Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-sampling - RE: [cc-sampling] Nation of Copiers, or, what to name the license?

cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of the Creative Commons Sampling license (or license option)

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Chris Grigg <chris AT grigg.org>
  • To: cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: RE: [cc-sampling] Nation of Copiers, or, what to name the license?
  • Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:17:58 -0700

1. After some offline correspondence with Cory, I'm no longer in favor of 'creative derivative.' (I know, alert the media...)

2. See my previous comments on the problems with 'sampling,' which I don't feel have been answered convincingly as yet.

3. I am persuaded that the name should work well in the CC context, and agree that redundancy should be avoided. Therefore in naming it would be sensible to concentrate on whatever is unique about this license, compared to the others. Can I ask people to post some analysis here on what exactly is different between the sampling license and, say, a CC license with the parameters {derivative work OK, attribution required, commercial use OK} or {derivative work OK, attribution required}? Or whatever other ones would be more directly on-point. (I suspect the answer will look a lot like the Supreme Court 2 Live Crew fair use parody criteria: Fragmentary re-use, which is either materially transformed and/or has the original meaning changed by recontextualization.) A good name would both crystallize the essence of this distinction to the other CC licenses, and be meaningful to most fairly ordinary basically informed folks without needing explanation.

4. Do we not care about compositions? I notice that the CC build-your-license page only talks about media formats, like 'audio', and so appears not to consider other copyright-protected forms of expression, like songs. If we don't care about songs, that would certainly simplify things... but seems like a mistake in the case of a music recording where both the sound recording and the composition are present and enjoy copyright protection, but may have different rightsholders with different ideas about allowing the CC license...

5. Can someone please add a reply-to header for this list? List-Post is not recognized by my client (Eudora for Mac OS). Makes me go 'grrr!' every time I post.

-- C

At 1.55p -0700 2003.09.15, Kirkman, Catherine wrote:
As a lawyer, my expertise isn't in branding, but I would say I lean towards "sampling license" because (1) it is easily understandable for people, so they are less likely to misinterpret and think the license is for full derivative rights, etc. and (2) the linchpin of the license is that it permits re-creativity and transformation provided that sampling, collage, mash-up or other comparable artistic techniques are employed.
On the other hand, if we want to adopt new terminology (due to the inherent limitations of the term "sampling") then either re-create or transformation would do it. My only concern is that people could interpret this as a broader "derivative right" license if they don't look closely enough.
For this reason I also like "creative re-use" or "artistic re-use", as to me these are suggestive of sampling and the other artistic techniques that are contemplated.

Cathy
-----Original Message-----
From: cc-sampling-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:cc-sampling-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of Glenn Otis
Brown
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 1:06 PM
To: Sarah Brown; cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [cc-sampling] Nation of Copiers, or, what to name the
license?


for what it's worth.

my current favorites:

sampling license,
re-create license,

and

transform / transformation license (which someone at work came up with
today).

i think that "derivative license" is out, for the reasons cory and lisa
have listed.

i agree with sarah on the many connotations "cut and paste."

glenn


On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:48:36 -0400, "Sarah Brown"
<sbrown AT old.law.columbia.edu> said:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 11:51:53AM -0700, Cory Doctorow wrote:
> > cut-and-paste license works for me, too
>
> It's short-and-sweet but I fear it has slight negative connotations.
>
> It's quite possible I'm entirely warped from immersion in the culture
of Washington DC. I imagine the demographics of a free association
word game breaking down something like this:
>
California
New York
Massachusetts
Illinois
Olympia, Washington ->

"cut and paste"

"legitimate artmaking"


Washington DC ->

"cut and paste"

"dirty free-loading copying pirates without a creative bone in their bodies"


Cyberspace ->

"cut and paste"

"ctrl-x, ctrl-v"


The Rest of America ->

"cut and paste"

"kindergarten art project"



> On Monday, September 15, 2003, at 11:18 AM, Sarah Brown wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 08:48:18AM -0700, mark / negativland wrote:
> >> The NY times had a lot of stories the other day about file
> >>sharing and
> >> copying......here's a good one about the shifting media/cultural
> >>sea our
> >> new license will be swimming in.......
> >> mark
> >> September 14, 2003
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/fashion/14COPY.html
> >> Beyond File-Sharing, a Nation of Copiers
> >> By JOHN LELAND
> >
> >> "Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life.") But together they
> >>suggest a
> >> broad relationship between new technology and a value system that
> >>seems
> >> shaped to it. In a nation that flaunts its capacities to produce
> >>and
> >> consume, much of the culture's heat now lies with the ability to
> >>cut,
> >> paste, clip, sample, quote, recycle, customize and recirculate. It
> >>is
> >
> >Re: the name of the sampling licence. I'm very fond of:
> >
> >The "cut, paste, clip, sample, quote, recycle, customize and
> >recirculate" Licence.
> >
> >Or,
> >
> >The Give and Take Licence for Use in Sampling and Collage.
> >
> >But my best guess is that either of these names, or any other name we
> >chose, would inevitably get reduced to
> >
> >"The Sampling Licence",
> >
> >which would be perfectly adequate.
> >
> >
> >so that's my vote,
> >
> >Sarah
> ><mime-attachment>_______________________________________________
> >cc-sampling mailing list
> >cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-sampling mailing list
> cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling
---------------------
Glenn Otis Brown
Executive Director
Creative Commons
glenn AT creativecommons.org
+1.650.723.7572 (telephone)
+1.415.336.1433 (mobile)
_______________________________________________
cc-sampling mailing list
cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling



This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.


_______________________________________________
cc-sampling mailing list
cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page