[cc-licenses] New Generic and ports

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Tue Oct 10 21:51:56 EDT 2006

On Tuesday 10 October 2006 07:40 pm, Jonathon Blake wrote:
> Drew wrote:
> > > OTOH, protecting revenue sources is important.
> >
> > You will need to explain this further for my mind to understand it in the
> > simple state it is in today.
> The main source of revenue for a non-profit is donations from its
> supporters.
> When the donor, or potential doner see "CC-BY-SA" their question is
> "Why does this non-profit organization allow other organizations to
> make money, at their (the non-profit's) expense?"  And then the
> potential donor looks for an an organization that either uses CC-NC,
> or ARR.

This does not have to continue is my point.
> > > With a BY-SA licence, the non-profit is "obviously" disregarding their
> > > revenue sources.
> >
> > This I do not agree with. I have ideas as to how to generate income from
> > my BY-SA licensed work.
> Go back to how non-profits may, and may not generate revenue.
> Donations are the primary way that non-profits generate income.
> Commercial transactions are an absolute no-no, if they want to retain
> 501 (c) (3) status.
> [This is why "gift shops" in libraries, etc are run by an organization
> other than the library.]
> There are a plethora of models to use, for revenue generation using a
> BY-SA licence.
> The overwhelming --- perhaps all -- are not viable options for a
> non-profit.

Donations can work in this area. As a matter of fact, the people doing the 
donating might be able to profit from the works so as to donate more. (I 
don't know if US laws would allow this.)
> > > > > [This gets back to the dual licence: "All Rights
> > > > > Reserved" for the hard copy, and "NC" for the e-text.]
> > > >
> > > > Which isn't gonna work in CC land it seems.
> > >
> > > For NC that _might_ be the case.
> >
> > Not if the work gets the license and not the form. People could take the
> > electronic copy down to the copy shop and have it printed. Perhaps even
> > lulu could do it for them with the right parameters.
> You can print it out ($0.02 per page on lulu.com, $0.10 per page on
> your home printer).
> Or you can simply order the hardcopy from the organization.  The
> majority will simply order the hard copy, rather than print it out
> themselves.

And why would they be forbidden from doing this if the book had a BY-Sa 
> > > People do not pay attention to the licence, when they look at
> > > material.  It is only when they want to use it elsewhere, that the
> >
> > Too general a statement, I am a "people" and I pay attention to the
> > licenses that works come with.
> Do you decide which books to read, based upon the licence it comes with?
> Do you decide which books to study, based upon the licence it uses?
> Or do you look at the book, asses its quality, then look at the licence?

I am starting to actively search out works that have licenses that I deem 
beneficial to my long term future, yes.
> I'll grant I am making a generalization here, but until a decade ago,
> the only choice people ahd was ARR & PD. Until the quantity of
> material in CC-land is roughly equal to that in ARR-land, the licence
> that a text uses, won't play a role in deciding which text to look at
> first.

Perhaps for most, but not for all, of us.
> > > Back in 2000 I gave a talk trying to persuade an organization to
> > > release its code of ethics, rules of conduct, and "best practices
> > > documents" under the then GNU-FDL.  It was unanimously rejected,
> > > because the organization members thought that the copyright owner
> > > could hijack the material, preventing further distribution. That
> > > organization is still convinced that the GNU-FDL, CC licences, and
> > > similar licences allow the copyright owner to hijack the material,
> > > preventing them from distributing it.
> >
> > When you say copyright owner here, your usage is not clear. From the
> > context I would guess you mean the entity that owns the copyright on the
> > license itself and not the entity that owns the copyright on the work
> > which is released under the said license.
> Their fear was that the individual who created the document (call it
> "Best Practices") would copyright it (which is automatic under US
> Law), distribute it with a GNU-FDL / CC or simialr licence.  Later,
> the author of "Best Practices" would say: "I declare this licence null
> and void.  Anybody who distributes this work has to pay me a royalty."
>  If the organization continued to distribute the GNU-FDL /CC material,
> the organization would be sued for copyright violations.

So the fear was that the license would be able to be revoked even though it 
claimed otherwise?
> Does that make more sense?
> [ I know that the licence mitigates against that lawsuit.  You know
> that.  But that group couldn't accept that the copyright owner could
> not do that, once the material was released under the licence.]
> > Even PD doesn not mean no revenue. You can go down to the bookstore and
> > buy books written thousands of years ago. Public domain books. There is
> > still revenue in public domain works.
> There is no royalty stream from PD.  There is a royalty stream from ARR.
> There is a royalty stream from their handcrafted licence that few
> understand.

See, you are back and forth with this royalty stream versus donations. Which 
is it?
> With dual licence (ARR & CC-NC), there is a theoretical royalty stream.
> BTW, just because a book was written in 100 CE, doesn't mean that the
> copy you bought at Amazon is public domain. [The Received Version of
> the YiJing is in the Public domain.  The version from MaWangDui is
> under copyright.]

I do know this. But is an important point as I imagine that some don't. 
However, I think that perhaps sometimes copyright is claimed when I doubt it 
should exist.
> > Sure, but we don't have to give in to that inconsistency without at least
> > a verbal challenge to clearer thinking if we feel like making one.
> This is part of their learning process.
> > NC or ND indicates that there is a problem for people to re-use the
> > covered text.
> With ND you can make a buck, but not fix the typos.
> With NC, you can fix the typos, but not make a buck.
> > There aren't enough works out there in the pool (in the wild) for us to
> > know what will happen yet. I personally have stuff in my files which is
> > not likely
> Compare that:
> > one reason where I only want to read / listen to /watch / etc. Free Works
> To that?
> Is there enough material with a CC/GNU-FDl/similar licence to ignore
> ARR material?

No there is certainly not enough. I am trying to do my bit to make more 
though. If we think this is useful, we have to start somewhere.

That said, I try and not promote ARR works or other non-Free works and I try 
to promote Free Works. People who are unwilling to make their works libre can 
pay for their promotion or get someone else to promote their works gratis.

Have you seen what these guys are trying to pull off?


I don't see why the same ideas can't be used to fund a BY-SA movie.
> > There is fanfic and filking, which I am not into, but these are further
> > re-uses of text and music.
> You can also include Doujinshi in that group.
> All three are the result of fans expanding upon the story.[They also
> are considered to be copyright violations.]

Sure, but to argue that CC BY-SA is not useful because people do not re-use 
text is not correct when there is a good chance that they don't re-use text 
because doing so is a copyright violation and they do not want the hassle. 
Let's work on giving them a lot of BY-Sa works and see what happens.
> ND prohibits them.  NC prevents the fan from selling their output.
> [Historically, fans have given away their output, not sold it ---
> though this might be for legal reasons.]
> > > Wikipedia --- which is argueably the most successful work done under a
> > > CC-style licence --- has produced nothing more than copyedits, and
> > > some translations, as derivatives.  And copied en masse on other
> > > sites, with nothing to indicate any "give back", by those sites.
> >
> > I don't follow this, it has also produced "Wikipedia" itself.
> Wikipedia produced Wikipedia.  The sites that mirror Wikipedia do not
> appear to have contributed anything to Wikipedia.

I just go to wikipedia. I have never to my knowledge seen a mirror. So, do you 
know if these mirrors are with wikipedia's explicit approval over and above 
their chosen license?
> > > With an ARR the reformulations are the things that every author dreams
> > > of, but are so rare as to be insignificant. Is there any data to
> > > suggest that those reformulations are more likely to occur under any
> > > CC licence?
> >
> > Can you restate this? I don't get what you are trying to say.
> Is an author more likely, or less likely to have their novel made into
> a TV mini-series if they use a CC licence, or is ARR?
> Is a director more likely, or less likely to have their documentary
> edited into a book, if they use a CC licence, or is ARR?
> Is a playright more likely to have their play produced on Broadway, if
> it has a CC licence, or is ARR?  [Ignore CC-NC varients here --- that
> licence prohibits plays from being produced.]

I am only going to consider BY-SA. Those who prefer the other variants can 
comment on the others.

Quality being equal, today I doubt it matters for an all original work. Most 
people wanting to do the adaptations today would negotiate the right to make 
an ARR adaptation as they would not want to release the work as BY-SA.

However, there may be more of a chance to have a BY-SA novel produced as a 
play than an ARR novel, quality being equal and once the theatre people 
figure things out.

This might be the case for a low-budget movie as well.
> xan
> jonathon

all the best,

(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
Join me and write a novel in 30 days! Dont delay!

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list