Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 18 May 2006 10:34 am, Terry Hancock wrote:
> Mia Garlick wrote:
> > Attached is an outline for why and how CC proposes to version to  3.0.
> > [...]
>
> I haven't heard any explanation of why the "Founder's Copyright" isn't
> simply designed as an extra module.
>
> For example, I think a darned near ideal license for art might be one that
> converts from CC-By-NC-SA to CC-By-SA (or even CC-By) after the proprietary
> period expires. This would make it much easier to use the license-delay
> strategy, which is a popular business model for free-software that may
> be more applicable to art than most.  It would also alleviate the perpetual
> copyright lock-down that is the real reason many people are so
> uncomfortable with the NC licenses.  I think most people would be
> comfortable with 1 to 7 years of "non-free" followed by "free" licensing. 
> Then many things currently
> in the NC regime might migrate into the commons after all.
>
> Right now it's possible to do this with a well-chosen license grant
> statement
> (e.g. just like how the GPL handles the "license update" clause, but not
> how the CC licenses do).
>
> In fact, I'd actually like to see this become the default for NC 3.0
> licensing
> (though I suppose that could get sticky with the NC 2.5 upgrade clause). In
> any case, it would be good to encourage it as best-practice in some way.
>
> But anyway, back to Founder's as a module: what if it was designed to
> affect any "non-free" elements of CC licenses whenever it was applied?  If
> we call this module "F7", then we'd have:
>
> CC-By-NC-SA-F7 --> CC-By-SA  (7 years after publication)
> CC-By-NC-ND-F7 --> CC-By
> CC-By-NC-F7 --> CC-By

This idea could have some legs. I have asked about timed and event release 
licenses in the past with no feedback. (iirc) I think I might be interested 
in a total revenue release model as well as a time release model.
>
> Any of that content could, e.g. be admitted into Debian or be "remixed"
> with free content -- just as soon as its 7 years were up.  During those 7
> years, though
> the artist would get both the conventional copyright monopoly advantage AND
> they'd be able to cash in on the goodwill of the free-licensing
> community (at least
> I think they would).
>
> This strikes me as a useful compromise. It gives people who are attached to
> the NC model because they want to sell their work, and those who are
> attached
> to the free-licensing distribution system a way to work together, mostly
> getting
> what they each want.
>
> I also think it'd be cool if there were F1, F3, and maybe F14 modules,
> which did exactly the same thing, but with one, three, and fourteen year
> proprietary
> periods (for example, if I were using it for a magazine article, I'd
> want the F1
> terms, but for a novel, I might want the F14 terms).  On the short side,
> these
> are close to the proprietary blackouts some publications insist on, while
> on the long side, they resembled older versions of copyright law (which I
> know is
> where the term "Founder's Copyright" comes from, of course).
>
> I think the present situation, with Founder's Copyright metaphorically
> "parked in a corner" on the CC website is the reason not many people are
> using it.  As a module, I think it could become a big success at bridging
> the "NC-rift" in the CC community.

You ave knocked two out of the park this morning in my books.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145