[cc-licenses] SoundExchange, 2.5 and 3.0 licenses
lizb at wfmu.org
Tue Aug 7 12:44:46 EDT 2007
Thanks for clearing this up, Paul. I didn't realize that the links I was
following from the license explanation page all lead to the unported
versions. I found a link to the 2.5 U.S. license from another site, and
was thus confused by the differences. This helps immensely!
> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 18:15:45 +0200
> From: Paul Keller <pk at kl.nl>
> Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] SoundExchange, 2.5 and 3.0 licenses
> To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
> <cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <9EB8792F-27A1-4DCA-84B9-39EA72A4E92A at kl.nl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
> Dear Liz,
> i think you are making a mistake here. you are comparing the generic
> 2.5 licenses with the unported 3.0 licenses. The generic licenses
> where essentially US licenses based on US copyright law. The unported
> 3.0 licenses are intended for jurisdictions that do not have a ported
> version of the CC licenses. As of 3.0 there is a US version of the CC
> licenses and these licenses do contain the same provisions regarding
> mechanical and performance royalties as the generic 2.5 licenses.
> have a look at:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/legalcode and
> (note that the provisions are different for NC and non-NC licenses).
> The term non-waivable coplulsory licensing schemes has been
> introduced to deal with things like levies on blank media that are
> collected in many European jurisdictions to reimburse authors for
> private copying of their works. these shcemes are non-waivable, which
> means regardless if you are using blank media for cc (non-NC)
> licensed music, music that is under all rights reserved or even
> public domain material people have to pay this fee when they purchase
> blank media and the collected money will be distributed among artists
> via collecting societies. as there is no way to get around these
> levies it was decided to make it clear in the authors of cc-licensed
> works do reserve this right. hope this helps
> all the best from amsterdam,
> p.s i think that CC needs to be more upfront about the new US CC
> licenses. as far as i can tell these are not really widely know
> On Aug 3, 2007, at 5:33 PM, Liz Berg wrote:
>> For clarity, it seems as though the CC 2.5 licenses (by-nc and by-
>> address the issue of performance and mechanical royalties in more
>> terms than the equivalent 3.0 licenses.
>>> From what I gather, an artist who uses a CC 2.5 by-nc license cannot
>> collect royalties from a performance rights society, music rights
>> or SoundExchange unless their work was used for a commercial
>> purpose. But
>> please correct me if I'm wrong about that.
>> The 3.0 license, on the other hand appears to be more vague about this
>> issue, breaking it down under more general terms: non-waivable and
>> waivable compulsory license schemes, plus voluntary license
>> schemes. In
>> this 3.0 license, it appears as though there is one case where an
>> may still collect royalties on a non-commercial use of their work:
>> if they
>> are bound by a non-waivable compulsory license scheme.
>> What are some examples of a non-waivable compulsory license scheme?
>> where do SoundExchange, performance rights organizations, and music
>> agencies fall under these 3.0 classifications?
>> If I set up a non-commercial web stream that exclusively plays CC 3.0
>> music, will I owe royalties to SoundExchange? How about if that stream
>> exclusively plays CC 2.5 music?
>> Any help or insight would be much appreciated, thanks!
>> cc-licenses mailing list
>> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
> paul keller | knowledgeland
> t: +31205756720 | e: pk at kl.nl | www.knowledgeland.org
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
> End of cc-licenses Digest, Vol 53, Issue 3
More information about the cc-licenses