Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>]

so i take your point that "use" is broader than the copyright rights  
& drew's earlier point that we should call a "collective work" a  
collective work rather than describing it as a work used verbatim in  
another work...the reason for not itemising each copyright right &  
for not using the term collective work from the Copyright Act was to  
try to make it less legalese and more human-readable. this is similar  
to the approach with drafting the Commons Deed. to address these  
concerns, perhaps we can include footnotes that clarify these terms  
and also include a disclaimer with the guidelines similar to that  
which we include with the Commons Deed.

not sure i totally understand the client side remixing point. E.(1)(b) 
(i) is talking about requiring someone to pay to "use" (exercise a  
copyright right) a derivative work. if someone creates & performs a  
remix in the privacy of their own home (which probably involves the  
exercise of the right to copy & make adaptations but whether it  
constitutes an infringement of an "all rights reserved" work would  
depend on copyright exceptions; a private performance in their own  
home would not, however, trigger the public performance right) i  
don't quite know where the money is getting charged & thus, how it  
comes within the NC guidelines

but i maybe misunderstood the example....in which case, can you add  
some more details so i can better understand it....

On Mar 7, 2006, at 6:50 PM, Greg London wrote:

> > Having read the Proposed Non-Commercial Guidelines here
> >
> > https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/attachments/ 
> > 20060110/02d7a271/NonCommercialGuidelinesclean-0001.pdf
>
> I'm a little confused as to the wording of (E)(1)(b)(i):
>
> > As a condition of using a derivative work based on
> > an NC-licensed work, of which the original NC-licensed
> > work is the primary draw or a substantial amount,
> > either qualitatively or quantitatively, of that
> > derivative work, license violation – this is not a
> > noncommercial use.
>
>
> A derivative work based on an NC-licensed work could,
> concievably, be a derivative work created by a user
> performing "client side remixing" on an NC-licensed work
> in their home. I'm pretty sure that client side remixing
> is legal even with works licensed All Rights Reserved.
> (perhaps not, I could be wrong.) This bullet (E)(1)(b)(i)
> then makes the NC license sound more restrictive than
> All Rights Reserved.
>
> The problem, i think, is the word "use"
> in the phrase "using a derivative work". Copyright
> doesn't cover "use" and "use" is pretty damn broad.
>
> I think the word "use" needs to be changed to the
> rights associated with copyright: copy, distribute,
> create derivative works, probably specifically the
> word "distribute". But I'm just guessing at this point.
>
> Greg
>
>
> --
> Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP laws
> http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses