Developer discussion for Creative Commons technology and tools

["Mike Linksvayer" <ml AT creativecommons.org>]

On 1/17/08, Jamison Young <jam AT iarts.cc> wrote:
> I wrote this article on Icommons back last year looking at licenses
> for artists and physical spaces. Is creative commons interested in
> creating this kind of contract for venues to use sometime in the
> future?  http://www.icommons.org/articles/contracts-for-artists-
> physical-spaces
>
> 1)-Contract that the artist signs to tell the venue that the artist
> is not with rights organization and shall perform only original
> content at the venue.
>
> 2)-Contract that the artist signs that allows the venue to use the
> recorded music of that artist in that venue free of charge. It would
> be up to the artist to let the venue know if in the future the artist
> joined a rights organization.

Those sound useful, along with other contracts recently discussed on
cc-community. Jon Phillips noted a place collecting such things,
http://www.ownterms.org/

> I posted this (bellow) on iCommons mail list already, then realized
> that this mail list is the place for it to go.

Actually cc-community is the right place.  cc-devel is for technology
development.  I cc'd cc-community and replies should go there.

> I wondered if any mock-ups might be created for non-profits/charities
> to integrate the CC+(+) license to their organization http://
> wiki.creativecommons.org/Ccplus ?

Yes, that's a great idea.

> I see that mock-ups have been made
> for some of the established sites.  Can the CC+ license be for Non-
> Profit/Charities also? in that i mean artists giving up (part of or
> all % return) commercial rights to a charity of choice? I also
> wondered if this license might potentially integrate into works
> registered with rights organizations outside the US or if this
> license could be adapted to do that? CC have myspace listed as
> potentially using this license. A lot of artists on myspace would be
> interested to give up commercial rights to a charity of choice at the
> click of a button within their profile. The license would have to be
> non-exclusive and not like a regular CC license. does that all make
> sense? you can check out the node at the link http://
> www.hungryartists.org

Yes, CC+ is just a thin architecture for specifying that other terms
are available.  An agent for handling the non-public license option
could conceivably do so in any fashion, so it is a matter of creating
such an agent or getting an existing one to implement the HAFHP
proposal.

> Also: Next month in Oslo i'm told that a project from the http://
> www.iarts.CC shall start being developed at the university. artist
> press kit.

Fantastic.

Mike