Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Jonathon Blake" <jonathon.blake AT gmail.com>]

Drew wrote:

> > OTOH, protecting revenue sources is important.
> You will need to explain this further for my mind to understand it in the
> simple state it is in today.

The main source of revenue for a non-profit is donations from its supporters.

When the donor, or potential doner see "CC-BY-SA" their question is
"Why does this non-profit organization allow other organizations to
make money, at their (the non-profit's) expense?"  And then the
potential donor looks for an an organization that either uses CC-NC,
or ARR.

> > With a BY-SA licence, the non-profit is "obviously" disregarding their
> > revenue sources.
> This I do not agree with. I have ideas as to how to generate income from my
> BY-SA licensed work.

Go back to how non-profits may, and may not generate revenue.
Donations are the primary way that non-profits generate income.
Commercial transactions are an absolute no-no, if they want to retain
501 (c) (3) status.
[This is why "gift shops" in libraries, etc are run by an organization
other than the library.]

There are a plethora of models to use, for revenue generation using a
BY-SA licence.
The overwhelming --- perhaps all -- are not viable options for a non-profit.

> > > > [This gets back to the dual licence: "All Rights
> > > > Reserved" for the hard copy, and "NC" for the e-text.]
> > > Which isn't gonna work in CC land it seems.
> > For NC that _might_ be the case.
> Not if the work gets the license and not the form. People could take the
> electronic copy down to the copy shop and have it printed. Perhaps even lulu
> could do it for them with the right parameters.

You can print it out ($0.02 per page on lulu.com, $0.10 per page on
your home printer).
Or you can simply order the hardcopy from the organization.  The
majority will simply order the hard copy, rather than print it out
themselves.

> > People do not pay attention to the licence, when they look at
> > material.  It is only when they want to use it elsewhere, that the

> Too general a statement, I am a "people" and I pay attention to the licenses
> that works come with.

Do you decide which books to read, based upon the licence it comes with?
Do you decide which books to study, based upon the licence it uses?
Or do you look at the book, asses its quality, then look at the licence?

I'll grant I am making a generalization here, but until a decade ago,
the only choice people ahd was ARR & PD. Until the quantity of
material in CC-land is roughly equal to that in ARR-land, the licence
that a text uses, won't play a role in deciding which text to look at
first.

> > Back in 2000 I gave a talk trying to persuade an organization to
> > release its code of ethics, rules of conduct, and "best practices
> > documents" under the then GNU-FDL.  It was unanimously rejected,
> > because the organization members thought that the copyright owner
> > could hijack the material, preventing further distribution. That
> > organization is still convinced that the GNU-FDL, CC licences, and
> > similar licences allow the copyright owner to hijack the material,
> > preventing them from distributing it.
>
> When you say copyright owner here, your usage is not clear. From the context I
> would guess you mean the entity that owns the copyright on the license itself
> and not the entity that owns the copyright on the work which is released
> under the said license.

Their fear was that the individual who created the document (call it
"Best Practices") would copyright it (which is automatic under US
Law), distribute it with a GNU-FDL / CC or simialr licence.  Later,
the author of "Best Practices" would say: "I declare this licence null
and void.  Anybody who distributes this work has to pay me a royalty."
If the organization continued to distribute the GNU-FDL /CC material,
the organization would be sued for copyright violations.

Does that make more sense?
[ I know that the licence mitigates against that lawsuit.  You know
that.  But that group couldn't accept that the copyright owner could
not do that, once the material was released under the licence.]

> Even PD doesn not mean no revenue. You can go down to the bookstore and buy
> books written thousands of years ago. Public domain books. There is still
> revenue in public domain works.

There is no royalty stream from PD.  There is a royalty stream from ARR.
There is a royalty stream from their handcrafted licence that few understand.

With dual licence (ARR & CC-NC), there is a theoretical royalty stream.

BTW, just because a book was written in 100 CE, doesn't mean that the
copy you bought at Amazon is public domain. [The Received Version of
the YiJing is in the Public domain.  The version from MaWangDui is
under copyright.]

> Sure, but we don't have to give in to that inconsistency without at least a
> verbal challenge to clearer thinking if we feel like making one.

This is part of their learning process.

> NC or ND indicates that there is a problem for people to re-use the covered
> text.

With ND you can make a buck, but not fix the typos.
With NC, you can fix the typos, but not make a buck.

> There aren't enough works out there in the pool (in the wild) for us to know
> what will happen yet. I personally have stuff in my files which is not likely

Compare that:

> one reason where I only want to read / listen to /watch / etc. Free Works

To that?

Is there enough material with a CC/GNU-FDl/similar licence to ignore
ARR material?

> There is fanfic and filking, which I am not into, but these are further
> re-uses of text and music.

You can also include Doujinshi in that group.
All three are the result of fans expanding upon the story.[They also
are considered to be copyright violations.]

ND prohibits them.  NC prevents the fan from selling their output.
[Historically, fans have given away their output, not sold it ---
though this might be for legal reasons.]

> > Wikipedia --- which is argueably the most successful work done under a
> > CC-style licence --- has produced nothing more than copyedits, and
> > some translations, as derivatives.  And copied en masse on other
> > sites, with nothing to indicate any "give back", by those sites.
>
> I don't follow this, it has also produced "Wikipedia" itself.

Wikipedia produced Wikipedia.  The sites that mirror Wikipedia do not
appear to have contributed anything to Wikipedia.

> > With an ARR the reformulations are the things that every author dreams
> > of, but are so rare as to be insignificant. Is there any data to
> > suggest that those reformulations are more likely to occur under any
> > CC licence?
>
> Can you restate this? I don't get what you are trying to say.

Is an author more likely, or less likely to have their novel made into
a TV mini-series if they use a CC licence, or is ARR?

Is a director more likely, or less likely to have their documentary
edited into a book, if they use a CC licence, or is ARR?

Is a playright more likely to have their play produced on Broadway, if
it has a CC licence, or is ARR?  [Ignore CC-NC varients here --- that
licence prohibits plays from being produced.]

xan

jonathon
--
Ethical conduct is a vice.
Corrupt conduct is a virtue.

Motto of Nacarima