Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Tuesday 23 May 2006 12:32 am, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> Pearl Jam is a rock band which has recently released a video under a CC
> license (by-nc-nd version 2.5).
>
> The video is on Google Video
> (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6187666924357770983) and currently
> carries the text:
>
> "Free until 5/24/2006."
>
> Nowhere in the text on Google does it specify what will happen on May 24,
> 2006.  I think it's reasonable to assume that the video will not enter the
> Public Domain.  Yet the license they've chosen says:
>
> "3. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License,
> Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
> perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to
> exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:"
>
> followed by the reproduction and distribution rights.
>
> If the license is "perpetual (for the duration of the applicable
> copyright)" what will happen on May 24, 2006?

This I think can actually be quite simple. After May 14, 2006, you will not 
longer be able to get it for free from the same source. If you can find 
someplace else to get it from, that is fine, but the gratis distribution by 
Pearl Jam and Google is going to end.
>
> Furthermore, section 8d of the applicable CC license says that:
>
> "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with
> respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements
> or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor
> shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any
> communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual
> written agreement of the Licensor and You."
>
> So, by my reading, Pearl Jam's attempt to place a new restriction on the
> license is meaningless.

If my above guess is correct, they are not trying to place new restrictions, 
just telling you to get it from them while you can.
>
> At first blush, it appears that either something is really wrong with Pearl
> Jam's licensing here, or I'm horribly misreading something.  I don't think
> Pearl Jam realizes that they are licensing something to us all under terms
> that will not expire on May 24, 2006 (unless they choose to place the work
> into the Public Domain), contrary to their wishes.
>
> Any idea what's really going on here?

You have my guess. Does it make sense to you?

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