Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 23 November 2005 10:20 pm, wiki_tomos wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> >On Wednesday 23 November 2005 08:11 am, wiki_tomos wrote:
> >> drew Roberts wrote:
> >>
> >> First, it is almost always possible to distinguish a use based on
> >> a CC license from uses that are not. Look for license notice and other
> >> signs that is unique to CC license restrictions. If those requirements
> >> are met, it is a strong sign that it is based on a CC license. In drew's
> >> hypothetical case, it is pretty easy to tell if person B copied from
> >> his own work without permission, or followed the CC license.
> >
> >I don't follow this line of reasoning at all.
>
> I am sorry about this, but it is written badly. I meant "his own copy"
> when I wrote "his own work." Let me try again with a bit of context.
>
> The issue is if a work, once licensed under CC to a person (A),
> can be used by another person (B), who received no license from the author
> of the work. (Lets' say the work is a novel, and it is written soley by
> person X.) I suggested that would be possible with certain reading of
> the license. (It seems Daniel and Peter both think that that reading of
> the license text is inappropriate. And I agree it might be.)  More
> specifically, I suggested that the CC licenses are directed toward any
> member of public as licensee, not specifically limited to those who
> received the work with the license.

Right, so we have opinions, has anyone from CC and more specifically, the CC 
legal team given an opinion? Do we have official word from CC anywhere as to 
what they intended to mean?
>
> Another closely-related question is this: if person X handed his novel with
> the CC license only to person A, and the license is applicable to others,
> any member of the public, including person B, then how in general the
> author or others can tell if person B infringed upon the X's copyright?
> Can we distinguish a license-compliant copy of X's novel from an illegal
> copy of X's novel?

I am not interested right now in how, or even if, we can tell if person B 
infringed, only if they did so. They fact that a person can break the law in 
such a way that they cannot be found out does not mean that they have not 
broken the law.
>
> One way to do that is to look for license notice of the copy. If the
> copy is created following a CC license, it should bear a license notice.
> There are other license restrictions that CC-compliant users would follow,
> but not the illegal pirates, such as preserving reference to disclaimer
> warranties.

This is a thought to be chewed on.

>
> Relevant part of the license is 4.a.
> "You must keep intact all notices that refer to this License and to the
> disclaimer of warranties."
> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode )
>
> If person B does not have an access to the CC-licensed copy, he might have
> a hard time guessing where and how license notices are placed in the novel.
> (Or he might not, if the person X have published many novels with the same
> CC license, with consistent style of license notices, same set of warranty
> disclaimers, etc.)
>
> I hope this explanation is not confusing this time.

It has certainly been clearer, or perhaps I am just more clear headed this 
morning after a good night's sleep. I need to think about things more.
>
>
>
> Now, back to the broader issue, another reason that Peter and Daniel might
> be right in suggesting that license is tied to copies, not the work, is
> 8.a. of the license.

Or just that there is a different definition for work in the license than in 
the copyright law?
>
> 8.a.
> "Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform the Work or a
> Collective Work, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the
> Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under
> this License."
>
> (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/legalcode )
>
> I can come up with a few different reasons why this provision is
> in the license, but one is to clarify how a person becomes a licensee.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Tomos

To me, when I put my work out under a CC BY-SA license, I have no general 
objection to everyone in the wide wide world getting a copy. Now, if I happen 
to be selling copies, I may be trying to count on others not bothering to 
distribute widely so that I still have a market, but in my experience, if 
someone is trying to do this in a "harsh" way then it iwll not be long before 
the work is available elsewhere at not charge and the fact is widely 
advertised. I think it better / more realistic to sell copies so that those 
who want to support your efforts can easily do so.

So we have the Who.

More importantly to me is the What.

What exactly have I licensed. I think that this deserves a FAQ question and 
answer on the CC site even if it is not frequently asked. In my case, it was 
never asked because, in my my ignorance, I did not even know to ask. This 
thread has been very valuable to me becuase of this.

all the best,

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