[cc-community] Intellectual Highway Department

Terry Hancock hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Wed May 31 06:02:52 EDT 2006


Greg London wrote:
>  I suppose if you have a project that has few contributers to begin
>  with, that doesn't chunk well, is generally made by individuals doing
>  a lot of Cathedral work and then submitting it, then the Sunset
>  license model fits the project terrain. But I wouldnt be convinced
>  that the thing would go exothermic and become self-sustaining.

This only needs to be true at the beginning, and in my experience,
it often is (many big projects need a huge investment at the beginning,
before they can shift to a 'bazaar' production mode).

Let me clarify what I was proposing, especially since I made references
to other methods.

The "Sunset" I propose would cause a work to becom CC-By-SA (or
CC-By) after the sunset.  At that point, derivative works would have
to be released under the CC-By-SA (technically this isn't *quite* true,
because you could still use the CC-By-NC-SA license that you originally
received, but it will become so the minute anyone adds anything to
it under the CC-By-SA).

I'm uncertain whether, in fact, the sunset itself should be "shared alike"
so that contributions under the original NC license would automatically
have the sunset applied, nor whether the Sunset should be absolutely
indexed to the time of publication of the original work, or to the time
of the contribution.  Those details would be pretty important, and ought
to be worked out (yet another reason why it *ought* to be a license
module, and not up to the artist to figure out).

I also imagine more of a "feeder" use-case -- the works to which
a sunset NC work would be contributed would generally be either
"collective" or "transformative" works. It's not so much that a song
would go from NC marketing to SA collaboration *on the song*, but
rather that the NC marketed work would become material to be used
in collaboration on larger collections of music, or in games, movies,
or other works in which music is only a part of the work.

In fact, if there were any legal way to do it, I might've imagined trying
to make an alternative to NC that would allow "collective" or
"transformative" works to be used freely (including commercially), but
not for the work to be used whole and as itself. Unfortunately, this
would make for an even stickier definition, and there are certain
cases artists would likely object to (e.g. song gets used as an advertising
'jingle').

Of course, the artist could explicitly agree to those kinds of uses,
but the whole point of a free commons is that innovation is spurred
by eliminateing those kinds of "transactional costs" (and affiliated
risks).


-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com




More information about the cc-community mailing list