Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Sunday 21 May 2006 10:40 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> >  On Friday 19 May 2006 04:03 pm, Rob Myers wrote:
> > > I do not, personally, think that Founders should be a module. It is
> > > a very elegant solution, but we just need one case of someone
> > > deciding they don't want their work to become BY after 5 years for
> > > this to be a PR (and ethical) disaster.
>
> Well, if it were a module, they would have to have selected it, so I don't
> see how that could be.  I can see that as an argument for not making
> this the default NC and ND behaviors -- but I knew I wasn't going to
> get that. ;-)
>
> > > Founders has already been used for FUD.
>
> I'm not familiar with that.  Do you have a reference?
>
> AFAICT, the Founder's license is pretty much unused.
>
> > > Possibly CC could work with a third party to do a time-release
> > > scheme, but I don't think CC should do it themselves, and I do not
> > > think time-release is a good idea. We need less uncertainty and
> > > conditions in copyright, not more.
>
> But actually, I find that's precisely why it's desireable.  The NC rift
> creates a burden on the community and on individual artists -- should
> they use it or not?  As it stands, they make a sacrifice either way.
>
> >  As with most things, there are tradeoffs. If someone were to use a
> >  time release with a short period to release date, I may consider
> >  thuse using NC or ND as still playing nice and give their works some
> >  attention and even some promotional efforts. As it is, I try to
> >  completely ignore such works. They have no value for me in reaching
> >  the goals I am shooting for. This has the effect of CC really being
> >  all of these seperage sand boxes that different people choose to play
> >  in which somehow doesn't jibe with my mental picture of a commons.
> >  Whatever.
>
> This succinctly describes the reason why I'd like to see an option like
> this promoted.  It provides a way for an artist to get the advantages
> they are most-likely looking for in the "NC" clause, but with the advantage
> that those of us who are interested in true free-licensed works wouldn't
> have to shun them.
>
> I might be willing to spend a little effort improving something that will
> definitely *become* free, even if I have to wait a bit to see that happen.
> CC-By-NC-SA is already "semi-free" -- I can do most things I would want
> with it.  But as things stand, what I *cannot* do with it is combine it
> with CC-By-SA work (nor can I distribute it like I would a CC-By-SA work).
> It's really very much like the "poisoned honey pot" problem -- a body of
> work which will kill my project if it's incorporated into it.  It's a
> hazard, and a
> drain of resources.
>
> If a time-release-based non-commercial clause became more popular,
> though, then the problem would go away -- "NC-3" work would be something
> I could collaborate with on the basis that in a few years, the work would
> fall from the "little commons" into the "big commons". The mere fact of
> that could make the work itself more popular.
>
> Meanwhile the artist has a proprietary period to make their money off
> of the work using NC-based business-models (e.g. like Magnatune).
>
> And ISTM that that is really needed: because on the one hand we have a
> license (CC-By-SA) which is ideal for community collaboration and
> distribution
> through free channels but which artists have great difficulty making any
> money from (you can't sell "service" on a song or a painting!), and on the
> other hand, we have a license (CC-By-NC-SA) which allows successful
> business models, but divides the commons, and blocks collaboration (which
> is, in the long run, the biggest win to be got from commons licensing).

I agree with a lot of what you have to say in this post, but I think it is 
too 
early to conclude that BY-SA does not allow for a successful business model 
while BY-NC-SA does. I would encourage every artist to run a BY-SA experiment 
with at least one of their better works. Release ti BY-SA, promote it like 
crazy as a BY-SA work and see what develops. ( If you do run such an 
experiment, please announce it in the copyleft group over at ourmedia.org )
>
> A time-release-based NC would give the artist "the best of both worlds",
> because they would be able to use their copyright monopoly to make money
> for a limited time, and yet still cooperate with the free-licensed art
> community.  But asking the artist (who's still just trying to get his head
> around the whole commons concept) to figure this out for himself and write
> an elaborate grant statement is too much.  CC needs to provide guideance
> to show that this really is a good plan.  And that's why I think it
> should be
> embodied in a module.

Putting a timed-release in a module would not have the same legal 
implications 
as the founders copyright. I say this because once a person had chosen such a 
module, CC would not be involved. It would at that point be an agreement 
between the artist and the public.

Here is another thought to further complicate matters...

While I am a big BY-SA fan, I might be willing to go the other direction as 
well. Put a module on my BY-SA works that would allow derivatives to be 
closed for 3 years at the discretion of the maker of the derivative. 
Something like that. (I doubt I would go for anything longer than 3 years on 
things based on my work though. This is an off the cuff remark and the first 
time I have thought of this. I may very well not like the idea after further 
thought or discussions, we shall see.)
>
> As a module, this one would be unique in that it would not "split" the
> commons, but would rather allow parts of it that are already split to be
> "fused" back together.

Combined with the reverse idea presented above, both camps would be 
compromising to work with the other. It might fly.
>
> 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