Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>]

Evan Prodromou said:
>>>>>> "GL" == Greg London <email AT greglondon.com> writes:
>
>     GL> Alice creates a song, licenses it CC-NC, and forgoes any
>     GL> attribution requirements. Bob mixes Alice's song into his own
>     GL> song, license his song CC-NC, and wants attribution.
>
> ITYM he licenses it by-nc, at that point. Or perhaps that's not what
> you mean. Do you really mean that he licenses it nc 1.0, and simply
> _requests_ attribution?

I meant BY-NC, I guess, but I figured that that since "BY" is now in
all the 2.0 licenses, you don't have to list it in the acronym,
alphabet soup, list.

>     GL> Charlie puts Bob's song in his CC-NC movie short.
>
> It's unclear to me whether Charlie can release a movie short under
> just nc if Bob put his stuff under by-nc. I'm guessing the question is
> whether Charlie's movie is a single derivative work or a collective
> work (I think probably the second). But that's another kettle of fish,
> and I figure you probably meant that Charlie would license under by-nc
> also.

Yes, he'd have to retain Bob's attribution requirement.
BY-NC or NC with the rolled in BY clause or whatever its called.

>     GL> after all the credits roll, you see a screen dump of all the
>     GL> copyright notices, including one for Alice.
>
> Why does Charlie have Alice's copyright notice in there? nc 1.0
> doesn't require the copyright notice to be shown.
> Or not. AFAICT, he doesn't have to include it anywhere.

well, for 2.0, it doesn't sound like an option:
"You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work "
there is no conditional clause that excuses you from this requirement.

Unless "for the work" means IN the work, in which case
you probably won't ahve a copyright notice IN a MP3.
It would more likely be on the website FOR the MP3.

It says you must "give the Original Author credit"
"by conveying the name... if supplied;
the title if supplied; ... the URL, if any,"

so 2.0 sounds like copyright notices must ripple up,
and there doesnt seem to be an exception to the rule.
Attribution is only required if supplied.

But the "if supplied" part seems like it would be
cumbersome to NOT supply at least SOME information.