Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Tuesday 22 November 2005 09:36 pm, wiki_tomos wrote:
> Peter Brink wrote:
> >Daniel Carrera asks a few questions about the scope of a cc-license.
> >When a licensor licenses a work under a cc-license does that mean that
> >he licenses the work as cast into a particular physical form or does he
> >offer a license for all the possible physical forms the work that he has
> >and/or will create?
> >
> >This is an interesting question. IMO the license only applies to the
> >particular physical form of a work that has a cc-license attached to it.
> >My reason for this line of reasoning is that the license is
> >non-exclusive, meaning that the copyright holder retains the full
> >copyright of the work; he can create more copies of the work and create
> >derivative works based on the work.
>
> While I seems to think slightly differently regarding the WAV/mp3
> issue, I tend to agree that CC licensing mp3 and selling WAV would be
> okay. Licensing mp3 format of a recording on one website and selling it
> without CC license on another site, I tend to think, is okay, too.
>
> But I realized that I am not sure if the author retains full copyright.
> What do you think about this part (from CC-BY-SA 2.5)?
>
> 3.e.i.
> "Performance Royalties Under Blanket Licenses. Licensor waives the
> exclusive right to collect, whether individually or via a performance
> rights society (e.g. ASCAP, BMI, SESAC), royalties for the public
> performance or public digital performance (e.g. webcast) of the Work."

I seem to recall some discussion a while back that perhaps an author could 
not 
release their work under a CC license becuase of this as in some countries 
they would have already signed away these rights to a performance rights 
society.

Does anyone remember the outcome of the discussion if indeed my memory is 
correct?
>
> 3.e.ii.
> "Mechanical Rights and Statutory Royalties. Licensor waives the exclusive
> right to collect, whether individually or via a music rights society or
> designated agent (e.g. Harry Fox Agency), royalties for any phonorecord You
> create from the Work ("cover version") and distribute, subject to the
> compulsory license created by 17 USC Section 115 of the US Copyright Act
> (or the equivalent in other jurisdictions)."
>
> It seems that this is a declaration of waving of certain exclusive rights.
> Once this act of waving is done, by CC-ing a work, can you still collect
> performance royalties? I doubt. Is it legal to hide the fact that you
> waived your right to some of your bisuness partners? I don't know...
>
> When a song is publicly performed without proper license notice, and
> other requirements of the CCPL, can the author collect the royalty?
>
> Why isn't this part written differently so that the author would retain all
> the rights, but promise not to exercise the rights as long as the licensee
> follows the license terms?

That indeed, might be a better wording. It might also be worder that it is 
legal to request payment and that the performer must cite the license as 
grounds for not paying.

On a slightly different angle, I plan on selling and giving away certain 
identical works of mine, under the identical BY-SA license. I plan on selling 
them in one location, and giving them away in another. If people want a copy 
for no money, they can get one version, if they want to pay me, they can get 
it from the other. Just because you have a right to get my work from 
somewhere for free, should I be unable to request you pay me for it?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Tomos
all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22