Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Drew wrote:

> Can you imagine a work making use of ten or twenty NC works? And some
multigenerational at that?

Yes.

I've found a couple of websites saying that before using material with
a CC licence --- any licence --- verify with each and every copyright
owner that you can use it,  prior to using it.  If you can't find the
copyright owner, then treat it as an orphaned ARR work.

The primary reason for doing so, is to verify that the material really
was issued under the licence you have.  The secondary reason for doing
so, is to verify that your understanding,and the copyright owner's
understanding of the CC are more or less congruent.

> And the take of all of those people as to what NC means governs the final use?

a)  I know of one copyshop that won't touch anything that contains a
CC-NC licence. [They haven't put up signs prohibiting the copying of
CC-NC material, but that is simply a matter of time. (Their position
is that allowing customers to photocopy NC material --- or printing
out pages of NC Content  ---  violates the NC licence. A position that
is perfectly understandable, given the wide spectrum of things that
different NC users have "decreed" to be prohibited under the NC
licence.)

b) It will be treated as if it had a very  obnoxious EULA.

> Surely there must be a better way to handle this issue? Thoughts anyone?

One thing that Creative Commons could do, but thus far has seen fit to
refuse to do, is include a definition of the term "Non-Commercial" in
the contract.

Whilst that would not eliminate all of the "private interpretations",
it would help eliminate the major differences.

> (Or am I seeing a problem where none exists?)

You are seeing a potential problem --- at least for NC material.

It is also related to the problem that professional photographers have
with the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licence.

xan

jonathon