Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Proposed Non-Commercial Guidelines

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Proposed Non-Commercial Guidelines
  • Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 12:16:04 -0800

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page