html#licenses "compulsory licenses allow third parties to copy, perform, or distribute certain types of works without the copyright owners permission, in exchange for which the third parties must pay a predetermined royalty amount." So doing a "cover" means you have to pay predetermined royalties. I'm not sure how that works, but you may or may not be able to license a cover tune as CC-SA, since the predetermined royalties may or may not cover giving a work away for free, which is a requirement for any CC license. If the predetermined royalties do not cover giving the work away for free, then a cover tune is a derived work that the original author holds the rights to, requiring the original artists permission to license it SA. The above link on compulsory licenses ends by saying this: "Before taking advantage of any of these compulsory licenses, an individual should consult with a knowledgeable copyright attorney" William Morgan said: > Hello all, > > I have a question which I don't think has been covered before---but > apologies in advance if it has. It concerns performing cover songs. > > We are a bluegrass band with some audio files we'd like to distribute > under a CC license. The situation with bluegrass is a different from > that of most other genres, in that, in addition to performing originals, > artists typically also perform music drawn from a standard repetoire. > Some of the standard repetoire is traditional and in the public domain, > but some of the material is under copyright control, and performing > these songs is essentially akin to what is called performing "cover" > songs in other genres. > > What is involved in applying a CC license to this type of material? Is > it enough to simply state that our copyright and licensing extends only > over the recording of the song, and not over the lyrics and composition? > Or must we procure some form of permission from the copyright holders > before applying a CC license (a feat which is essentially impossible for > us)? Or are we simply SOL in terms of releasing these recordings? > > Thanks in advance for any help. I am not an expert in copyright issues > by any means, so I'm sorry if I'm making obvious mistakes in the above. > > -- > William > _______________________________________________ > cc-licenses mailing list > cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses > > -- Do What I Mean and Autovivification Sometimes Unwanted From email at greglondon.com Wed Mar 24 12:30:55 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:30:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16567.206.67.17.2.1080149455.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Scott Johnston said: > Has there been discussion at Creative Commons (or elsewhere) of > developing a license that makes a distinction between public and > private copying? Something that extends the fair-use privileges > protected by the Sony video tape decision to allow a person to > privately distribute copies to their associates, but forbids them from > making it available to the public? I dont think so. I question the value of such a license simply because the only group I know of that claims I can't make private copies of works that I own was someone from the RIAA. A couple years ago, someone from the record industry said that people should not convert their CD's into MP3's, and instead should buy an all new copy of the same song to play in each location, for instance, your car stereo, your bedroom, your living room, and your personal MP3 player. From email at greglondon.com Wed Mar 24 12:30:55 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:30:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16567.206.67.17.2.1080149455.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Scott Johnston said: > Has there been discussion at Creative Commons (or elsewhere) of > developing a license that makes a distinction between public and > private copying? Something that extends the fair-use privileges > protected by the Sony video tape decision to allow a person to > privately distribute copies to their associates, but forbids them from > making it available to the public? I dont think so. I question the value of such a license simply because the only group I know of that claims I can't make private copies of works that I own was someone from the RIAA. A couple years ago, someone from the record industry said that people should not convert their CD's into MP3's, and instead should buy an all new copy of the same song to play in each location, for instance, your car stereo, your bedroom, your living room, and your personal MP3 player. From chrismo at clabs.org Wed Mar 24 12:42:40 2004 From: chrismo at clabs.org (Chris Morris) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:42:40 -0600 Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4061C890.208@clabs.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20040324/b5b6f829/attachment.htm From charybdis at deja-x.co.uk Wed Mar 24 12:46:52 2004 From: charybdis at deja-x.co.uk (Richard Cobbett) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:46:52 -0000 Subject: License that allows private copying? References: <16567.206.67.17.2.1080149455.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Message-ID: <003401c411c7$fdcb4de0$9f82a8c0@CHANGETHIS> In the US, certainly, but over here in the UK we have absolutely no legal Fair Use rules, even over things like ripping a CD to listen to it on your MP3 player. Nobody actually gets sued over it, the shops sell MP3 players and I don't even think our record industry groups actually care that much (the BPI has generally been a lot more restrained than the RIAA, although there has been movement of late). Still, just as an ideological thing, there's scope for a quick license effectively saying "Look, we don't want you passing this round to all and sundry, but feel free to do whatever you want with it for personal use". Not sure it's a CC thing per se though - I'd have thought a general Fair Use sticker would be more suitable. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 5:30 PM Subject: Re: License that allows private copying? > Scott Johnston said: > > Has there been discussion at Creative Commons (or elsewhere) of > > developing a license that makes a distinction between public and > > private copying? Something that extends the fair-use privileges > > protected by the Sony video tape decision to allow a person to > > privately distribute copies to their associates, but forbids them from > > making it available to the public? > > I dont think so. > > I question the value of such a license simply because the > only group I know of that claims I can't make private > copies of works that I own was someone from the RIAA. > A couple years ago, someone from the record industry > said that people should not convert their CD's into MP3's, > and instead should buy an all new copy of the same song > to play in each location, for instance, your car stereo, > your bedroom, your living room, and your personal MP3 > player. > > > > _______________________________________________ > cc-licenses mailing list > cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses From evan at wikitravel.org Wed Mar 24 12:47:33 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:47:33 -0500 Subject: derivative works question: "cover" songs In-Reply-To: <20040324164624.GC24248@masanjin.net> (William Morgan's message of "Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:46:24 -0500") References: <20040324164624.GC24248@masanjin.net> Message-ID: <87fzbydtmy.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> >>>>> "WM" == William Morgan writes: WM> What is involved in applying a CC license to this type of WM> material? Is it enough to simply state that our copyright and WM> licensing extends only over the recording of the song, and not WM> over the lyrics and composition? Or must we procure some form WM> of permission from the copyright holders before applying a CC WM> license (a feat which is essentially inmpossible for us)? Or WM> are we simply SOL in terms of releasing these recordings? I am not a lawyer, I don't speak for Creative Commons, this is not legal advice. If it was anything else (remaking a movie, for instance), I believe you would have to get the permission of the copyright holder. But covering musical recordings is apparently special. I only know this, by the way, from reading Larry Lessig's blog: http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/001793.shtml I don't know how this applies to granting further rights to other people, though. I suspect it's too specific to really allow you to grant those rights to others. I'd suggest that you only put original work (where you wrote the music, lyrics, and did the recording) under a CC license. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong! ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From email at greglondon.com Wed Mar 24 13:13:10 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (email at greglondon.com) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:13:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: <003401c411c7$fdcb4de0$9f82a8c0@CHANGETHIS> References: <16567.206.67.17.2.1080149455.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> <003401c411c7$fdcb4de0$9f82a8c0@CHANGETHIS> Message-ID: <7410.206.67.17.2.1080151990.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Richard Cobbett said: > In the US, certainly, but over here in the UK we have absolutely no legal > Fair Use rules, even over things like ripping a CD to listen to it on your > MP3 player. Nobody actually gets sued over it, the shops sell MP3 players Hm, didn't know that. I'm struggling just to grok US copyright law and haven't even glanced at other countries yet. I'd say on the grand scheme of things that a fair-use license would not cause any major changes in the way things are done. A fair-use license won't fundamentally alter the way people create, distribute, and listen to music, as far as I can figure. If the UK suddenly clamped down on private copying, then a fair-use license would suddenly have a need, but as it is, its a formality, and formalities don't alter the world. Creative Commons may be willing to crunch out a license. They are showing themselves to be more of a license mill for any license, any right, any one, rather than being dedicated to their namesake of creating a "commons" via licensing. "some rights are better than no rights" seems to be their motto, so what the heck, why not a fair use license. It's not confusing enough that there are dozens of CC licenses covering the entire spectrum from AllRightReserved to PublicDomain. hm, well, beyond any other problems I mentioned thus far, I also have issue with the name, since the fair use license would reduce to the 2 letter acronym of ... CC-FU and, at least in america, "FU" has other connotations... ;) From evan at wikitravel.org Wed Mar 24 13:18:07 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:18:07 -0500 Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: (Scott Johnston's message of "Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:02:08 -0800") References: Message-ID: <878yhqcdnk.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> >>>>> "SJ" == Scott Johnston writes: SJ> Has there been discussion at Creative Commons (or elsewhere) SJ> of developing a license that makes a distinction between SJ> public and private copying? Something that extends the SJ> fair-use privileges protected by the Sony video tape decision SJ> to allow a person to privately distribute copies to their SJ> associates, but forbids them from making it available to the SJ> public? I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I don't speak for Creative Commons. I don't know if any such discussion has taken place before. But I think it's not such a good idea. First, how would you enforce it? What is an "associate"? If I met someone 10 minutes ago at a bar, can I give them a copy of the work? Are you going to check to see if I _really_ know that person? What if I know someone through the Internet, but we've never met in person? Also, it doesn't seem that effective. Say Alice has your work, and she gives a copy to Bob. Bob, in turn, gives one to Charlie, and Charlie gives a copy to Dave. Alice and Dave don't know each other, but now Dave has a copy. The effect is just like if Alice gave Dave a copy directly, so what's the advantage? If the idea is to allow redistribution by individuals but not big copy-generating operations, maybe the NonCommercial option would suit your needs. Otherwise, you should consult a lawyer in your area. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From charybdis at deja-x.co.uk Wed Mar 24 13:51:43 2004 From: charybdis at deja-x.co.uk (Richard Cobbett) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:51:43 -0000 Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: <7410.206.67.17.2.1080151990.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Message-ID: "I'd say on the grand scheme of things that a fair-use license would not cause any major changes in the way things are done. A fair-use license won't fundamentally alter the way people create, distribute, and listen to music, as far as I can figure." It wouldn't - however there might be some semiotic value in pushing the specific word 'fair'. After all, if that's fair to do, then by inference, more restrictive licenses are deemed unfair. I agree that it's not necessarily a license for CC to worry about (and yes, damn that's a lot of licenses on the go right now...), just pointing out that all this doesn't end with US territorial waters. One slight bonus in this case is that this kind of license can be done as a simple sticker deal rather than a pic-and-mix CC license, making it more immediately memorable than, say, NoAttrib-NonCommercial-NoAsshat-SomeDeriv-Lookjustlearnlegaltalk2.0 - especially if the independent music (and other companies) could be persuaded to use it as a badge on actual products as well as internet downloads - rather like the FairTrade (http://www.oxfamamerica.org/campaigncoffee/art3391.html) scheme that's currently running over here. __________________ Richard Cobbett | http://www.richardcobbett.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: cc-licenses-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:cc-licenses-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of email at greglondon.com Sent: 24 March 2004 18:13 To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts Subject: Re: License that allows private copying? Richard Cobbett said: > In the US, certainly, but over here in the UK we have absolutely no legal > Fair Use rules, even over things like ripping a CD to listen to it on your > MP3 player. Nobody actually gets sued over it, the shops sell MP3 players Hm, didn't know that. I'm struggling just to grok US copyright law and haven't even glanced at other countries yet. I'd say on the grand scheme of things that a fair-use license would not cause any major changes in the way things are done. A fair-use license won't fundamentally alter the way people create, distribute, and listen to music, as far as I can figure. If the UK suddenly clamped down on private copying, then a fair-use license would suddenly have a need, but as it is, its a formality, and formalities don't alter the world. Creative Commons may be willing to crunch out a license. They are showing themselves to be more of a license mill for any license, any right, any one, rather than being dedicated to their namesake of creating a "commons" via licensing. "some rights are better than no rights" seems to be their motto, so what the heck, why not a fair use license. It's not confusing enough that there are dozens of CC licenses covering the entire spectrum from AllRightReserved to PublicDomain. hm, well, beyond any other problems I mentioned thus far, I also have issue with the name, since the fair use license would reduce to the 2 letter acronym of ... CC-FU and, at least in america, "FU" has other connotations... ;) _______________________________________________ cc-licenses mailing list cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: charybdis at deja-x.co.uk (charybdis at deja-x.co.uk).vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 230 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20040324/e7010737/attachment.vcf From evan at wikitravel.org Wed Mar 24 14:08:57 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:08:57 -0500 Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: (Richard Cobbett's message of "Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:51:43 -0000") References: Message-ID: <87brmm9i5y.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> >>>>> "RC" == Richard Cobbett writes: RC> One slight bonus in this case is that this kind of license can RC> be done as a simple sticker deal rather than a pic-and-mix CC RC> license, making it more immediately memorable than, say, RC> NoAttrib-NonCommercial-NoAsshat-SomeDeriv-Lookjustlearnlegaltalk2.0 RC> - especially if the independent music (and other companies) RC> could be persuaded to use it as a badge on actual products as RC> well as internet downloads - rather like the FairTrade RC> (http://www.oxfamamerica.org/campaigncoffee/art3391.html) RC> scheme that's currently running over here. Ooh! It's kinda too bad the name's already taken. "Fair Trade Music" has a great ring. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From johnston at vectaport.com Wed Mar 24 15:01:25 2004 From: johnston at vectaport.com (Scott Johnston) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:01:25 -0800 Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <079D32B3-7DCE-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> Thanks for all the discussion so far. I'm not subscribed to the list, so my reply might not be threaded with the rest. Let me clarify that I am asking about something more than what fair-use allows, something more than a limited number of copies for personal backup or scholastic reasons (and you don't need a license for that). Evan Prodromou comments seem most on target: > First, how would you enforce it? What is an "associate"? If I met > someone 10 minutes ago at a bar, can I give them a copy of the work? > Are you going to check to see if I _really_ know that person? What if > I know someone through the Internet, but we've never met in person? > > Also, it doesn't seem that effective. Say Alice has your work, and she > gives a copy to Bob. Bob, in turn, gives one to Charlie, and Charlie > gives a copy to Dave. Alice and Dave don't know each other, but now > Dave has a copy. The effect is just like if Alice gave Dave a copy > directly, so what's the advantage? > > If the idea is to allow redistribution by individuals but not big > copy-generating operations, maybe the NonCommercial option would suit > your needs. Otherwise, you should consult a lawyer in your area. > > ~ESP At one-time I thought it rather difficult to tease apart commercial from non-commercial use with a copyright permission notice. But Creative Commons has taken a big step in formalizing that. Hence my curiousity if a distinction between private and public distribution (copying) can similarily be formalized into a copyright permission notice. Note, I'm not referring to personal copying (but you were not confused by that). I want to allow almost anything short of globally anonymous distribution. I want to allow e-mail friends to be able to make a copy. I want to allow a teacher to be able to distribute a copy to each student. I wouldn't quibble if a university allowed distribution to its entire student body. But I especially want to allow a group of friends to give each other copies, so they can share the use of the copyrighted work without breaking the law. For this particular copyrighted work I would start with an Attribution-Non-Commercial license. Then I would mix in a Private clause if one existed. My test for whether the copying was private would be whether I could get a copy (for free or otherwise) by finding it on google. Scott Johnston On Mar 24, 2004, at 9:02 AM, Scott Johnston wrote: > Has there been discussion at Creative Commons (or elsewhere) of > developing a license that makes a distinction between public and > private copying? Something that extends the fair-use privileges > protected by the Sony video tape decision to allow a person to > privately distribute copies to their associates, but forbids them from > making it available to the public? > > Scott Johnston > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 2913 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20040324/17c6f1c9/attachment.bin From evan at wikitravel.org Wed Mar 24 15:18:15 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:18:15 -0500 Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: <079D32B3-7DCE-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> (Scott Johnston's message of "Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:01:25 -0800") References: <079D32B3-7DCE-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> Message-ID: <87k71a80e0.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> >>>>> "SJ" == Scott Johnston writes: SJ> For this particular copyrighted work I would start with an SJ> Attribution-Non-Commercial license. Then I would mix in a SJ> Private clause if one existed. My test for whether the SJ> copying was private would be whether I could get a copy (for SJ> free or otherwise) by finding it on google. "You may distribute this file however you want, as long as Licensor can't find it on Google?" That seems pretty arbitrary to me; I mean, I could just get around that with a robots.txt file. Again, I want to ask: what's the point? If I give the work to 10 people, and those 10 people each give it to 10 people, and so on, it gets out to millions of people the same as if I had made it publicly available to those millions of people directly. It seems like it just puts a lot of fear, uncertainty, and doubt on the licensee's plate without providing any tangible benefit to the licensor. I guess the best you get is disallowing people with no friends to get the work, which if you hate lonely people might be some kind of benefit. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From wmorgan-cc-licenses at masanjin.net Wed Mar 24 15:21:14 2004 From: wmorgan-cc-licenses at masanjin.net (William Morgan) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:21:14 -0500 Subject: derivative works question: "cover" songs In-Reply-To: <20040324164624.GC24248@masanjin.net> References: <20040324164624.GC24248@masanjin.net> Message-ID: <20040324202114.GD24248@masanjin.net> Thank you all for your replies. The general concensus seems to be that it's unlikely I can apply a CC license to a recording of a song copy- righted by someone else, and that, in fact, distribution under any terms or public performance require some form of royalties payment. We are extremely far from the copyright-lawyer-hiring, royalties-paying stage, so for now, the only course of action seems to be that we should not distribute this type of recording at all. What about songs (instrumentals or with lyrics) in the public domain? Can we still distribute recordings under a CC license? My thanks everyone's help thus far, even though it was not the answer I wanted to hear. -- William From evan at wikitravel.org Wed Mar 24 15:26:06 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:26:06 -0500 Subject: derivative works question: "cover" songs In-Reply-To: <20040324202114.GD24248@masanjin.net> (William Morgan's message of "Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:21:14 -0500") References: <20040324164624.GC24248@masanjin.net> <20040324202114.GD24248@masanjin.net> Message-ID: <877jxa800x.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> >>>>> "WM" == William Morgan writes: WM> What about songs (instrumentals or with lyrics) in the public WM> domain? Can we still distribute recordings under a CC WM> license? IANAL, but I think that shouldn't be a problem. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From email at greglondon.com Wed Mar 24 15:38:14 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:38:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: <079D32B3-7DCE-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> References: <079D32B3-7DCE-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> Message-ID: <43663.206.67.17.2.1080160694.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Scott Johnston said: > At one-time I thought it rather difficult to tease apart commercial > from non-commercial use with a copyright permission notice. But > Creative Commons has taken a big step in formalizing that. Hence my and not everyone thinks this is a good thing. > curiousity if a distinction between private and public distribution > (copying) can similarily be formalized into a copyright permission > notice. the fact that you lump distribution(copying) together says you're missing the distinction. To copy is to create instances of a thing. To distribute is to cause an instance to change owners. If you want private copying along a betamax/fair use decision, then you could grant anyone the right to Copy the work, but withold the right to Distribute the work. > Note, I'm not referring to personal copying (but you were not confused > by that). I want to allow almost anything short of globally anonymous > distribution. I want to allow e-mail friends to be able to make a > copy. I want to allow a teacher to be able to distribute a copy to > each student. I wouldn't quibble if a university allowed distribution > to its entire student body. But I especially want to allow a group of > friends to give each other copies, so they can share the use of the > copyrighted work without breaking the law. This is a LowQuantityDistribution (CC-LQD) license. To what end, I have no idea. "Anyone may distribute N copies of this work" for some value of N. You apparently support NonCommercialOnly licenses, plus you mention EducationOnly with your teacher/student example. This, plus your LQD license point to a place that is neither a Gift Economy (open source, copyleft, public domain, sharealike) nor a Market Economy (all rights reserved, CC-FreeAdvertising, etc) If you wish to contribute a work to a community, then Copyleft or ShareAlike is your best choice. If you want to make money on your work, then you want NonCommercial-NoDerives. In either case, you want to maximize your distribution, so I see no point in limiting it in any way. From email at greglondon.com Wed Mar 24 15:38:14 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:38:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: <079D32B3-7DCE-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> References: <079D32B3-7DCE-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> Message-ID: <43663.206.67.17.2.1080160694.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Scott Johnston said: > At one-time I thought it rather difficult to tease apart commercial > from non-commercial use with a copyright permission notice. But > Creative Commons has taken a big step in formalizing that. Hence my and not everyone thinks this is a good thing. > curiousity if a distinction between private and public distribution > (copying) can similarily be formalized into a copyright permission > notice. the fact that you lump distribution(copying) together says you're missing the distinction. To copy is to create instances of a thing. To distribute is to cause an instance to change owners. If you want private copying along a betamax/fair use decision, then you could grant anyone the right to Copy the work, but withold the right to Distribute the work. > Note, I'm not referring to personal copying (but you were not confused > by that). I want to allow almost anything short of globally anonymous > distribution. I want to allow e-mail friends to be able to make a > copy. I want to allow a teacher to be able to distribute a copy to > each student. I wouldn't quibble if a university allowed distribution > to its entire student body. But I especially want to allow a group of > friends to give each other copies, so they can share the use of the > copyrighted work without breaking the law. This is a LowQuantityDistribution (CC-LQD) license. To what end, I have no idea. "Anyone may distribute N copies of this work" for some value of N. You apparently support NonCommercialOnly licenses, plus you mention EducationOnly with your teacher/student example. This, plus your LQD license point to a place that is neither a Gift Economy (open source, copyleft, public domain, sharealike) nor a Market Economy (all rights reserved, CC-FreeAdvertising, etc) If you wish to contribute a work to a community, then Copyleft or ShareAlike is your best choice. If you want to make money on your work, then you want NonCommercial-NoDerives. In either case, you want to maximize your distribution, so I see no point in limiting it in any way. From email at greglondon.com Wed Mar 24 15:43:03 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:43:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: derivative works question: "cover" songs In-Reply-To: <20040324202114.GD24248@masanjin.net> References: <20040324164624.GC24248@masanjin.net> <20040324202114.GD24248@masanjin.net> Message-ID: <59387.206.67.17.2.1080160983.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> William Morgan said: > What about songs (instrumentals or with lyrics) in the public domain? > Can we still distribute recordings under a CC license? You can cover Beethoven to your heart's content. If someone performs beethoven and records it, that's their property. but a recording of your own performance of beethoven is your property. From email at greglondon.com Wed Mar 24 15:43:03 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:43:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: derivative works question: "cover" songs In-Reply-To: <20040324202114.GD24248@masanjin.net> References: <20040324164624.GC24248@masanjin.net> <20040324202114.GD24248@masanjin.net> Message-ID: <59387.206.67.17.2.1080160983.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> William Morgan said: > What about songs (instrumentals or with lyrics) in the public domain? > Can we still distribute recordings under a CC license? You can cover Beethoven to your heart's content. If someone performs beethoven and records it, that's their property. but a recording of your own performance of beethoven is your property. From lquilter at law.berkeley.edu Wed Mar 24 15:48:03 2004 From: lquilter at law.berkeley.edu (Laura Quilter) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:48:03 -0800 Subject: CC users' group meeting at CFP2004 Message-ID: There's a Creative Commons' users meeting at this year's CFP 2004, Berkeley, CA, April 20-23. The users' meeting is Wednesday night, starting at 930. ------------------- Laura Quilter, MLS, JD / lquilter at berkeley.edu Fellow, Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law ------------------------------------------------------------ Computers, Freedom and Privacy 2004 April 20-23, 2004 Berkeley, California (Claremont Hotel) The Fourteenth Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy (CFP2004) is open for registration. Computers, Freedom & Privacy brings together key representatives from government, business, education, and nonprofits to discuss and debate the technology trends and public policy issues affecting privacy and freedom today. CFP explores what is and considers what can be. This year's program reflects the security focus of our post-9-11 environment, the ongoing battles between copyright and technology, and the growing use of the Internet and computing technology in campaigns and elections. It examines where technology is currently headed, and asks where our values should lead it. Panelists will consider whether profiling and data mining can assist in identifying terrorists, and if so, whether it can be accomplished in a manner that protects privacy. Speakers will debate the privacy and liberty implications of suing individual consumers for distributing music and movies online, and explore alternative methods for compensating artists and distributors of copyrighted works. Technologists will discuss the risks posed by current electronic voting systems, and political organizers will discuss the way in which the Internet is shaping political campaigns and issue advocacy. The three day conference is certain to challenge assumptions, raise new questions, and foster continued debate about the role of technology in society and its relation to freedom and privacy. Keynote speakers include David Dill and Brewster Kahle. Seven preconference half-day tutuorials are offered covering topics such as authentication, network surveillance, radio frequency identification tags (RFID), telecommunications policy and consumer privacy notices. Additionally, one preconference full-day Workshop, "Privacy and Civil Liberties Issues in Computing Applications Research and Development" rounds out the offerings. A limited number of need-based scholarships for participation and travel are available to participants from Africa, SE Europe, former Soviet Union states, and SE Asia. http://www.cfp2004.org/ Registration - http://www.regmaster.com/cfp2004.html Program - http://www.cfp2004.org/program/ Tutorials - http://www.cfp2004.org/program/ Workshop - http://www.cfp2004.org/program/ Scholarships - http://www.cfp2004.org/scholarships.html We hope to see you at CFP2004! Deirdre K. Mulligan Chair, CFP2004 Please address all queries to: feedback at cfp2004.org. From wmorgan-cc-licenses at masanjin.net Wed Mar 24 16:01:54 2004 From: wmorgan-cc-licenses at masanjin.net (William Morgan) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:01:54 -0500 Subject: derivative works question: "cover" songs In-Reply-To: <59387.206.67.17.2.1080160983.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> References: <20040324164624.GC24248@masanjin.net> <20040324202114.GD24248@masanjin.net> <59387.206.67.17.2.1080160983.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Message-ID: <20040324210154.GG24248@masanjin.net> Excerpts (reformatted) from Greg London's mail of 24 Mar 2004 (EST): > William Morgan said: > > What about songs (instrumentals or with lyrics) in the public domain? > > Can we still distribute recordings under a CC license? > > You can cover Beethoven to your heart's content. > If someone performs beethoven and records it, that's their property. > but a recording of your own performance of beethoven is your property. Ok. I was just uncertain of whether, seeing as we don't own copyrights on the lyrics or composition, we could still license these recordings in the same way that we license recordings of original tunes. Thanks for your help. -- William From email at greglondon.com Wed Mar 24 16:20:29 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:20:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: derivative works question: "cover" songs In-Reply-To: <20040324210154.GG24248@masanjin.net> References: <20040324164624.GC24248@masanjin.net><20040324202114.GD24248@masanjin.net><59387.206.67.17.2.1080160983.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> <20040324210154.GG24248@masanjin.net> Message-ID: <29065.206.67.17.2.1080163229.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> William Morgan said: > Ok. I was just uncertain of whether, seeing as we don't own copyrights > on the lyrics or composition, we could still license these recordings in > the same way that we license recordings of original tunes. the beauty of Public Domain is that NO-ONE has exclusive rights to the work anymore, so ANYONE may copy, distribute, create derived works, publicly perform, publicly display, etc, etc. Shakespeare's heirs have no say if Hollywood wants to make Hamlet into a movie and have Mel Gibson play the lead role. -- Draft the Gift Domain: Put Free/Libre/Open/Public licensing concepts directly into Copyright Law. http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/html/draftingthegiftdomain.html From email at greglondon.com Wed Mar 24 16:20:29 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:20:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: derivative works question: "cover" songs In-Reply-To: <20040324210154.GG24248@masanjin.net> References: <20040324164624.GC24248@masanjin.net><20040324202114.GD24248@masanjin.net><59387.206.67.17.2.1080160983.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> <20040324210154.GG24248@masanjin.net> Message-ID: <29065.206.67.17.2.1080163229.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> William Morgan said: > Ok. I was just uncertain of whether, seeing as we don't own copyrights > on the lyrics or composition, we could still license these recordings in > the same way that we license recordings of original tunes. the beauty of Public Domain is that NO-ONE has exclusive rights to the work anymore, so ANYONE may copy, distribute, create derived works, publicly perform, publicly display, etc, etc. Shakespeare's heirs have no say if Hollywood wants to make Hamlet into a movie and have Mel Gibson play the lead role. -- Draft the Gift Domain: Put Free/Libre/Open/Public licensing concepts directly into Copyright Law. http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/html/draftingthegiftdomain.html From sal at highlala.com Wed Mar 24 16:24:27 2004 From: sal at highlala.com (Sal Randolph) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:24:27 -0500 Subject: derivative works question: "cover" songs In-Reply-To: <20040324210154.GG24248@masanjin.net> References: <20040324164624.GC24248@masanjin.net> <20040324202114.GD24248@masanjin.net> <59387.206.67.17.2.1080160983.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> <20040324210154.GG24248@masanjin.net> Message-ID: I'm not a lawyer (and not part of cc) but I'm pretty sure you can't distribute covers of copyrighted material except under the terms of the blanket compulsory license mentioned previously (meaning you pay a fixed royalty based on your use), and I don't believe you can distribute these covers under a cc license at all. It's basically because you are not the copyright holder for all of the material (in this case they lyrics/composition), simple as that. You can certainly cover and cc license anything that's in the public domain, from Beethoven to traditional songs. The rule of thumb is simply whether someone else owns part or all of the copyright. best, Sal On Mar 24, 2004, at 4:01 PM, William Morgan wrote: > Excerpts (reformatted) from Greg London's mail of 24 Mar 2004 (EST): >> William Morgan said: >>> What about songs (instrumentals or with lyrics) in the public domain? >>> Can we still distribute recordings under a CC license? >> >> You can cover Beethoven to your heart's content. >> If someone performs beethoven and records it, that's their property. >> but a recording of your own performance of beethoven is your property. > > Ok. I was just uncertain of whether, seeing as we don't own copyrights > on the lyrics or composition, we could still license these recordings > in > the same way that we license recordings of original tunes. > > Thanks for your help. > > -- > William > _______________________________________________ > cc-licenses mailing list > cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses > From wmorgan-cc-licenses at masanjin.net Wed Mar 24 18:29:09 2004 From: wmorgan-cc-licenses at masanjin.net (William Morgan) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:29:09 -0500 Subject: derivative works question: "cover" songs In-Reply-To: <20040324202114.GD24248@masanjin.net> References: <20040324164624.GC24248@masanjin.net> <20040324202114.GD24248@masanjin.net> Message-ID: <20040324232909.GH24248@masanjin.net> Excerpts (corrected) from William Morgan's mail of 24 Mar 2004 (EST): > Thank you all for your replies. The general consensus seems to be that > it's unlikely I can apply a CC license to a recording of a song copy- > righted by someone else, and that, in fact, distribution under any > terms or public performance require some form of royalties payment. I realize this may be straying away from the CC aspect of things, but does anyone have insight into whether royalties need to be paid if the recordings of such works are distributed for free? If so, we could at least distribute those recordings alongside the CC-licensed originals, which would be nice. It seems like current copyright law was not designed with the "folk process" in mind... sigh. -- William From johnston at vectaport.com Wed Mar 24 19:02:30 2004 From: johnston at vectaport.com (Scott Johnston) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:02:30 -0800 Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > >>>>> "SJ" == Scott Johnston writes: > > SJ> For this particular copyrighted work I would start with an > SJ> Attribution-Non-Commercial license. Then I would mix in a > SJ> Private clause if one existed. My test for whether the > SJ> copying was private would be whether I could get a copy (for > SJ> free or otherwise) by finding it on google. > > "You may distribute this file however you want, as long as Licensor > can't find it on Google?" That seems pretty arbitrary to me; I mean, > I could just get around that with a robots.txt file. > But can you keep others from putting up links to that copy without a robots.txt file? If you couldn't you would be in violation of this theoretical Private clause. Yes, whether it is available on google is an arbitrary test, and not something to base a license on. I'm hoping there are other ways to (legally) distinguish between public and private. > Again, I want to ask: what's the point? If I give the work to 10 > people, and those 10 people each give it to 10 people, and so on, it > gets out to millions of people the same as if I had made it publicly > available to those millions of people directly. So you are curious about what motivates me to inquire on this topic? I have a peer-to-peer content development tool that I want to sell over the internet. It is intended for use by a limited number of people during any one session. To encourage its adoption, I would require that only one person in a group of potential collaborators buy a copy. The rest of their potential group could try it out for free. > It seems like it just puts a lot of fear, uncertainty, and doubt on > the licensee's plate without providing any tangible benefit to the > licensor. I guess the best you get is disallowing people with no > friends to get the work, which if you hate lonely people might be some > kind of benefit. Actually my intent is to remove FUD (and earn customer gratitude), by clearly allowing (and encouraging) the kind of private sharing that will happen regardless (the kind of private sharing that is in my interest), without allowing the public sharing that would be self-defeating. As for discriminating against lonely people, you are right. I'm making something for two or more people to use. Completely isolated people are out of luck :-) Scott Johnston > ~ESP > > -- > Evan Prodromou > Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ > The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 3364 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20040324/76a5bbaa/attachment.bin From evan at wikitravel.org Wed Mar 24 19:27:15 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:27:15 -0500 Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: (Scott Johnston's message of "Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:02:30 -0800") References: Message-ID: <87r7vhzs7w.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> >>>>> "SJ" == Scott Johnston writes: SJ> So you are curious about what motivates me to inquire on this SJ> topic? I have a peer-to-peer content development tool that I SJ> want to sell over the internet. It is intended for use by a SJ> limited number of people during any one session. To encourage SJ> its adoption, I would require that only one person in a group SJ> of potential collaborators buy a copy. The rest of their SJ> potential group could try it out for free. Ah! Well, this is probably a good time to point out that Creative Commons licenses are not really good for licensing software. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From sal at highlala.com Wed Mar 24 20:39:02 2004 From: sal at highlala.com (Sal Randolph) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:39:02 -0500 Subject: derivative works question: "cover" songs In-Reply-To: <20040324232909.GH24248@masanjin.net> References: <20040324164624.GC24248@masanjin.net> <20040324202114.GD24248@masanjin.net> <20040324232909.GH24248@masanjin.net> Message-ID: <31E761B8-7DFD-11D8-80FF-000A9575CA5C@highlala.com> On Mar 24, 2004, at 6:29 PM, William Morgan wrote: > It seems like current copyright law was not designed with the "folk > process" in mind... sigh. all too true for many other kinds of artistic process as well, I'm sorry to say.... From evan at wikitravel.org Thu Mar 25 01:17:16 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:17:16 -0500 Subject: derivative works question: "cover" songs In-Reply-To: <31E761B8-7DFD-11D8-80FF-000A9575CA5C@highlala.com> (Sal Randolph's message of "Wed, 24 Mar 2004 20:39:02 -0500") References: <20040324164624.GC24248@masanjin.net> <20040324202114.GD24248@masanjin.net> <20040324232909.GH24248@masanjin.net> <31E761B8-7DFD-11D8-80FF-000A9575CA5C@highlala.com> Message-ID: <87isgtxxg3.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> >>>>> "SR" == Sal Randolph writes: WM> It seems like current copyright law was not designed with the WM> "folk process" in mind... sigh. SR> all too true for many other kinds of artistic process as well, SR> I'm sorry to say.... Aw, don't be glum, gang! Sure, it seems bad _now_, but the more work we put under Free Content licenses today, the more that's going to be out there for the _next_ generation* of musicians, painters, sculptors, composers, poets, dancers and bloggers to work with. And _they'll_ use it to make _more_ Free stuff for each other and another generation. And maybe by that time the idea that you can make art, music, science and literature to share instead of hoard will start to catch on, and the All Rights Reserved stuff will become less of an issue. And after a while it's all gonna fall into the Public Domain, anyways! Time's on our side. It's hard now, but it's gonna get easier and easier to make our stuff and give it away. ~ESP * Which is, like, what? A year? 5 years? -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From Margaretha_Haughwout at umit.maine.edu Thu Mar 25 02:32:41 2004 From: Margaretha_Haughwout at umit.maine.edu (Margaretha Haughwout) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:32:41 -0500 Subject: publishing other people's work Message-ID: i am about to release an audio magazine in which i have everyone's full consent for remixing their work. so if a listener hears something they want to remix, they have permission to do so. i'd like to use a creative commons license, but i'm not sure if i can since this is a commercial enterprise and it's not my work originally. can i still use a cc license and if so can i use for non commercial use only? i don't want to allow for anyone else to use the artists' work commercially, and i'm sure, neither do they. margaretha haughwout earlid yourearlids at yahoo.com From evan at wikitravel.org Thu Mar 25 03:50:45 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 03:50:45 -0500 Subject: A little light reading Message-ID: <87oeqll38a.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/ And is that a new SRR tag I see? ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From email at greglondon.com Thu Mar 25 10:23:33 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:23:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: derivative works question: "cover" songs In-Reply-To: <20040324232909.GH24248@masanjin.net> References: <20040324164624.GC24248@masanjin.net><20040324202114.GD24248@masanjin.net> <20040324232909.GH24248@masanjin.net> Message-ID: <26638.206.67.17.2.1080228213.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> William Morgan said: > I realize this may be straying away from the CC aspect of things, but > does anyone have insight into whether royalties need to be paid if the > recordings of such works are distributed for free? > It seems like current copyright law was not designed with the "folk > process" in mind... sigh. the "compulsory license" allows cover songs for a predetermined royalty. I'm guessing that since "royalty" implies percentage of a price, then you probably can't use compulsory license if you're not charging a price. Copyright law was designed to create a "Market Economy" that rewards private investment and private risk to create new works by granting the creator a limited monopoly that allows them to recoup their investment by selling copies and possibly make a profit that balances the risk. a "Gift Economy", individuals contributing to a greater good, can exist inside of Copyright law only by licensing most of teh Market Economy rights away to the public. You have to do some extra work to create a Gift Economy of songs, writings, photos, etc. Copyright, by default, creates a Market Economy for the Author. Compulsory Licenses are specific for Market Economies, wording in Royalty payments, which assumes that the only reason someone would create a Derived work, a cover song, is for money. Gift Economies is not even on Copyright Law radar. Part of teh reason for my document "Drafting the Gift Domain" is to show how Copyright law could be changed to allow Market Economy and Gift Economy approaches to exist side by side in the law. -- Draft the Gift Domain: Put Free/Libre/Open/Public licensing concepts directly into Copyright Law. http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/html/draftingthegiftdomain.html From email at greglondon.com Thu Mar 25 10:23:33 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:23:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: derivative works question: "cover" songs In-Reply-To: <20040324232909.GH24248@masanjin.net> References: <20040324164624.GC24248@masanjin.net><20040324202114.GD24248@masanjin.net> <20040324232909.GH24248@masanjin.net> Message-ID: <26638.206.67.17.2.1080228213.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> William Morgan said: > I realize this may be straying away from the CC aspect of things, but > does anyone have insight into whether royalties need to be paid if the > recordings of such works are distributed for free? > It seems like current copyright law was not designed with the "folk > process" in mind... sigh. the "compulsory license" allows cover songs for a predetermined royalty. I'm guessing that since "royalty" implies percentage of a price, then you probably can't use compulsory license if you're not charging a price. Copyright law was designed to create a "Market Economy" that rewards private investment and private risk to create new works by granting the creator a limited monopoly that allows them to recoup their investment by selling copies and possibly make a profit that balances the risk. a "Gift Economy", individuals contributing to a greater good, can exist inside of Copyright law only by licensing most of teh Market Economy rights away to the public. You have to do some extra work to create a Gift Economy of songs, writings, photos, etc. Copyright, by default, creates a Market Economy for the Author. Compulsory Licenses are specific for Market Economies, wording in Royalty payments, which assumes that the only reason someone would create a Derived work, a cover song, is for money. Gift Economies is not even on Copyright Law radar. Part of teh reason for my document "Drafting the Gift Domain" is to show how Copyright law could be changed to allow Market Economy and Gift Economy approaches to exist side by side in the law. -- Draft the Gift Domain: Put Free/Libre/Open/Public licensing concepts directly into Copyright Law. http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/html/draftingthegiftdomain.html From email at greglondon.com Thu Mar 25 10:56:42 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:56:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43799.206.67.17.2.1080230202.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Scott Johnston said: > I have a peer-to-peer content development tool that I want to sell over > the internet. Then use a CC-FreeAdvertising license, like CC-NonCommercial-NoDerivs, and be done with it. If you want to sell something, having a LimitedQuantityDistribution license is a waste of time. From email at greglondon.com Thu Mar 25 11:10:41 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:10:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: publishing other people's work In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22075.206.67.17.2.1080231041.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Margaretha Haughwout said: > i am about to release an audio magazine in which i have everyone's full > consent for remixing their work. full consent for any use? then why restrict it to NonCommercial only? > i'd like to use a (CC) license, > but i'm not sure if i can > since this is a commercial enterprise What is "this" that is a commercial enterprise??? Your distribution? Your employer? CreativeCommons? > and it's not my work originally. But you have full consent of all the original Authors, right? > can i use for non commercial use only? CC-NonCommercial, but why the restriction if you have full consent? > i don't want to allow for anyone else to use the artists' > work commercially, and i'm sure, neither do they. so, what you're saying is that when you asked the original authors for their "full consent", you did not clarify with them if commercial use was OK. why is commercial use a problem with your project? tens of thousands of programmers contributed their code to Linux for free, and RedHat is selling distributions for money. You can download linux for free, but if you want, you can pay RedHat for an installation CD. wikipedia has a quarter-million encyclopedia entries that have been contributed by a similar number of people for free. If EncyclopediaBrittanica wanted to print hardcopies and sell them they could. You can still go to www.wikipedia.com and use it for free, or you can pay someone to print a hardcopy. Are you contributing a work to the Public? or are you trying to generate Free Advertising for your artists? If you're contributing the work, then restrictions against commercial use is needless. Linux, in part, has become as big as it is because of companies like RedHat. -- Draft the Gift Domain: Put Free/Libre/Open/Public licensing concepts directly into Copyright Law. http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/html/draftingthegiftdomain.html From email at greglondon.com Thu Mar 25 11:10:41 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:10:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: publishing other people's work In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <22075.206.67.17.2.1080231041.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Margaretha Haughwout said: > i am about to release an audio magazine in which i have everyone's full > consent for remixing their work. full consent for any use? then why restrict it to NonCommercial only? > i'd like to use a (CC) license, > but i'm not sure if i can > since this is a commercial enterprise What is "this" that is a commercial enterprise??? Your distribution? Your employer? CreativeCommons? > and it's not my work originally. But you have full consent of all the original Authors, right? > can i use for non commercial use only? CC-NonCommercial, but why the restriction if you have full consent? > i don't want to allow for anyone else to use the artists' > work commercially, and i'm sure, neither do they. so, what you're saying is that when you asked the original authors for their "full consent", you did not clarify with them if commercial use was OK. why is commercial use a problem with your project? tens of thousands of programmers contributed their code to Linux for free, and RedHat is selling distributions for money. You can download linux for free, but if you want, you can pay RedHat for an installation CD. wikipedia has a quarter-million encyclopedia entries that have been contributed by a similar number of people for free. If EncyclopediaBrittanica wanted to print hardcopies and sell them they could. You can still go to www.wikipedia.com and use it for free, or you can pay someone to print a hardcopy. Are you contributing a work to the Public? or are you trying to generate Free Advertising for your artists? If you're contributing the work, then restrictions against commercial use is needless. Linux, in part, has become as big as it is because of companies like RedHat. -- Draft the Gift Domain: Put Free/Libre/Open/Public licensing concepts directly into Copyright Law. http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/html/draftingthegiftdomain.html From johnston at vectaport.com Thu Mar 25 13:31:16 2004 From: johnston at vectaport.com (Scott Johnston) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:31:16 -0800 Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A343770-7E8A-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> Greg London said: > Scott Johnston said: > > I have a peer-to-peer content development tool that I want to sell > over > > the internet. > > Then use a CC-FreeAdvertising license, like CC-NonCommercial-NoDerivs, > and be done with it. If you want to sell something, having a > LimitedQuantityDistribution license is a waste of time. > > Using a license like CC-NonCommercial-NoDerivs would allow someone to defeat my efforts to make some money by simply posting a copy they acquired on the net. I admit it is not easy to draw a distinction between private and public copying/distribution (with the Internet these two acts are intertwined, unlike conventional publishing). You can get into games where people make a public announcement of their "private" club where private materials can be had. But there are similar games with a Commercial/NonCommercial distinction, yet CreativeCommons forged ahead. I can imagine other users of a CC license with a Private clause. An independent band might want a revenue stream from micropayments for songs sold over the net, and at the same time want dedicated fans to be able to e-mail the songs to their friends, to build up their fan base. I understand that very few people are worried about allowing or disallowing private copying. But there is a difference between personal copying and private copying (like the difference between a personal note and a private correspondence), and to be able to make a distinction in licensing would be in some parties interest. In the spirit of CreativeCommons, why not let me decide what I prefer, and what I think is a waste of time. Scott Johnston -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1883 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20040325/16aef0b5/attachment.bin From charybdis at deja-x.co.uk Thu Mar 25 13:55:19 2004 From: charybdis at deja-x.co.uk (Richard Cobbett) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:55:19 -0000 Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: <9A343770-7E8A-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> Message-ID: "An independent band might want a revenue stream from micropayments for songs sold over the net, and at the same time want dedicated fans to be able to e-mail the songs to their friends, to build up their fan base." In that instance, the only conceivable way that anybody is even going to KNOW about their music is by word of mouth recommendation, since programs like Kazaa are spectacularly useless unless you know specifically what you're looking for. Either you punch in a particular artist, in which case you have to have been given the tip-off, or you ask for something like 'Jazz', at which point you get a deluge. Not to mention the incredible bad-will that would be generated from suing a fan who went too far with what is effectively viral marketing - the whole point of which is to get the word out about something. What this sounds like is going back to the other day's 'Fair Use' argument, which would ultimately come down to "Look, can you do it legally with a book or CD? There you go then." __________________ Richard Cobbett | http://www.richardcobbett.co.uk ________________________________________ From: cc-licenses-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:cc-licenses-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Scott Johnston Sent: 25 March 2004 18:31 To: cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: License that allows private copying? Greg London said: Scott Johnston said: > I have a peer-to-peer content development tool that I want to sell over > the internet. Then use a CC-FreeAdvertising license, like CC-NonCommercial-NoDerivs, and be done with it. If you want to sell something, having a LimitedQuantityDistribution license is a waste of time. Using a license like CC-NonCommercial-NoDerivs would allow someone to defeat my efforts to make some money by simply posting a copy they acquired on the net. I admit it is not easy to draw a distinction between private and public copying/distribution (with the Internet these two acts are intertwined, unlike conventional publishing). You can get into games where people make a public announcement of their "private" club where private materials can be had. But there are similar games with a Commercial/NonCommercial distinction, yet CreativeCommons forged ahead. I can imagine other users of a CC license with a Private clause. An independent band might want a revenue stream from micropayments for songs sold over the net, and at the same time want dedicated fans to be able to e-mail the songs to their friends, to build up their fan base. I understand that very few people are worried about allowing or disallowing private copying. But there is a difference between personal copying and private copying (like the difference between a personal note and a private correspondence), and to be able to make a distinction in licensing would be in some parties interest. In the spirit of CreativeCommons, why not let me decide what I prefer, and what I think is a waste of time. Scott Johnston -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: charybdis at deja-x.co.uk (charybdis at deja-x.co.uk).vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 230 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20040325/214e5a3a/attachment.vcf From email at greglondon.com Thu Mar 25 14:08:02 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:08:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: <9A343770-7E8A-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> References: <9A343770-7E8A-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> Message-ID: <29144.206.67.17.2.1080241682.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Scott Johnston said: > Greg London said: >> Scott Johnston said: >> > I have a peer-to-peer content development tool that I want to >> > sell over the internet. >> >> Then use a CC-FreeAdvertising license, like CC-NonCommercial-NoDerivs, >> and be done with it. If you want to sell something, having a >> LimitedQuantityDistribution license is a waste of time. > Using a license like CC-NonCommercial-NoDerivs would allow someone to > defeat my efforts to make some money by simply posting a copy they > acquired on the net. Ah, I see. So, with a LOW-QUANTITY-DISTRIBUTION restriction, you are hoping that word gets out about this great program of yours, without this great program of yours actually getting out on the internet. thereby forcing people to come to you to purchase it. You know, I posted a separate message a little while ago about CC-FreeAdvertising. I didn't think anyone would be quite so BOLD as to ask for it, but that's effectively what you want. You want to grant people the right to advertise your program JUST ENOUGH to get the word out, but RESTRICT it enough that they have to come to you for an actual copy and then pay you to boot. -- Draft the Gift Domain: Put Free/Libre/Open/Public licensing concepts directly into Copyright Law. http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/html/draftingthegiftdomain.html From email at greglondon.com Thu Mar 25 14:08:02 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:08:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: <9A343770-7E8A-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> References: <9A343770-7E8A-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> Message-ID: <29144.206.67.17.2.1080241682.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Scott Johnston said: > Greg London said: >> Scott Johnston said: >> > I have a peer-to-peer content development tool that I want to >> > sell over the internet. >> >> Then use a CC-FreeAdvertising license, like CC-NonCommercial-NoDerivs, >> and be done with it. If you want to sell something, having a >> LimitedQuantityDistribution license is a waste of time. > Using a license like CC-NonCommercial-NoDerivs would allow someone to > defeat my efforts to make some money by simply posting a copy they > acquired on the net. Ah, I see. So, with a LOW-QUANTITY-DISTRIBUTION restriction, you are hoping that word gets out about this great program of yours, without this great program of yours actually getting out on the internet. thereby forcing people to come to you to purchase it. You know, I posted a separate message a little while ago about CC-FreeAdvertising. I didn't think anyone would be quite so BOLD as to ask for it, but that's effectively what you want. You want to grant people the right to advertise your program JUST ENOUGH to get the word out, but RESTRICT it enough that they have to come to you for an actual copy and then pay you to boot. -- Draft the Gift Domain: Put Free/Libre/Open/Public licensing concepts directly into Copyright Law. http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/html/draftingthegiftdomain.html From email at greglondon.com Thu Mar 25 14:13:32 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:13:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: References: <9A343770-7E8A-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> Message-ID: <3260.206.67.17.2.1080242012.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Richard Cobbett said: > What this sounds like > is going back to the other day's 'Fair Use' argument, which would ultimately > come down to "Look, can you do it legally with a book or CD? There you go > then." to me, Fair-Use means personal Copying. I can copy a TV show with my VCR and play it back for personal viewing at a later time. I can create derived works of CD's, convert them to MP3's, and burn them to a new CD so I can play them in my car. I'm not sure how much Fair-Use covers the right to Distribute anything. This guy calls it "private copying", but he actually wants to grant low quantity distribution. Which, in my opinion, is CC-FreeAdvertising. From charybdis at deja-x.co.uk Thu Mar 25 14:16:53 2004 From: charybdis at deja-x.co.uk (Richard Cobbett) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:16:53 -0000 Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: <3260.206.67.17.2.1080242012.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Message-ID: I agree. However it could also cover lending a particular piece of media to a friend. That doesn't really work with the net's copying vibe, but it does seem to be what he's really shooting for with this. __________________ Richard Cobbett | http://www.richardcobbett.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: cc-licenses-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:cc-licenses-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Greg London Sent: 25 March 2004 19:14 To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts Subject: RE: License that allows private copying? Richard Cobbett said: > What this sounds like > is going back to the other day's 'Fair Use' argument, which would ultimately > come down to "Look, can you do it legally with a book or CD? There you go > then." to me, Fair-Use means personal Copying. I can copy a TV show with my VCR and play it back for personal viewing at a later time. I can create derived works of CD's, convert them to MP3's, and burn them to a new CD so I can play them in my car. I'm not sure how much Fair-Use covers the right to Distribute anything. This guy calls it "private copying", but he actually wants to grant low quantity distribution. Which, in my opinion, is CC-FreeAdvertising. _______________________________________________ cc-licenses mailing list cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: charybdis at deja-x.co.uk (charybdis at deja-x.co.uk).vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 230 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20040325/d65fafc7/attachment.vcf From johnston at vectaport.com Thu Mar 25 14:25:45 2004 From: johnston at vectaport.com (Scott Johnston) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:25:45 -0800 Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: <9A343770-7E8A-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> References: <9A343770-7E8A-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> Message-ID: <36CBB9EE-7E92-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> Greg London wrote: > You want to grant people the right to advertise your > program JUST ENOUGH to get the word out, > but RESTRICT it enough that they have to come to you > for an actual copy and then pay you to boot. My program is for use by two or more people at once. It's of no use to the solitary person. So I want one person to be able to buy a copy and be able to try it out by working with a friend (or group of friends), without them violating any laws. Scott Johnston -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 581 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20040325/adc7fedc/attachment.bin From charybdis at deja-x.co.uk Thu Mar 25 14:31:05 2004 From: charybdis at deja-x.co.uk (Richard Cobbett) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 19:31:05 -0000 Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: <36CBB9EE-7E92-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> Message-ID: Why not just outright sell it as a 10 person (or however many.) license? __________________ Richard Cobbett | http://www.richardcobbett.co.uk _____ From: cc-licenses-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:cc-licenses-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Scott Johnston Sent: 25 March 2004 19:26 To: cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: License that allows private copying? Greg London wrote: You want to grant people the right to advertise your program JUST ENOUGH to get the word out, but RESTRICT it enough that they have to come to you for an actual copy and then pay you to boot. My program is for use by two or more people at once. It's of no use to the solitary person. So I want one person to be able to buy a copy and be able to try it out by working with a friend (or group of friends), without them violating any laws. Scott Johnston -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20040325/bdaf79c2/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: charybdis at deja-x.co.uk (charybdis at deja-x.co.uk).vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 230 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20040325/bdaf79c2/attachment.vcf From johnston at vectaport.com Thu Mar 25 14:38:47 2004 From: johnston at vectaport.com (Scott Johnston) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:38:47 -0800 Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: <9A343770-7E8A-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> References: <9A343770-7E8A-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> Message-ID: <08A72533-7E94-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> Richard Cobbett wrote: > Scott Johnston wrote: > "An independent band might want a revenue stream from micropayments for > songs sold over the net, and at the same time want dedicated fans to > be able > to e-mail the songs to their friends, to build up their fan base." > > In that instance, the only conceivable way that anybody is even going > to > KNOW about their music is by word of mouth recommendation, since > programs > like Kazaa are spectacularly useless unless you know specifically what > you're looking for. Either you punch in a particular artist, in which > case > you have to have been given the tip-off, or you ask for something like > 'Jazz', at which point you get a deluge. No, all conventional forms of publicity could be used to point people toward the single public online location where they can purchase the copyrighted work. That would be augmented by word-of-mouth publicity, unhindered by copying restrictions. > > Not to mention the incredible bad-will that would be generated from > suing a > fan who went too far with what is effectively viral marketing - the > whole > point of which is to get the word out about something. What this > sounds like > is going back to the other day's 'Fair Use' argument, which would > ultimately > come down to "Look, can you do it legally with a book or CD? There you > go > then." Personally, I wouldn't sue anyone who responded to a warning to stop publicly distributing the work. Scott Johnston -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1708 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20040325/b6eb9411/attachment.bin From email at greglondon.com Thu Mar 25 14:55:01 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:55:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: <36CBB9EE-7E92-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> References: <9A343770-7E8A-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> <36CBB9EE-7E92-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> Message-ID: <62690.206.67.17.2.1080244501.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Scott Johnston said: > My program is for use by two or more people at once. It's of no use to > the solitary person. So I want one person to be able to buy a copy and > be able to try it out by working with a friend (or group of friends), > without them violating any laws. from www.creativecommons.com: : Introduction: Creative Commons is devoted to expanding the range of : creative work available for others to build upon and share. You are selling a work that is "All Rights Reserved". And you want to bundle 2 (or some value of N) copies together when someone purchases your software. Alice buys 2 copies of your software for a single payment of $100. she then lets Bob try it with her, and then Charlie. Charlie likes it, and the two of them use the software, and you earned $100. You could just as easily sell your software for PRICE/N and only give the person one license. You could then solve the "I need someone to play with" problem by letting anyone download a free version that only works for a limited time, with limited features, or whatever. Alice buys a copy for $50. and then gets Bob and Charlie to get the demo version for free. Charlie decides he likes it enough to buy the full version for $50. And the two play together and you've earned $100. The short of it is that you are selling proprietary software. Your license is "All Rights Reserved". You are just bundling multiple copies of the software in a single purchase. What you are doing has nothing to do with Creative Commons mission to expand the works available to build upon and share. Your definiton of "share" is really N copies of a program in one purchase. From email at greglondon.com Thu Mar 25 14:55:01 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:55:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: <36CBB9EE-7E92-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> References: <9A343770-7E8A-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> <36CBB9EE-7E92-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> Message-ID: <62690.206.67.17.2.1080244501.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Scott Johnston said: > My program is for use by two or more people at once. It's of no use to > the solitary person. So I want one person to be able to buy a copy and > be able to try it out by working with a friend (or group of friends), > without them violating any laws. from www.creativecommons.com: : Introduction: Creative Commons is devoted to expanding the range of : creative work available for others to build upon and share. You are selling a work that is "All Rights Reserved". And you want to bundle 2 (or some value of N) copies together when someone purchases your software. Alice buys 2 copies of your software for a single payment of $100. she then lets Bob try it with her, and then Charlie. Charlie likes it, and the two of them use the software, and you earned $100. You could just as easily sell your software for PRICE/N and only give the person one license. You could then solve the "I need someone to play with" problem by letting anyone download a free version that only works for a limited time, with limited features, or whatever. Alice buys a copy for $50. and then gets Bob and Charlie to get the demo version for free. Charlie decides he likes it enough to buy the full version for $50. And the two play together and you've earned $100. The short of it is that you are selling proprietary software. Your license is "All Rights Reserved". You are just bundling multiple copies of the software in a single purchase. What you are doing has nothing to do with Creative Commons mission to expand the works available to build upon and share. Your definiton of "share" is really N copies of a program in one purchase. From charybdis at deja-x.co.uk Thu Mar 25 16:01:40 2004 From: charybdis at deja-x.co.uk (Richard Cobbett) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 21:01:40 -0000 Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: <62690.206.67.17.2.1080244501.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Message-ID: "Alice buys 2 copies of your software for a single payment of $100. she then lets Bob try it with her, and then Charlie. Charlie likes it, and the two of them use the software, and you earned $100." Meanwhile, that bastard Mallory isn't quite sure if he's managed to cross the line and become the analogical villain we all know and love. Please, have sympathy for the poor chap. __________________ Richard Cobbett | http://www.richardcobbett.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: cc-licenses-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:cc-licenses-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Greg London Sent: 25 March 2004 19:55 To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts Cc: cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: Re: License that allows private copying? Scott Johnston said: > My program is for use by two or more people at once. It's of no use to > the solitary person. So I want one person to be able to buy a copy and > be able to try it out by working with a friend (or group of friends), > without them violating any laws. from www.creativecommons.com: : Introduction: Creative Commons is devoted to expanding the range of : creative work available for others to build upon and share. You are selling a work that is "All Rights Reserved". And you want to bundle 2 (or some value of N) copies together when someone purchases your software. Alice buys 2 copies of your software for a single payment of $100. she then lets Bob try it with her, and then Charlie. Charlie likes it, and the two of them use the software, and you earned $100. You could just as easily sell your software for PRICE/N and only give the person one license. You could then solve the "I need someone to play with" problem by letting anyone download a free version that only works for a limited time, with limited features, or whatever. Alice buys a copy for $50. and then gets Bob and Charlie to get the demo version for free. Charlie decides he likes it enough to buy the full version for $50. And the two play together and you've earned $100. The short of it is that you are selling proprietary software. Your license is "All Rights Reserved". You are just bundling multiple copies of the software in a single purchase. What you are doing has nothing to do with Creative Commons mission to expand the works available to build upon and share. Your definiton of "share" is really N copies of a program in one purchase. _______________________________________________ cc-licenses mailing list cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: charybdis at deja-x.co.uk (charybdis at deja-x.co.uk).vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 230 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20040325/14660943/attachment.vcf From johnston at vectaport.com Thu Mar 25 16:41:56 2004 From: johnston at vectaport.com (Scott Johnston) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:41:56 -0800 Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: <08A72533-7E94-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> References: <9A343770-7E8A-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> <08A72533-7E94-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> Message-ID: <3D2B54AF-7EA5-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> Greg London wrote: > Scott Johnston said: > > My program is for use by two or more people at once. It's of no use > to > > the solitary person. So I want one person to be able to buy a copy > and > > be able to try it out by working with a friend (or group of friends), > > without them violating any laws. > > from www.creativecommons.com: > : Introduction: Creative Commons is devoted to expanding the range of > : creative work available for others to build upon and share. I believe a Private sharing clause would do just that, expand the range of creative work available for others to build upon and share. It would simply be another term which must be satisfied, like NonCommercial or Attribution. The fact that a clause restricts the possible set of sharers does not mean it won't expand the range of sharing. This might be hard to see in the case of a software binary. How do you build upon a fixed program? For starters, you can compile your own aggregate work (collection) of similar tools, and share them with your friend. And if you want to go Public and/or Commercial with your copyrighted work you can contact the copyright holder and arrange for a license. But I don't think it is so hard to see in the case of music distribution. Let's say I hand out all the raw data from my digital music compositions to my friends (the MIDI sequencing files, the samples, the lyrics, etc..). I want them to build on it, to change it, to share it with their mates, to keep a copy for future reference. I just don't want anybody sharing it with the public without my approval. Is there a CC license that directly addresses that kind of creative work and sharing? Or am I left to do it informally? > The short of it is that you are selling proprietary software. > Your license is "All Rights Reserved". You are just bundling > multiple copies of the software in a single purchase. > > What you are doing has nothing to do with > Creative Commons mission to expand the works > available to build upon and share. > > Your definiton of "share" is really > N copies of a program in one purchase. > > That is your definition of what I'm asking. Truly, I have no N in mind. I just want some practical (and formal) method of asking others to abide by my wishes and refrain from publicly distributing a copy of my work. Like the copyright owner of the rental DVD you play sets no limit on the number of people who can watch it in your home, but would go after you if you advertised a showing and charged admission. Like some bands allow taping and sharing of their concerts, but forbid the posting of those tapes online. Anyways, thanks to you and Evan for your comments. For me it has been a worthwhile exercise. Scott Johnston -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 3372 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20040325/215b8e94/attachment.bin From wmorgan at masanjin.net Thu Mar 25 17:17:59 2004 From: wmorgan at masanjin.net (William Morgan) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:17:59 -0500 Subject: derivative works question: "cover" songs In-Reply-To: <26638.206.67.17.2.1080228213.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> References: <20040324232909.GH24248@masanjin.net> <26638.206.67.17.2.1080228213.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Message-ID: <20040325221759.GQ31088@masanjin.net> Excerpts (reformatted) from Greg London's mail of 25 Mar 2004 (EST): > the "compulsory license" allows cover songs for a predetermined > royalty. I'm guessing that since "royalty" implies percentage of a > price, then you probably can't use compulsory license if you're not > charging a price. Hm, maybe we can charge a fractionally small price (one millionth of one cent) and automatically waive it for everyone? Seems like there's got to be some way of getting around this, if they special-case 0 like that. Well, it's all idle fantasy, in the absence of a copyright lawyer. Thank you, and everyone else, for your help. -- William From dbharris at eelf.ddts.net Fri Mar 26 15:30:01 2004 From: dbharris at eelf.ddts.net (David B Harris) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:30:01 -0500 Subject: Question about ShareALike 1.0 Message-ID: <20040326153001.68ef3ad8.dbharris@eelf.ddts.net> Hey guys :) Please CC: me, I'm not subscribed to this list. I'm working on a book with Wiley, and I'm trying to get them to include an Appendix which will be licensed under the Creative Commons ShareALike license. However, before I put much effort into it, I decided to go ahead and read the license text itself, and I have a question. Paragraph 1a clearly defines that a collective work is treated differently from a derivative work, and defines what constitutes a "collective work." I'm worried, however, that the book I'm working on wouldn't constitute a collective work. The book will be between 800 and 1100 pages, of which about 20 pages will be this ShareALike-licensed appendix. The copyright on the appendix will be held by me, and the copyright on the rest of the book will be held by Wiley. But in paragraph 1a, it defines a collective work "as a periodical issue, anthology or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form, along with a number of other contributions ..." The bit that I'm worried about is the specificity of the examples (periodical, anthology, or encyclopedia) - the book matches none of these. Now, I understand these are just examples. But it goes on to more specifically define a collective work as a work which includes the ShareALike-licensed work in along with *a number* of other contributions. In my case, there will only be one other contribution I believe. Thoughts? -- Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while, you realise the pig is enjoying it. OpenPGP v4 key ID: 4096R/59DDCB9F Fingerprint: CC53 F124 35C0 7BC2 58FE 7A3C 157D DFD9 59DD CB9F Retreive from subkeys.pgp.net or risk key corruption From neroden at twcny.rr.com Fri Mar 26 17:16:44 2004 From: neroden at twcny.rr.com (Nathanael Nerode) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:16:44 -0500 Subject: Please fix CC trademark notice in licenses. Message-ID: <200403261716.45012.neroden@twcny.rr.com> Most of the licenses have this clause at the end: >Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the Work is >licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use the trademark "Creative >Commons" or any related trademark or logo of Creative Commons without the >prior written consent of Creative Commons. Any permitted use will be in >compliance with Creative Commons' then-current trademark usage guidelines, >as may be published on its website or otherwise made available upon request >from time to time. If read as part of this license, this restricts uses of the Creative Commons trademark which are otherwise legitimate under trademark law; if this is part of the license, then the licensor could declare that a user was in breach of the license for doing something unrelated with the Creative Commons trademark. I'm sure this is unintentional. This isn't intended to be part of the license at all, but merely attached to it. It says in the HTML source: But it doesn't say that, or anything equivalent, anywhere VISIBLE. It really ought to. Furthermore, if it's not a part of the license, it's still inaccurate: >Except for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the Work is >licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use the trademark "Creative >Commons" or any related trademark or logo of Creative Commons without the >prior written consent of Creative Commons. This purports to prohibit uses which do not require permission under trademark law; and doesn't really grant any permissions. It should instead say: Creative Commons grants both parties the right to use the trademark "Creative Commons" or the appropriate trademarks or logos of Creative Commons for the limited purpose of indicating to the public that the Work is licensed under the CCPL, and for that purpose only. Creative Commons does not grant any other rights to use the trademark "Creative Commons" or any related trademark or logo of Creative Commons without the prior written consent of Creative Commons. (If it's written this way, incidentally, it won't matter whether it's part of the license or not.) --Nathanael From sal at highlala.com Fri Mar 26 19:00:12 2004 From: sal at highlala.com (Sal Randolph) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:00:12 -0500 Subject: License that allows private copying? In-Reply-To: <3260.206.67.17.2.1080242012.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> References: <9A343770-7E8A-11D8-B4D8-000A95C73E20@vectaport.com> <3260.206.67.17.2.1080242012.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Message-ID: On Mar 25, 2004, at 2:13 PM, Greg London wrote: >> > > to me, Fair-Use means personal Copying. > I can copy a TV show with my VCR and play it > back for personal viewing at a later time. > I can create derived works of CD's, > convert them to MP3's, and burn them > to a new CD so I can play them in my car. It actually does occur to me that there might be a place for a FAIR USE license for european countries who do not currently have anything like our fair use clauses. redundant in the US, but not at all in many countries. -- Sal From deadpaperplate at mac.com Sat Mar 27 00:04:08 2004 From: deadpaperplate at mac.com (Stephen Woodward) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:04:08 -0500 Subject: digital copy of a physical work and the selling of that physical work Message-ID: <2DD3F3AD-7FAC-11D8-874F-003065E535BE@mac.com> I will probably be best served consulting a lawyer on this, but thought I would run by everyone out there. I think the big question I am looking for the answer to is; If I create a physical painting, its my creation, and copyright me. If I sell it to someone, does the copyright transfer to the new owner? The reason I am asking is I would like to license high resolution digital pictures of my paintings under a cc license. Attrib and non-commercial, possibly share alike, but am not sure just yet. So that the digital form of these paintings can be freely shared. But, lets say one day someone buys one of these paintings from me. If the copyright transfers to the new owner, then what is to stop them from going sue happy trying to stop all those digital copies out there? Completely undermining what I intended. Naturaly if I retain the copyright to the sold item, then there wouldn't be a problem, which brought me to my original question. Or is a photo (digital or otherwise) of a physical work, not even considered a copy of the original physical work? even if its done well enough to look scanned in, or appear originaly digital? I would guess not if Fox can demand $10k for a shot of The Simpsons in the background of a documentary. Thanks in advance for any advice, and if any of my questions do not belong on this list I apologize ahead of time. -steve From sal at highlala.com Sat Mar 27 00:42:21 2004 From: sal at highlala.com (Sal Randolph) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:42:21 -0500 Subject: digital copy of a physical work and the selling of that physical work In-Reply-To: <2DD3F3AD-7FAC-11D8-874F-003065E535BE@mac.com> References: <2DD3F3AD-7FAC-11D8-874F-003065E535BE@mac.com> Message-ID: <8470C8FA-7FB1-11D8-B912-000A9575CA5C@highlala.com> I'm definitely not a lawyer, so take this with a giant grain of salt. It's my understanding that in the case of something like a painting, it's the artist who retains the reproduction rights when the painting is sold (unless, I suppose, specific arrangements such as licensing are made). I know there are a number of books specifically written to give basic legal advice to visual artists, so you might start by picking one up. And also, many areas have some kind of group like New York's Volunteer Lawyer's for the Arts, where lawyers can provide you with some free consultation one-on-one and in group seminars. In general, though, this list isn't really intended be a forum for legal advice, professionally competent or otherwise. I'm wondering if it might be time for CC or someone to set up a public user forum for these kinds of questions, which do come up pretty often. -- Sal On Mar 27, 2004, at 12:04 AM, Stephen Woodward wrote: > I will probably be best served consulting a lawyer on this, but > thought I would run by everyone out there. > I think the big question I am looking for the answer to is; If I > create a physical painting, its my creation, and copyright me. If I > sell it to someone, does the copyright transfer to the new owner? > The reason I am asking is I would like to license high resolution > digital pictures of my paintings under a cc license. Attrib and > non-commercial, possibly share alike, but am not sure just yet. So > that the digital form of these paintings can be freely shared. But, > lets say one day someone buys one of these paintings from me. If the > copyright transfers to the new owner, then what is to stop them from > going sue happy trying to stop all those digital copies out there? > Completely undermining what I intended. Naturaly if I retain the > copyright to the sold item, then there wouldn't be a problem, which > brought me to my original question. Or is a photo (digital or > otherwise) of a physical work, not even considered a copy of the > original physical work? even if its done well enough to look scanned > in, or appear originaly digital? I would guess not if Fox can demand > $10k for a shot of The Simpsons in the background of a documentary. > > Thanks in advance for any advice, and if any of my questions do not > belong on this list I apologize ahead of time. > > -steve > > _______________________________________________ > cc-licenses mailing list > cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses > From deadpaperplate at mac.com Sat Mar 27 04:11:36 2004 From: deadpaperplate at mac.com (Stephen Woodward) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 04:11:36 -0500 Subject: digital copy of a physical work and the selling of that physical work In-Reply-To: <8470C8FA-7FB1-11D8-B912-000A9575CA5C@highlala.com> References: <2DD3F3AD-7FAC-11D8-874F-003065E535BE@mac.com> <8470C8FA-7FB1-11D8-B912-000A9575CA5C@highlala.com> Message-ID: You are right, now that I think about it my questions are a bit off. I'm not looking for professional advice though, only opinion, and will respect anyone's views and concerns. I guess I was just trying to throw out for discussion, the idea of: what if the root of the creation is physical, and that interferes with the cc licensing of its digital version, through changing owner's hands. Thanks for your input, Sal -steve On Mar 27, 2004, at 12:42 AM, Sal Randolph wrote: > I'm definitely not a lawyer, so take this with a giant grain of salt. > > It's my understanding that in the case of something like a painting, > it's the artist who retains the reproduction rights when the painting > is sold (unless, I suppose, specific arrangements such as licensing > are made). > > I know there are a number of books specifically written to give basic > legal advice to visual artists, so you might start by picking one up. > And also, many areas have some kind of group like New York's Volunteer > Lawyer's for the Arts, where lawyers can provide you with some free > consultation one-on-one and in group seminars. > > In general, though, this list isn't really intended be a forum for > legal advice, professionally competent or otherwise. I'm wondering if > it might be time for CC or someone to set up a public user forum for > these kinds of questions, which do come up pretty often. > > -- Sal > > > On Mar 27, 2004, at 12:04 AM, Stephen Woodward wrote: > >> I will probably be best served consulting a lawyer on this, but >> thought I would run by everyone out there. >> I think the big question I am looking for the answer to is; If I >> create a physical painting, its my creation, and copyright me. If I >> sell it to someone, does the copyright transfer to the new owner? >> The reason I am asking is I would like to license high resolution >> digital pictures of my paintings under a cc license. Attrib and >> non-commercial, possibly share alike, but am not sure just yet. So >> that the digital form of these paintings can be freely shared. But, >> lets say one day someone buys one of these paintings from me. If the >> copyright transfers to the new owner, then what is to stop them from >> going sue happy trying to stop all those digital copies out there? >> Completely undermining what I intended. Naturaly if I retain the >> copyright to the sold item, then there wouldn't be a problem, which >> brought me to my original question. Or is a photo (digital or >> otherwise) of a physical work, not even considered a copy of the >> original physical work? even if its done well enough to look scanned >> in, or appear originaly digital? I would guess not if Fox can demand >> $10k for a shot of The Simpsons in the background of a documentary. >> >> Thanks in advance for any advice, and if any of my questions do not >> belong on this list I apologize ahead of time. >> >> -steve >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cc-licenses mailing list >> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses >> > > _______________________________________________ > cc-licenses mailing list > cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses From email at greglondon.com Sun Mar 28 09:17:04 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 09:17:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: digital copy of a physical work and the selling ofthat physical work In-Reply-To: References: <2DD3F3AD-7FAC-11D8-874F-003065E535BE@mac.com><8470C8FA-7FB1-11D8-B912-000A9575CA5C@highlala.com> Message-ID: <2640.207.180.130.165.1080483424.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> Stephen Woodward said: > what if the root of the creation is physical, > and that interferes with the cc licensing of its digital > version, IANAL any artistic expression (be it words, pictures, painting, photo, music, video) put into any fixed form (be it paper, parchment, oil, canvas, CompactDisc, harddrive) satisfies the requirement to grant you copyright to that expression. You then have the exclusive rights to copy, distribute, and derive that >expression<. The copyright is tied to the specific expression, not the specific physical instance. So, when you buy a paperback at the bookstore, the copyright stays with the author. you simply get a physical form of the artistic expression. just because you bought the book doesn't mean you can now make copies and sell it to other people. So, when you put oil paint on canvas, you own the copyright to that expression. The canvas becomes an instance of that expression, and if you sell the canvas to someone, you still hold the copyright to the expression. You can create another oil/canvas version of the painting, you can scan it at high res and sell digital copies of it. You can create a derived version of the image, modifying and extending the artistic expression from the original image. The only gotcha to this is to make sure it is not a work-for-hire. If someone commissions you to create the oil painting, then they may have claim to the copyright of the work, and you may not be able to copy, distribute, or create derived versions of the original. If you create the work on your own, then you're OK. If someone says "I'll pay you to paint an image of " then they may claim copyright to teh work and you wont be able to license it CC or whatever. I think that answers your question. From douglasboyce at comcast.net Sun Mar 28 13:17:57 2004 From: douglasboyce at comcast.net (Douglas Boyce) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:17:57 -0500 Subject: commercial performance under at-nc-sa Message-ID: actually, such a license if very relevant, though in a very different community than one which is generally being addressed by creative commons, the 'classical' new or contemporary music community the most common way that contemporary classical is exchanged is not in digital form, but on the printed page. thus, licenses that expressly allow the mechanical reproduction of the printed score are extremely helpful and allows for a more free exchange of cultural content. [ most photo-repro places (kinko's, et c.) will not let you reproduce musical scores without written permission from the 'publisher', even if there is no such organization - i've even been stopped from copying my own works(!) ] recordings of 'concert' works are not functionally a part of the economics of performance, though they are exchanged as a convenient way to make performers aware of a new work. there are few points in the cc-licenses that account for the fact that sound files are not the only way in which music is disseminated; a license specifically dealing with the role of the score (and the score only) would be very helpful. the licenses geared to the distribution/reproduction of digital recording are great, but it should be noted that relationship between performer and composer is very different in these communities than in many other musical communities. composers often work with performers on just one project, and not all performers will have the same interest in copyleft that some of us do, and so, as a composer, it is not with in my rights to say that 'all recordings of my music will be released under a particularly open license.' the collection of mechanical reproduction residuals is a major part of many performers economic reality and mindset; to not receive those royalties for recorded work is a big leap for many of them to make, and could easily feel to them like 'studio work' which for many performers is a real slap in the face. (why that's the case is a much bigger question, having to do with education, and the history of the record business, and this post seems long enough) so a separate license that deals with the distribution of the print score would be very helpful, but would need to be fairly limited in scope since it would, down the road, interact with other peoples rights as performers. to my mind, a 'commercial performance' license would be very helpful to advancing cc and copyleft models of behavior in a community that currently has remained very resistant (or unaware) of them, and would give performers freedom to do what they can, and make as much money as they can with the piece. adding contact info and a note that the performance limitation is easily waived works, but is a bit inelegant. contemporary chamber music performers have some very particular issues to consider. all of this on this list know about the extortion of money from concert venues by the various performance royalty collection agencies. one solution that very small venues use is to not present 'new' (non-public domain) music, and stick to Beethoven Bach and Brahms, or all performances with contemporary music are given on a 'suggested donation' model. the last system works ok, but generates practical problems, especially since many smaller venues that mostly deal with public domain repertoire (Beethoven, Brahms, et c) well not let you present a concert on a suggested donation, since they often take a cut of the door as part of the hall rental agreement. also remember that this model means that these agencies take money from the performers (through the venues), take a cut, and try to give it back to me even if i didn't want them to take it from the performer in the first place. this system is deeply deeply entrenched, and i dont' think there's a silver bullet to make it go away, but some performances of all cc-licensed music with all revenue going directly to the performers is for me and interesting start to reworking the system. also, it should be noted that there is no cash cow, either from performance or recordings. for the vast majority of composers of this kind of music, what little money is made by composers generally comes from commissions, which have absolutely no bearing on performance (or recording) rights (though there are sometimes 'exclusivity' clauses in commission, giving certain performers exclusive rights for a finite period of time. so, anyway, that's why i first posted that question; there might simply be too few people involved in this sub-domain of classical music to start/have this conversation ? it sure is surely part of an incremental approach to deploying some of these ideas in a different context, but if people have other ideas about how to refashion the economics of classical performance from the ground up, i'd love to hear them. From robmyers at mac.com Sun Mar 28 13:55:50 2004 From: robmyers at mac.com (Rob Myers) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 19:55:50 +0100 Subject: commercial performance under at-nc-sa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87B80CC8-80E9-11D8-B5C2-00306590A6B6@mac.com> On 28 Mar 2004, at 19:17, Douglas Boyce wrote: > so a separate license that deals with the distribution of the print > score > would be very helpful, but would need to be fairly limited in scope > since it > would, down the road, interact with other peoples rights as > performers. to > my mind, a 'commercial performance' license would be very helpful to > advancing cc and copyleft models of behavior in a community that > currently > has remained very resistant (or unaware) of them, and would give > performers > freedom to do what they can, and make as much money as they can with > the > piece. adding contact info and a note that the performance limitation > is > easily waived works, but is a bit inelegant. One difference between commons/open/gift content and open source is that with open source, it's the "score" that is open. You can compile (perform?) and distribute (publish?) the resulting binary (recording?) for as much money as you like, but the source must remain freely available and modifiable. This may be a fairly deep problem with open content music as conceived of by new media weekend-DJs, but it is a *perfect* match for contemporary classical music. I think if you apply the GNU FDL with invariants or CC-BY to the score you will achieve something close to what you're after. - Rob. From robmyers at mac.com Sun Mar 28 14:01:10 2004 From: robmyers at mac.com (Rob Myers) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 20:01:10 +0100 Subject: In Favor of CC-FA Message-ID: <46891316-80EA-11D8-B5C2-00306590A6B6@mac.com> In an ideal world, all software would be GPL and all content would be CC-SA . But "weaker" licenses can be a useful stepping stone as well as addressing other contemporary social concerns. To support this argument (that soft licenses encourage people to try hard licenses :-) ), I'd cite this page: http://craphound.com/down/ "I chose the most restrictive CC license available to me, staying cautious, and I waited to see if the sky would fall. ... It didn't. ... So here we are, just a little over a year later ... I am re-licensing Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, effective today, under the terms of one of the least restrictive Creative Commons licenses, the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license..." If it was a choice of all or nothing rather than trying a little, finding it works and then going all the way, would this work now be in the commons? - Rob. From email at greglondon.com Sun Mar 28 20:21:54 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 20:21:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: commercial performance under at-nc-sa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2291.207.180.130.165.1080523314.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> Douglas Boyce said: > not all performers will have the same interest in copyleft that some of us > do, and so, as a composer, it is not with in my rights to say that 'all > recordings of my music will be released under a particularly open license.' applying 'copyleft' to musical scores would not require performances to be licensed the same as the score. Copyleft requires verbatim copy/distribution with the same license, and derived/distributed works with the same license. performance is a separate category from copy/distribute/derive, and from my point of view, "performance of a score" is like "execution of code" and therefore would be treated as "public domain", meaning you can license a performance anyway you want, including ForCommercialPurposes. Linux is Copyleft, but is used for commercial purposes to host websites. Copyleft is actually concerned with the way a commercial entity could take an Open work, extend it, and compete with the Open version of the work. I talk about this in Drafting the Gift Domain, http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/html/draftingthegiftdomain.html#8_3_Copyleft_and_Public_Domain_versus_Competition The problem is basically that if Microsoft could start with Linux and extend it, then the Linux people would always be a step behind, and no one would want to download the "open" linux. Everone would pay for the "extended, microsoft linux". and then the linux community would collapse because all the contributers would think "why bother?" a "performance" does not compete with the "score". Copyleft would want a derived version of the score to remain Open, so that there isn't competition against the Gift Economy. but performance is like execution and would not be cause for direct competiton with the Gift Economy. I'm not sure if the CC licenses are worded this way, but that's my take on applying Copyleft to musical scores. From email at greglondon.com Sun Mar 28 20:21:54 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 20:21:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: commercial performance under at-nc-sa In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2291.207.180.130.165.1080523314.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> Douglas Boyce said: > not all performers will have the same interest in copyleft that some of us > do, and so, as a composer, it is not with in my rights to say that 'all > recordings of my music will be released under a particularly open license.' applying 'copyleft' to musical scores would not require performances to be licensed the same as the score. Copyleft requires verbatim copy/distribution with the same license, and derived/distributed works with the same license. performance is a separate category from copy/distribute/derive, and from my point of view, "performance of a score" is like "execution of code" and therefore would be treated as "public domain", meaning you can license a performance anyway you want, including ForCommercialPurposes. Linux is Copyleft, but is used for commercial purposes to host websites. Copyleft is actually concerned with the way a commercial entity could take an Open work, extend it, and compete with the Open version of the work. I talk about this in Drafting the Gift Domain, http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/html/draftingthegiftdomain.html#8_3_Copyleft_and_Public_Domain_versus_Competition The problem is basically that if Microsoft could start with Linux and extend it, then the Linux people would always be a step behind, and no one would want to download the "open" linux. Everone would pay for the "extended, microsoft linux". and then the linux community would collapse because all the contributers would think "why bother?" a "performance" does not compete with the "score". Copyleft would want a derived version of the score to remain Open, so that there isn't competition against the Gift Economy. but performance is like execution and would not be cause for direct competiton with the Gift Economy. I'm not sure if the CC licenses are worded this way, but that's my take on applying Copyleft to musical scores. From email at greglondon.com Sun Mar 28 20:37:07 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 20:37:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: In Favor of CC-FA In-Reply-To: <46891316-80EA-11D8-B5C2-00306590A6B6@mac.com> References: <46891316-80EA-11D8-B5C2-00306590A6B6@mac.com> Message-ID: <2312.207.180.130.165.1080524227.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> Rob Myers said: > In an ideal world, all software would be GPL and all content would be > CC-SA . But "weaker" licenses can be a useful stepping stone as well as > addressing other contemporary social concerns. Perhaps, but I'm not entirely convinced. "stepping stone" licenses will not allow the work to enter a Gift Economy, since the Author retains too many rights for others to treat it as a pure contribution. Because the work does not enter a Gift Economy, there is little contribution to it, therefore the work does not develop beyond what the original author puts into it, therefore it is effectively All Rights Reserved with an interesting, but unused license icon. Having taken what he percieved to be a "step" into this strange, new world, and gotten little resulting benefit, the author may mistakenly decide that "open source doesn't work" and high-tail it back to "All Rights Reserved". The problem is that no "stepping stone" licenses will put the work into a Gift Economy, therefore few will feel compelled to add to or extend the original work. Copyleft and PublicDomain licenses put the work into a Gift Economy, and allow other people to extend the work and claim it as "theirs". By enabling others, the works improve. Wikipedia would not work under any sort of stepping stone license. People might submit original entries in the encyclopedia, but few would see incentive to update or improve the entry if it returns to the author rather than going to the public. Creative Commons is fooling itself if it thinks stepping stone licenses will help Gift Economy licenses. From evan at wikitravel.org Sun Mar 28 23:41:25 2004 From: evan at wikitravel.org (Evan Prodromou) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 23:41:25 -0500 Subject: commercial performance under at-nc-sa In-Reply-To: <2291.207.180.130.165.1080523314.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> (Greg London's message of "Sun, 28 Mar 2004 20:21:54 -0500 (EST)") References: <2291.207.180.130.165.1080523314.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> Message-ID: <87zna0tgcq.fsf@unicorn.bad-people-of-the-future.san-francisco.ca.us> >>>>> "GL" == Greg London writes: >> not all performers will have the same interest in copyleft that >> some of us do, and so, as a composer, it is not with in my >> rights to say that 'all recordings of my music will be released >> under a particularly open license.' GL> applying 'copyleft' to musical scores would not require GL> performances to be licensed the same as the score. Actually, I believe that Creative Commons licenses explicitly allow performance of works. ~ESP -- Evan Prodromou Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/ The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide From deadpaperplate at mac.com Mon Mar 29 01:55:15 2004 From: deadpaperplate at mac.com (Stephen Woodward) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 01:55:15 -0500 Subject: digital copy of a physical work and the selling ofthat physical work In-Reply-To: <2640.207.180.130.165.1080483424.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> References: <2DD3F3AD-7FAC-11D8-874F-003065E535BE@mac.com> <8470C8FA-7FB1-11D8-B912-000A9575CA5C@highlala.com> <2640.207.180.130.165.1080483424.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> Message-ID: <0867171C-814E-11D8-874F-003065E535BE@mac.com> That was where my thinking was going. I appreciate all the input. Of course I will consult a lawyer to be certain on all counts. I think the work for hire bit was the one thing I was missing that puts a bit more light on the subject for me, in reguards to how the rights to distribute one of my creations can either be taken away, or not even be there to begin with. 10 years ago I wouldn't have even though about how the law would affect my creativity. but nowadays, you have to look over your shoulder constantly. My nightmare would be someone else telling the world that they can't distribute my works the way I intended. Thanks to all. -steve On Mar 28, 2004, at 9:17 AM, Greg London wrote: > > Stephen Woodward said: >> what if the root of the creation is physical, >> and that interferes with the cc licensing of its digital >> version, > > IANAL > > any artistic expression > (be it words, pictures, painting, photo, music, video) > put into any fixed form > (be it paper, parchment, oil, canvas, CompactDisc, harddrive) > > satisfies the requirement to grant you copyright to that expression. > > You then have the exclusive rights to copy, distribute, and > derive that >expression<. The copyright is tied to the > specific expression, not the specific physical instance. > > So, when you buy a paperback at the bookstore, > the copyright stays with the author. > you simply get a physical form of the artistic expression. > just because you bought the book doesn't mean > you can now make copies and sell it to other people. > > So, when you put oil paint on canvas, you own the copyright > to that expression. The canvas becomes an instance of that > expression, and if you sell the canvas to someone, you still > hold the copyright to the expression. You can create > another oil/canvas version of the painting, you can > scan it at high res and sell digital copies of it. > You can create a derived version of the image, modifying > and extending the artistic expression from the original > image. > > The only gotcha to this is to make sure it is not > a work-for-hire. If someone commissions you to > create the oil painting, then they may have claim > to the copyright of the work, and you may not be > able to copy, distribute, or create derived versions > of the original. > > If you create the work on your own, then you're OK. > > If someone says "I'll pay you to paint an image of " > then they may claim copyright to teh work and you wont > be able to license it CC or whatever. > > I think that answers your question. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > cc-licenses mailing list > cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses From email at greglondon.com Mon Mar 29 09:06:10 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 09:06:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: digital copy of a physical work and the selling ofthat physicalwork In-Reply-To: <0867171C-814E-11D8-874F-003065E535BE@mac.com> References: <2DD3F3AD-7FAC-11D8-874F-003065E535BE@mac.com><8470C8FA-7FB1-11D8-B912-000A9575CA5C@highlala.com><2640.207.180.130.165.1080483424.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> <0867171C-814E-11D8-874F-003065E535BE@mac.com> Message-ID: <40566.206.67.17.2.1080569170.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Even the work-for-hire part can be worked around, if you are careful up front. This is where a lawyer would have to work with you to draft a Contract that you would have anyone sign that wanted to commision you to do a painting. The contract would state in some legalese that you retain copyright on the expression and the person who hired you "disclaims" any and all copyrights on the work. I know Open Source people use this approach when hired to do work on their software for someone. Stephen Woodward said: > That was where my thinking was going. I appreciate all the input. Of > course I will consult a lawyer to be certain on all counts. I think > the work for hire bit was the one thing I was missing that puts a bit > more light on the subject for me, in reguards to how the rights to > distribute one of my creations can either be taken away, or not even be > there to begin with. 10 years ago I wouldn't have even though about > how the law would affect my creativity. but nowadays, you have to look > over your shoulder constantly. My nightmare would be someone else > telling the world that they can't distribute my works the way I > intended. From email at greglondon.com Mon Mar 29 09:06:10 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 09:06:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: digital copy of a physical work and the selling ofthat physicalwork In-Reply-To: <0867171C-814E-11D8-874F-003065E535BE@mac.com> References: <2DD3F3AD-7FAC-11D8-874F-003065E535BE@mac.com><8470C8FA-7FB1-11D8-B912-000A9575CA5C@highlala.com><2640.207.180.130.165.1080483424.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> <0867171C-814E-11D8-874F-003065E535BE@mac.com> Message-ID: <40566.206.67.17.2.1080569170.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Even the work-for-hire part can be worked around, if you are careful up front. This is where a lawyer would have to work with you to draft a Contract that you would have anyone sign that wanted to commision you to do a painting. The contract would state in some legalese that you retain copyright on the expression and the person who hired you "disclaims" any and all copyrights on the work. I know Open Source people use this approach when hired to do work on their software for someone. Stephen Woodward said: > That was where my thinking was going. I appreciate all the input. Of > course I will consult a lawyer to be certain on all counts. I think > the work for hire bit was the one thing I was missing that puts a bit > more light on the subject for me, in reguards to how the rights to > distribute one of my creations can either be taken away, or not even be > there to begin with. 10 years ago I wouldn't have even though about > how the law would affect my creativity. but nowadays, you have to look > over your shoulder constantly. My nightmare would be someone else > telling the world that they can't distribute my works the way I > intended. From aperio at free.fr Mon Mar 29 09:27:50 2004 From: aperio at free.fr (Romain d'Alverny) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:27:50 +0200 Subject: commercial performance under at-nc-sa In-Reply-To: <2291.207.180.130.165.1080523314.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> References: <2291.207.180.130.165.1080523314.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> Message-ID: <1080570469.5314.116.camel@localhost> Selon Greg London : > applying 'copyleft' to musical scores would not require > performances to be licensed the same as the score. I am not so sure. > performance is a separate category from copy/distribute/derive, > and from my point of view, "performance of a score" is like > "execution of code" and therefore would be treated as > "public domain", meaning you can license a performance > anyway you want, including ForCommercialPurposes. But Copyleft already allows commercial purposes, so that's not a big improvement. That would mean, instead, that you could license your performance of this score for strictly closed purposes : not delivering any right with it. > Linux is Copyleft, but is used for commercial purposes > to host websites. It would more correct to say : Linux is Copyleft, but may be runned for proprietary software and purposes. > a "performance" does not compete with the "score". That depends highly on what you consider a score (paper, notes, midi, drawings, explanations, movie, music itself) and a performance (notes, drawings, danse, music again). Different community of composers, performers and listeners do not share the same approach on "their" topic ; and that may evolve still. Actually, I think that the suggestion from Douglas Boyle to add a performance option (Permits/Prohibits, commercial/non commercial - but what is 'commercial' then ? is that question solved ?) on CC licenses would be safer and simpler. It puts more weight on the license again (one more option), but I am not sure that the copyleft applied to sheet music would be understood as applying only to the sheet, and not the 'rendered' music. Why I am saying this is that the Free Art License, for instance, explicitly allows performance of works. My point of view. romain. From email at greglondon.com Mon Mar 29 11:14:43 2004 From: email at greglondon.com (Greg London) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:14:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: commercial performance under at-nc-sa In-Reply-To: <1080570469.5314.116.camel@localhost> References: <2291.207.180.130.165.1080523314.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> <1080570469.5314.116.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <45817.206.67.17.2.1080576883.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Romain d'Alverny said: > Selon Greg London : >> performance is a separate category from copy/distribute/derive, >> and from my point of view, "performance of a score" is like >> "execution of code" and therefore would be treated as >> "public domain", meaning you can license a performance >> anyway you want, including ForCommercialPurposes. > > That would mean, instead, that you could license your performance of > this score for strictly closed purposes : not delivering any right > with it. yes. but a Performance is not an Artistic Expression in FIXED FORM. It is a performance. A one time experience. >> a "performance" does not compete with the "score". > > That depends highly on what you consider a score (paper, notes, midi, > drawings, explanations, movie, music itself) and a performance (notes, > drawings, danse, music again). > Different community of composers, performers and listeners do not > share the same approach on "their" topic ; and that may evolve still. No, if you use a tool to create a new form of the expression in fixed medium, then that fixed medium is a DERIVED work, not a PERFORMANCE. Source Code is run through compiler to create executable code. this executable code is considered a DERIVED WORK of the source code, not a PERFORMANCE of the compiler with the source code as sheet music. If it creates a fixed form, it is Derived. GNU-GPL uses this to prevent others from compiling proprietary software in with the GNU-GPL code. Since compiling is deriving, the original author has the right to control who can derive. > Actually, I think that the suggestion from Douglas Boyle to add a > performance option (Permits/Prohibits, commercial/non commercial - but > what is 'commercial' then ? is that question solved ?) on CC > licenses would be safer and simpler. Good Gads, I'd have to disagree. the GNU-GPL is extremely long and detailed, but it serves a SINGLE purpose: to place the licensed code into a Gift Economy, to give every right away possible, except for the ones that would allow proprietary authors to extend the software, relicense it "All Rights Reserved" and then compete with the "Open" version of teh software. All derived works in GNU-GPL remain GNU-GPL, and therefore remain in the Gift Economy. all other rights are given away. There is no need in a Gift Economy to restrict performance, because performance does not create a derived work that can compete with the original work. it is a one-time experience. Recordings of a performance would have to be Open, but the performance itself can be Closed, so you could prohibit recordings at your concert. the right to Perform a work should be treated as a Public Domain right if it is going to be treated like a Copyleft license. From aperio at free.fr Mon Mar 29 11:35:40 2004 From: aperio at free.fr (Romain d'Alverny) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 18:35:40 +0200 Subject: commercial performance under at-nc-sa In-Reply-To: <45817.206.67.17.2.1080576883.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> References: <2291.207.180.130.165.1080523314.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> <1080570469.5314.116.camel@localhost> <45817.206.67.17.2.1080576883.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> Message-ID: <1080578139.5316.388.camel@localhost> Ok, I guess there has been some misunderstanding, from my point probably. I was just wondering that a copyleft license could allow a fixed form of a performance of a copyleft work to be licensed under something closed : I don't think so either. So we agree on that point actually. Or do I still miss something ? Sorry for not having been more precise on terms. Well, I guess I need to practice my English more often... Le lun 29/03/2004 ? 18:14, Greg London a ?crit : > Good Gads, I'd have to disagree. Ok. It was an option for a non-existing case. romain. From ml at creativecommons.org Wed Mar 31 16:59:31 2004 From: ml at creativecommons.org (Mike Linksvayer) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:59:31 -0800 Subject: Question about ShareALike 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20040326153001.68ef3ad8.dbharris@eelf.ddts.net> References: <20040326153001.68ef3ad8.dbharris@eelf.ddts.net> Message-ID: <406B3F43.5030300@creativecommons.org> David B Harris wrote: > Hey guys :) Please CC: me, I'm not subscribed to this list. > > I'm working on a book with Wiley, and I'm trying to get them to include > an Appendix which will be licensed under the Creative Commons ShareALike > license. > > However, before I put much effort into it, I decided to go ahead and > read the license text itself, and I have a question. > > Paragraph 1a clearly defines that a collective work is treated > differently from a derivative work, and defines what constitutes a > "collective work." I'm worried, however, that the book I'm working on > wouldn't constitute a collective work. I don't think it really matters. You can offer the appendix to the world under a SA license, and still allow Wiley to publish it under whatever private arrangement you have for the rest of the book. If you were trying to include someone else's SA content in the book then you'd probably have the issue you're contemplating. IANAL, etc. -- Mike Linksvayer http://creativecommons.org/learn/aboutus/people#21 From dbharris at eelf.ddts.net Wed Mar 31 18:05:28 2004 From: dbharris at eelf.ddts.net (David B Harris) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 18:05:28 -0500 Subject: Question about ShareALike 1.0 In-Reply-To: <406B3F43.5030300@creativecommons.org> References: <20040326153001.68ef3ad8.dbharris@eelf.ddts.net> <406B3F43.5030300@creativecommons.org> Message-ID: <20040331180528.6160bd27.dbharris@eelf.ddts.net> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:59:31 -0800 Mike Linksvayer wrote: > > Paragraph 1a clearly defines that a collective work is treated > > differently from a derivative work, and defines what constitutes a > > "collective work." I'm worried, however, that the book I'm working on > > wouldn't constitute a collective work. > > I don't think it really matters. You can offer the appendix to the > world under a SA license, and still allow Wiley to publish it under > whatever private arrangement you have for the rest of the book. > > If you were trying to include someone else's SA content in the book then > you'd probably have the issue you're contemplating. Can you guys ask a lawyer, and if it's true, get it fixed for the next version? You're right that I can offer the appendix to the world under the SA if I hold the copyright, but that's only a last resort - I'd rather they hold it. Obviously there's no chance a new version will be released in time for me to use it, but it's probably something worth doing anyways. I'd imagine just rewording it to "along with one or a number of other contributions" would loosen it up enough. (I really don't think the intent of the license is to limit a "collective work" to three or more works, as opposed to two or more works - which is where that suggestion comes from. If I'm wrong, though, feel free to tell me :) -- Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while, you realise the pig is enjoying it. OpenPGP v4 key ID: 4096R/59DDCB9F Fingerprint: CC53 F124 35C0 7BC2 58FE 7A3C 157D DFD9 59DD CB9F Retreive from subkeys.pgp.net or risk key corruption From ml at creativecommons.org Wed Mar 31 18:13:14 2004 From: ml at creativecommons.org (Mike Linksvayer) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:13:14 -0800 Subject: Question about ShareALike 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20040331180528.6160bd27.dbharris@eelf.ddts.net> References: <20040326153001.68ef3ad8.dbharris@eelf.ddts.net> <406B3F43.5030300@creativecommons.org> <20040331180528.6160bd27.dbharris@eelf.ddts.net> Message-ID: <406B508A.10901@creativecommons.org> David B Harris wrote: > Can you guys ask a lawyer, and if it's true, get it fixed for the next > version? You're right that I can offer the appendix to the world under > the SA if I hold the copyright, but that's only a last resort - I'd > rather they hold it. Obviously there's no chance a new version will be > released in time for me to use it, but it's probably something worth > doing anyways. You still don't have a problem. Wiley can offer the appendix to the world under SA, and as copyright owners they can still publish it an any form they choose, collective work or not. IANAL, etc. -- Mike Linksvayer http://creativecommons.org/learn/aboutus/people#21 From dbharris at eelf.ddts.net Wed Mar 31 19:42:17 2004 From: dbharris at eelf.ddts.net (David B Harris) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 19:42:17 -0500 Subject: Question about ShareALike 1.0 In-Reply-To: <406B508A.10901@creativecommons.org> References: <20040326153001.68ef3ad8.dbharris@eelf.ddts.net> <406B3F43.5030300@creativecommons.org> <20040331180528.6160bd27.dbharris@eelf.ddts.net> <406B508A.10901@creativecommons.org> Message-ID: <20040331194217.79333cd3.dbharris@eelf.ddts.net> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 15:13:14 -0800 Mike Linksvayer wrote: > David B Harris wrote: > > Can you guys ask a lawyer, and if it's true, get it fixed for the next > > version? You're right that I can offer the appendix to the world under > > the SA if I hold the copyright, but that's only a last resort - I'd > > rather they hold it. Obviously there's no chance a new version will be > > released in time for me to use it, but it's probably something worth > > doing anyways. > > You still don't have a problem. Wiley can offer the appendix to the > world under SA, and as copyright owners they can still publish it an any > form they choose, collective work or not. Right. Still, for the "list of revisions", I think it's a good thing to ask. Assuming a lawyer agrees with the interpretation, it's ruling out at least some uses which I imagine most people releasing under the ShareAlike would be perfectly happy with (and, indeed, which the "human-readable" form of the license allows). ie: specifically releasing a collective work with exactly one ShareAlike-licensed part and exactly one other Work. -- Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After a while, you realise the pig is enjoying it. OpenPGP v4 key ID: 4096R/59DDCB9F Fingerprint: CC53 F124 35C0 7BC2 58FE 7A3C 157D DFD9 59DD CB9F Retreive from subkeys.pgp.net or risk key corruption