Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 06 April 2005 05:14 pm, Peter Brink wrote:
> drew Roberts skrev:
> > 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 point with the restriction on sublicenses is to make clear that only
> those parties who either publish original works or derivative works are
> allowed to issue a license.
>
> If Alice publishes a poem under a CC license and Bernie distributes
> copies of said poem on his website, then Claire -who downloads the poem
> from Bernie's website, and translates Alice's poem to French and later
> on publishes the translation (a derivative work) on her website - has no
> contractual obligations to Bernie. Claire's licensor is Alice. Bernie is
> not allowed to issue a sublicense for Alice's poem. If Bernie later
> publishes Claire's poem as well as Alice's he has two license
> agreements, one with Alice and one with Claire. The reason why: Claire
> has published a derivative work.

Fine, but in issueing the license on the translation, is Claire sublicensing 
Alice's work? How does this issue play in countries that use the idea of 
derivatives and those that use the idea of adaptations? I think those are the 
terms someone tried to educate me on. I could see that in the adaptation 
countries, there would be no sublicensing going on (I think) but what about 
the derivative countries? (Or does the original license travel with the 
original parts where ever they travel?)
>
> > 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?
>
> A creator of a work may of course offer you to use his work under any
> terms he wishes, but then he may not use the name Creative Commons or
> use the CC logo.

Certainly, and further, if they do issue the work under the CC BY license, 
their attempts to add the further conditions may fail and the people getting 
the work may do so under the license without the extra conditions. Right?
>
> IMHO Royalty Free Music is adding a term to the license when they
> stipulate that the music "may not be resold as a part of a royalty-free
> music collection", and as long as they are the original copyright
> holders of the music the offer, they are free to do so - but then they
> may not use the CC logo or claim to be using a CC license.

Fine, and this is what I think. The whole thread got started as a result of 
my 
trying to be kind and send a heads up to the author informing him of the 
issues and that the fact that the license he issued the work under claims to 
be the whole agreement, may end up in his work "getting away from him" as it 
were.

I thought it was adding conditions, he though it was clarifying the 
conditions 
of the license and pointed me to the "may not sublicense" bit as if someone 
including the work in a "royalty-free music collection" would necessarily 
have to sublicense.

Is this clearer? I think we have been talking at cross purposes or having 
definition problems. I also thought that might be the case in my discussion 
with the author if the term "royalty-free music collection" has some special 
legal or industry meaning that some of us are not aware of.

So far, no one seems to know if such a special meaning exists. And no one has 
stated definitavely that such a meaning does not exist.

all the best,

drew