Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Bram wrote:

> We know Sampling+ is no good for samples/soundfx/field-recordings etc so
> we are looking into choosing a new set of license(s).

> Now there is one big problem: none of the legal code in either
> sampling+, by or by-nc is particularly well suited for sound effects. A

SFirst thing.  Eliminate the Non-Commercial licence.  If you thought
the Sampling+ Licence was bad, you aint seen nothing yet.

Seriously, the NC licence is the most ambigious, least defined, and
most problematic of _any_ of the licenc echoices you could have made.
 [And the person that claimed it was clear, has obviously never read
it, much less comprehended what it permits, and what it it prohibits.
(It prohibbts _everything_ that they think it permits.)

Do you have any idea of how CC defines "for commercial purposes"?  If
the usage goes beyond what an ARR licence would permit under fair use,
the odds are the person who wants to use NC material has to obtain
permission from the creator of the material to use it.

[Schools, public universities, churches, and government agencies are
"commercial organizations" under the current CC guideliens on what
constitute "for commercial purposes".

A studio producer is going to skip NC stuff, even if it is good,
because s/he can get equally good material with an ARR licence, that
won't blow up in his.her face.  [To use the nc material, they will
have to get a contract taht essentially converts it to an ARR licence.
So why go thru that effort, when they can get something with a
stanadard ARR licence that everybody udnerstands, and their errors and
ommissions insurance will cover, in case of a lawsuit.]

> sound-effect is almost invariably used as a "whole work" in the derived
> work. Hence the definition of "derived work" is a bit strange when talking about 
> "samples".

Soembody else pointed out that "Derived Work" does not have a legal
defintion.  Instead, there are half a dozen confliciting legal
theories, any one of which might apply, depening upon jurisdiction,
and legal system that is used.

The virtue is that "Derived Work" is defined in the licence, and even
if it is a bit strange, gives both sides a starting point, upon which
to negotiate a mutual understanding.

"NonCommercial" does not have a legal definition.   Neither is it
defined in the NC lince,.  Instead, there are at least three, and
possibly more documetns from CC that purport to explain how CC
understands the term. Theri understanding of the term, and that of
you, or your users, are probably antithetical.

> Also, sometimes a sample can be more than just a sample: someone doing a
> field recording of a street-organ is considered OK for freesound, but

I don't even want to touch the legal issues that causes.

> Anyway: Could someone more knowledgeable than me please do an analysis
> of using Sampling+, Attribution and Attribution-Noncomm in the context

Regardless of what you want to accomplish, CC-BY-NC-SA won't work.
In a nutshell, nobody can use the NC material, except the original creator.

Focus on who, under the CC guideliens can use it.   And _where_ it can
be used.

> of sound samples (think < 1 minute sound effects you use as building
> blocks to create something else). What are the repercussions of using

> these various licenses for derived work (and what exactly does one call
> derived work of a 50 millisecond 'bass drum hit' sample?)

Depending upon the legal system within the specific jurisdiction, that
50 millisecond bass drum sample may make it a:
* Joint Work;
* Collective Work;
* Both of the above;
* Neither of the above;
* An incorporated sample;

If that sound dample is NC, that means that the resulting work can
_not_ be used for something that is screened/played/performed/whatever
at:
* The Cannes Film Festival;
* WOMAD;
* The Fringe Festival;
* The Shakespearian Festival;
* FolkLife / BumperShoot;

Those events all fall under the defintiion of "for commercial
purposes" under the CC Guidelines.   In effect, by selecting that
licence, your users have precluded themselves of _any_ opportunity for
their work to be used in a significant event in their artistic field.

> for those interested the related forum discussion -which is attracting a
> LOT of attention- is here:
> http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1209

I'll grant that the people on this list have thought a lot more,a nd
deepeer about the nc licence than your users.

Do you users _really_ want to ensure that their material will never
have a chance of being used in something that qualifies as the event
for their chosen artististic endevour?

Notes:
* I neither speak for, nor am a representative of creative commons;
* I am not a lawyer, nor do I speak for one;
* If I need a sound sample,  I use a Motif ES6, and create it myself.

xan

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

Motto of Nacarima