[cc-licenses] QUERY REPOST: Creative Commons protectionsinquestion?
Kevin Phillips (home)
tacet at qmpublishing.com
Fri Jun 1 17:31:12 EDT 2007
----- Original Message -----
From: "drew Roberts" <zotz at 100jamz.com>
To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts"
<cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] QUERY REPOST: Creative Commons
> On Friday 01 June 2007 02:42 pm, Kevin Phillips (home) wrote:
> > Hey S.
> > You're declaring you own the thing you're uploading ie. your music, and
> > granting them (Macjams.com or whoever) the right to use it in the
> > of their website. The basis under which you agree is as stated
> > PERPETUAL, IRREVOCABLE, ROYALTY-FREE, NON-EXCLUSIVE LICENSE TO USE,
> > PUBLISH, DISPLAY, PERFORM, AND DISTRIBUTE".
> Hmmmm, tricky, tricky.
> This plan of course breaks down for a remix culture right? Jack makes a
> and licenses it CC BY-NC. Jack puts his track up on ourmedia.org. Mary
> it and reworks it and re-records it and also used the CC BY-NC license.
> wants to put it up on Macjams.com where her other stuff is.
> Surely she has not right to give such a license to Macjams? And thus no
> to upload it to Macjams in the first place.
> Something like this must have happened to me already.
> I have some stuff up at the internet archive; CC BY-SA license. Someone
> uses Macjams found it, messed with it and made a song. He put it up on
> Macjams under a CC BY-SA license (version issues, but let's ignore that
> the moment.)
> Now, BY-SA should be enough for Macjams. If not though, surely he did not
have > the right to give them more?
A soon as I read your "remix culture" question the penny dropped for me too.
I've come across this before when wanting to post something from one website
to another, the "something" in question wasn't entirely my creation and the
2nd site didn't offer the license needed.
I suspect you are correct, that Macjams are asking for more rights than any
one [of many] attributee can grant. It would have to be agreed by all
concerned, I'm guessing.
> > As Terry pointed out, they need to do this to ensure they have the
> > flexibility to promote your music and still be able to make money. Some
> > the CC license options will undoubtedly stop them from doing so
> > (eg. any of the NC licenses).
> The desire to foster a remix culture is going to lead to some interesting
> issues in the years to come.
> I have begun to muse that copyright has been used as a powerful but blunt
> instrument for a long while. We do not have the refinement needed yet to
> for smooth sailing on these new waters.
Yes I agree, Drew. We've discovered recently, copyright has long stinging
tenticles. Just the idea of having a forced-copyright-cover is enough to
make the freedom fighers amongst us have vivid technicolor nightmares.
I suppose it's up to us to upturn the rocks, so maybe we should get in touch
with Macjams and Ourmedia and find out what they think of this issue?
Afterall, it could directly effect a great deal of the works they're
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the cc-licenses