[cc-licenses] collection societies
peiffer.patrick at gmail.com
Mon Aug 27 08:57:43 EDT 2007
While it may seem only a little progress in the overall world of open
content, I am impressed by the pilot you managed to negotiate with
I agree with your remark on discussing this from any possible angle... The
critical discussion is between the different national CC's and their CS's. I
for one will come back to this thread when I have soomething to show off too
;-) ...which might be a looong while, as SACEM (Music CS, France, exists
also in a Luxembourgish Flavour) has shown little inclination to even start
discussing the issue.
Thanks for the translation of the "commercial use" definition you used to
build a bridge between CS and CC-NL.
On 27/08/07, Paul Keller <pk at kl.nl> wrote:
> On Aug 27, 2007, at 2:17 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
> [please also note that i am speaking on behalf of CC netherlands
> here. CC netherlands is not part of CC and this whole pilot project
> is the result of interactions between CC netherlands and Buma/Setmra.
> CC has not been part of the negotiations and is not part of the
> project. We have however consulted with CC at various times during
> the process]
> > Huh, clarifications as to what the author will consider to be
> > commercial uses
> > of his or her works? This makes no sense to me and doesn't seem
> > possible.
> > Up to now on these lists, everyone insists that it is the person
> > giving out
> > the license whose "meaning" would hold. (In a loose way.) Certainly
> > it is
> > claimed that it can't be CC's meaning. Now somehow CC and Buma/
> > Stemra have
> > worked out some way to determine what the author intends without
> > the authors
> > even being in the meeting? How is this possible?
> This is exactly what happens. if a buma stemra member wants to use
> one of the NC licenses they have to commit themselves to the
> clarification that is contained in the special conditions that cover
> the re-transfer of the rights to the member. This is to ensure 2
> things: (1) consistency of the meaning of commercial for the entire
> repertoire that is administered by B/S and (2) to assure that the
> scope of commercial use is compatible with the (automatic) collection
> mechanisms of B/S
> before the pilot B/S members could not use CC licenses whatsoever.
> Now they can use them as long as they agree to the clarification
> offered by Buma/Stemra. The clarification might not be ideal from our
> point of view (it is a compromise) but it definitely offers more
> opportunities than the situation before.
> for the record, here is the (in-official) english re-translation of
> the clarification in question:
> <start clarification>
> Within the scope of the pilot between Creative Commons Netherlands
> and Buma/Stemra, 'commercial use' should be taken to mean the following:
> Every use of the Work by for-profit institutions is qualified as
> 'commercial use'.
> In addition, within the scope of the pilot, distributing or publicly
> performing or making available online the Work against payment or
> other financial compensation (including the use of the work in
> combination with ads, publicity actions or other similar activities
> intended to generate income for the user or a third party) is
> qualified as 'commercial use'.
> Within the scope of the pilot, 'commercial use' also includes the
> distribution or public performance or having broadcasting
> organisations make the Work available online, as well as using the
> Work in hotel and catering establishments, work, sales and retail
> spaces.This also applies to organisations that use music in or in
> addition to the performance of their duties, such as, for example,
> churches, schools (including dancing schools), institutions for
> welfare work, etc. Separate licenses are available from Buma/Stemra
> for such kinds of use.
> </end clarification>
> i guess this will be a start of a long discussion here, which i am a
> bit hesitant about. this is because this is intended as a pilot
> project to see if this is workable and useful for members of Buma/
> Stemra who want to use the licenses. As far is i know there are no
> such people on this list and therefore i would rather not spend to
> much energy on discussing this before we have actually had feedback
> from our target group. So please do keep in mind that (1) no one (not
> even members of Buma/Stemra) is being forced to agree with this
> definitions (well Buma/Stemra members, should they want to use CC
> licenses have no other choice at the moment) and (2) this is only
> applicable in the context of this pilot project and is not intended
> to be a CC definition of what constitutes commercial use (neither in
> general, nor in the field of music).
> >>> "In order to make this possible Buma/Stemra will - upon request -
> >>> retransfer the rights needed for using a non-commercial CC licenses
> >>> to their members. This happens online (on their website) and is
> >>> stored in their internal processing and administration systems. the
> >>> whole process takes about 30 seconds per song." extract from press
> >>> release CC Netherlands.
> >>> If the collection societies are able to create a CC license with a
> >>> definition of what a commercial use is, what is the effect of this ?
> >> No collection society can create a CC licenses. This is not what is
> >> happening here and it is not our intention. What is happening here
> >> that Buma/Stemra and CC-Nl have looked to provide a clarification
> >> that makes the distinction between commercial and non-commercial use
> >> workable within the systems used by Collecting Societies.
> > This seems possible.
> >>> I reckon that creating a CC license that can adapt to anything is a
> >>> good idea. Yet this is something new to the way I see CC and is this
> >>> not a new form of licensing all together ?
> >>> Also:
> >>> I'm still relatively new to CC licensing, so maybe I have
> >>> misinterpreted the situation. My view at the moment is that very few
> >>> music artists (outside the US) have heard about CC, to create
> >>> something without a reasonable demand is not easy, yet I agree its
> >>> maybe possible.
> >>> thought:
> >>> From talkin with artists in Australia through http://
> >>> www.myspace.com/
> >>> optoutofAPRA it seems that the only income that very much more than
> >>> most "Self Published" artists are able to get is through "Live
> >>> Performance". also, some artists have said that they are upset that
> >>> non-profit clubs/venues/spaces end up having to pay for the use of
> >>> content. So question is.
> >>> If an artist performs works in a non-profit space, does that non-
> >>> profit venue still have to pay the collection societies for use of
> >>> that artists works ? that is if the artist has licenses that/those
> >>> works with a CC license.
> >> this very much depends on the circumstances. in most cases these
> >> places will have to pay if CC licensed repertoire of Buma/Stemra
> >> members is performed. This depends on a number of factors especially
> >> if a cover sis charged for the event, if there are other revenue
> >> generating activities in connection with the gig
> > These make sense.
> >> and if the concert
> >> does only consist of CC licensed material.
> > This does not make sense. This can also be seen as dangerous. Is CC
> > trying to
> > drive Free Music, including CC-BY and CC-BY-SA music out of the
> > marketplace?
> nope, this is not the case. the situation is that Collecting
> Societies tend to collect as soon as some of their repertoire is
> performed and do not care much if there is other repertoire performed
> as well (sometimes they give cheaper rates) if a venue/radio
> station/... plays exclusively CC-BY or CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-ND material
> they have no basis for collection and this has not changed with the
> pilot. the only thing that has changed that Buma/Stemra will now
> collect for commercial uses of CC-NC licensed repertoire from their
> own members
> best, paul
> >> I do not think that this issue will be easyly resolved by any
> >> arrangement between CS and CC. In this situation it might make more
> >> sense to simply not become a CS member in the first place (but then i
> >> do not really know enough about the concrete situation in Australia)
> > I think perhaps there is an opportunity for Free loving collection
> > societies
> > somewhere in this equation.
> >> best,
> >> paul (cc-netherlands)
> >> --
> >> paul keller | kennisland
> >> t +31205756720 | e: pk at kl.nl | www.kennisland.nl
> > all the best,
> > drew
> > --
> > (da idea man)
> > http://pc.celtx.com/profile/zotz
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> paul keller | knowledgeland
> t: +31205756720 | e: pk at kl.nl | www.knowledgeland.org
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-licenses