Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Sunday 27 March 2005 09:35 am, Branko Collin wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2005, at 7:38, drew Roberts wrote:
> > Option one: No one, they are going to keep it.
> >
> > Option two: To the artists in heavy rotation in the country at the
> > time.
>
> Probably two.
>
> In the Netherlands, the collection agencies can be founded by anyone,
> (tip: there is no collection agency yet for collecting and
> distributing levies to authors and editors of wiki pages) but they
> need to be legal persons who report to the minister and whose
> regulations have to be approved by the minister. Articles 15 and 16
> of the Dutch copyright law specify which forms of copying are not
> infringement, and how authors get remunerated for these forms of
> copying: <http://www.ivir.nl/legislation/nl/copyrightact.html>.
>
> Interesting: "[remuneration does] not apply insofar as the person who
> is required to pay the remuneration can prove the existence of an
> agreement between herself and the author or his successor in title
> according to which payment of the remuneration shall be made directly
> to the latter." (Article 16.l.) Perhaps a public domain dedication
> could be seen as such an agreement.

That's an idea, perhaps they should ad the clause that any monies due for use 
on the work should be paid dfirectly to X where X is themselves or some other 
entity they name (charity, friend, child, whatever.)

Now, no monies would ever be due, but there would be more evidence of an 
agreement between the author and user reguarding direct payment.

Here is another question. Don't these monies become due when you take 
advantage of compulsary licenses? Since you would not need to use the 
compulsary licenses with PD and a lot of other CC type licenses, (although 
you would with the NC ones right?) wouldn't that remove them from the realm 
of royalties on compulsary licenses?

all the best,

drew

http://www.peercast.org/