Development of Creative Commons licenses

[wiki_tomos <wiki_tomos AT inter7.jp>]

Hi. I thought I would share my take on things, though I am not a 
lawyer, nor does my opinion represent any organization's view. 


1) Sublicense:

When A releases a song under CC-by and B burns it on CD and distribute it, 
B is a licensee, and A is a licensor. Another person, who obtains the CD 
from B, is also a potential licensee. Who is the licensor in this case for 
C? It is A. That means the sublicensing does not happen, but licensing from 
the original licensor (A) happens to B, C, and any other subsequent 
licensee. The first licensee, B, cannot become a licensor to C. This is 
the same as, as I understand, that licensee cannot sublicense the work. 

Relevant clause regarding this licensing scheme is 8a & 8b where it is 
stated the original licensor always gives license to others, implying 
none of the licensees gives license. 

2) Royalty free:

I can speculate that "royalty free" could mean in certain context "public 
domain" or the likes of it, so that the users of the music (say, a 
filmmaker or an instructor at a dance studio) can use songs without any 
attribution, as if they are their own works. IF this is the case, 
that would certainly be in conflict with the CC-by license. 

But a casual search via Google led me to this page about license terms of 
a royalty-free music seller. It does not seem to be even close to public 
domain. 

IF "royalty free" means what it literally seems to mean, that users 
do not have to pay any compensation to the rightholders, then it would be 
possible to include CC-by songs, along with other songs, in a CD and 
offer it as "royalty free" CD. Of course, the CC-by'd songs have to be 
presented in certain ways to comply with the CC-by's terms. But it would be 
possible.

Those are just two of speculations I could imagine, and although I can go on 
more, the fact remains that I have very little idea what royalty free could 
mean in the context. 

So I would say that, in any case, I think it would be nice if there is some 
more explanation/ clarification of what can be done and what cannot be done 
on the web site. 


Best, 

Tomos




----- Original Message -----
From: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts 
<cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 14:58:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Question: What does sublicense mean?



>On Wednesday 06 April 2005 10:22 am, Peter Brink wrote:
>> drew Roberts skrev:
>> > "


>> > If I release a work CC BY, the people who get the work and the rights
>> > from me cannot give the work to others with those same rights? That makes
>> > no sense.
>>
>> They cannot both distribute a work under a) the same license *and* b)
>> sublicense the work under different terms.
>
>Who said under different terms? Did you look at the link? Do you know that 
>the 
>restriction mentioned must refer to different terms? If so, please clear 
>that 
>point up for the rest of us if you can.


>The site in question says you can't include a CC BY work in a "royalty-free 
>music collection" ("This music may not be resold as part of a royalty-free 
>music collection.")
>
>Couldn't a collection on CD of CC BY and BY-SA songs be considered a 
>"royalty-free music collection?" You could make free use of them so long as 
>you abided by the BY and BY-SA conditions could you not? Or does 
>"royalty-free music collection" have some special legal or industry meaning 
>that some of us are not aware of?
>
>all the best,
>
>drew