Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 31 January 2007 08:42 am, Peter Brink wrote:
> drew Roberts skrev:
>  > On Sunday 28 January 2007 11:57 am, Peter Brink wrote:
>  >> drew Roberts skrev:
>  >>> 1. Definitions
>  >>>
>  >>> e. "Work" means the copyrightable work of authorship offered under
>  >>> the terms of this License.
>  >
>  > In your explanation below, you do not actually address this point.
>  > Point 3 just > below grants me a license to the work as defined in
>  > point 1.e. above.
>  >
>  > Is there more than one copyrightable work of authorship in this
>  > discussion, each with a different license, or is there only one
>  > copyrightable work of authorship and that one has more than one
>  > license?
>
> We could have both of course. Btw, the scope of the concept “work”
> varies depending on who the creator is. An author can create derivative
> works and independent works based on his own original work more easily
> than another person could. I.e. the difference btw the original and the
> new work need not be as much when it’s the author of the original that
> has created the new work.
>
>  >> As you know the license is non-exclusive.
>  >
>  > I know this, but I don't think it necessarily raises the issues that
>  > everyone seems to think it does.
>
> [snip]
>
>  > Why does the license being non-exclusive necessarily imply more
>  > than this?
>
> This issue will only become a problem when an author has made versions
> of a work having different qualities available. A text might be
> published as a book under ARR and as a PDF but minus all illustrations
> under CC-BY-SA or a picture in colour and high-resolution under CC-BY-NC
> and in b/w and low-resolution under CC-BY-SA. The question then is: can
> a licensee of the lower quality version claim that the rights that he
> has been granted to that (i.e. the low quality) version of the work also
> applies to the high quality version.
>
> As you say the license uses the term work and all reproductions in all
> forms of a work are usually inside the scope of the copyright of the
> work itself. This would then imply that the license covers the work in
> all its forms. But the license is also non-exclusive meaning that the
> licensor has reserved the right to make the work available under other
> terms.

Is there some special meaning in the law covering the meaning around the 
license being non-exclusive?

If not, I think people are requiring it to mean more than it has to mean with 
respect to the english language.

I think I understand the argument being put forward around this point, I just 
think the logic doesn't hold up. (Again, unless there is some special meaning 
to the words in the legal fied which I am unaware of.) Please look over what 
I say on this here and what I have said on it before. It could be that this 
is near the heart of the misunderstanding.

> If the license would cover all forms of the work then the license 
> would in effect be an exclusive grant. There would be no effective way
> for an author to reserve the rights to some forms of the work. 

I don't see these two points as being true.

> The 
> implication non-exclusive in this context would (IMO) thus be understood
> so that the author has reserved the right to make use of the work
> outside the scope of the license. 

This I agree with.

> And for this to be possible the 
> licensor must be able to restrict the application of the license to only
> those forms (or copies if you like) of the work that are specifically
> (by including a license statement with the copy) offered under the license.

This I don't think follows.

Are you aware of the dual licensing models that some use in the Free Software 
world where one of those licenses is the GPL?

Some offer the exact same code under the GPL or under other terms. Why does 
the language in the CC licenses imply more than this?

Let me give an example. I put a song of mine where I wrote the lyrics and 
music and played the instruments and did all the singing (I wish!) under the 
CC BY-SA license. The license is non-exclusive. I make it available for free 
(gratis) at ourmedia.org and put it up for sale at lulu.com.

Some buy it from me to support my efforts and some get it without paying. It 
becomes a hugh success (Hah!) and some big hollywood movie studio decides 
they want to put it in the soundtrack of their next big budget blockbuster.

But the song is BY-SA! They will have to make the whole movie BY-SA and that 
is not to their liking at this stage of the game. So they come to me and ask 
for a different license and we sit down and negotiate one.

This lets them make a "derivative" without putting their work under BY-SA.

What is wrong with this thinking as relates to the exclusive language?

>
>  > Could you explain to me a beneficial grant of enjoyment? For instance,
>  > it is not beyond the realm of possibility that I might approach an
>  > author and offer them a sum of money to put a work of theirs under a
>  > CC license that I designate. If we reach an agreement and I pay the
>  > sum agreed upon and the author puts the work under the license I name,
>  > is this still a beneficial grant of enjoyment?
>
> Yes. There are actually two legal acts taking place here. 1) An contract
> between you and the author where you pay him a sum of money to make his
> work available to the general public (I presume) under a CC license and
> 2) the beneficial grant of enjoyment made by the author to the general
> public (i.e. the cc-license).

So, would my understanding of the license come into it? Could it by contract?
>
> NB! Please note that this talk about a “beneficial grant of enjoyment”
> is most likely something that is only relevant to civil law jurisdiction...
>
>  > If I offer a work of my own for five dollars with an ARR or for ten
>  > thousand dollars with a BY-SA license and someone buys a copy from me
>  > for ten thousand dollars with the BY-SA license, is this still a
>  > beneficial grant of enjoyment?
>
> Yes. Again we have two legal acts, the contract between you and the
> buyer and the license. The contract is an onerous legal act the license
> is a beneficial legal act.

Why do you call this an onerous legal act? What is onerous about it?
>
>  > So, how far overboard can the author go in their interpretation?
>  > If I release a bunch of my works BY-SA and people start selling them
>  > and making bundles of money, can I sue them for not sharing the
>  > profits with me and claim that I thought that was what share alike
>  > means?

snip

Thank you for the answers that followed the snip.
>
>
> /Peter Brink

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)