[cc-licenses] Changes to attribution: your attention wanted

Kat Walsh kat at creativecommons.org
Thu Oct 4 20:22:39 EDT 2012


On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 5:25 AM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> On Saturday 29 September 2012 00:02:38 Kat Walsh wrote:
>> "You may satisfy the conditions [..] in any reasonable manner based on
>> the medium, means, and context":
>>
>> This is a new aspect, expecially "context". If there is a customary
>> form of attribution for the kind of use you are making of a work, you
>> should use it;
>
> Would this language ever permit non-attribution in a context where it is
> customary to skip attribution? For instance, a radio station where the DJ
> does not give artist details for every song played? For instance, a radio
> station where the song writers are almost never attributed but the recording
> artist is occasionally?

Removing attribution altogether wasn't something we had considered,
and I don't think the language supports it. The intention is to give
flexibility where conforming to a very particular requirement would
make attribution difficult, not to remove the requirement entirely,
which we are pretty negatively inclined toward.

(So, for an example--which is just initial consideration of the idea,
not official guidance!--I don't think it would be unreasonable to
require that the DJ give the usual credit to the recording artist
on-air and say that the rest of the information is on the radio
station website. It's not an unreasonable thing to ask, while reciting
two minutes' worth of artist names on the air might be.)

-Kat

-- 
Kat Walsh, Counsel
Creative Commons
IM/IRC/@/etc: mindspillage * phone: please email first
CC does not and cannot give legal advice. If you need legal advice,
please consult your attorney.


More information about the cc-licenses mailing list