Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Mitch,

I'm not sure what you want to do here.

If you want to allow anyone to use your work commercially
then the attribution-only license is fine.
This would allow folks to use the work verbatim commercially
or to create derived works and use them commercially.

The attribution license is CC-BY

Basically, it allows other people to do just about anything
with the work, but they have to give you credit as an athor.
This requirement sticks to the original and all derivations
of the work.

Everything else is pretty much allowed. Commercial use,
creating derivatives, etc.

Is that what you're looking for?

===

The sampling licenses are slightly more restricitve than
the CC-By license. Sampling allows commercial use of
derived/sampled/montage versions of teh original. (except
for advertising)

Plain sampling does not allow the original to be distributed
at all.

Sampling-plus allows the original to be distributed non-commercially.

So, sampling is more restrictive than attribution-only.

===

The non-commercial does not allow any commercial use,
copying, distributing, or derivatives. whole original or in part.
no exceptions.

===

If you want poeple to copy, distribute, and create derivatives
of your work for commercial and non-commercial purposes but give
you credit as the author, then use attribution.

if you want some commercial restrictions, then you might look
at one of the sampling variants.

If you don't want any commercial use at all, then you want CC-noncommercial.

===

So, Mitch, the spectrum of licenses from most Public Domain like
to the most restrictive would be something like:

PublicDomain
Attribution
Sampling-Plus
Sampling
NonCommercial
All Rights Reserved

Do any of those fit what you wanted to do?

===

Oh, and just so Evan gets his vocabulary lesson for the day,
CC-BY and Sampling-Plus are gift economy licenses.
Sampling and NonCommercial are market economy licenses.

Gift economy licenses are less restrictive and give poeple more rights.
Market economy licenses are more restrictive and allows the author
to give some rights to people but withold more rights to themselves.

Greg



Sigmascape1 AT cs.com said:
> Hi,
>
> My issue is primarily that I don't want to restrict someone from making
> commercial use of the material. I have been looking at the Sampling 1.0
> License as alternative. This license seems to provide quite a bit of
> protection from rampant commercial re-distribution. Of course, this license 
> is
> also the least attractive in terms of using it for P2P uploads.
>
> Another question. Are there plans in the works to create new, more varied CC
> licenses? By varied, I mean ways to dictate content usage. In reality, I am
> kind of looking for a license that Corbis might use but much more liberal in
> terms of the ways one might use the content.
>
> Corbis example: http://pro.corbis.com/creative/terms/
>
> Thank you very much for the responses. You guys are great!
>
> Mitch
>
>>From: nono2sco <nono2sco AT yahoo.com>
>>Subject: Re: Creative Commons Attribution License Question
>>To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
>>    <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
>>Message-ID: <20050215054154.91673.qmail AT web53008.mail.yahoo.com>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>>Hi Mitch,
>>
>>If you are worried about possible commercial use could
>>you not use the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
>>2.0?
>>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/
>>
>>Which in terms of commercial use says...
>>
>>"4c You may not exercise any of the rights granted to
>>You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily
>>intended for or directed toward commercial advantage
>>or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the
>>Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital
>>file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to
>>be intended for or directed toward commercial
>>advantage or private monetary compensation, provided
>>there is no payment of any monetary compensation in
>>connection with the exchange of copyrighted works."
>>
>>If I understand it correctly it would prohbit
>>downstram commercial use, but still allow you to
>>republish your work at some point for commercial use
>>should you chose to.
>>
>>Otherwise I believe the commercial versions of the CCL
>>would allow someone to do basically the inverse of the
>>above and distribute your work, with attribution and
>>CCL notice for commercial advantage.
>>
>>nono
>>
>>p.s. If it hits the p2p networks I would not assume
>>that everyone will respect the license, but at least
>>you have some recourse if they do not.
>>
>>  
>>--- Sigmascape1 AT cs.com wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Just need some fundamental clarification of the
>>> Creative Commons Attribution License. Let's say
>>> upload some photos that are covered under this
>>> license to the various P2P networks. If someone,
>>> anyone, downloads these files, can they legally
>>> resell these photos as is? Or is the 'commercial
>>> use' of the license just in terms of someone making
>>> a derivative work for commercial purposes?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Mitch
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
>


-- 
Hungry for a good read? Crave science fiction?
Get a taste of "Hunger Pangs" by Greg London.
http://www.greglondon.com/hunger/