Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Need clarification: What is "commercial"?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Eric Garner <ejgarner AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Need clarification: What is "commercial"?
  • Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 03:28:18 -0700 (PDT)


--- drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday 02 May 2007 06:55 pm, Kevin Phillips
> (home) wrote:
> > Hey Jake,
> >
> snip
> >
> > So alternatively I can license a song under BY or
> BY-SA and earn nothing
> > (compulsory licenses are waivered), yet other
> musicians can freely adapt or
> > use my song, go on to resell their spin-offs or
> remixes without so much as
> > a $1 tip for me.
>
> One thing with BY-SAas opposed to a bare BY, you
> could also turn around and
> freely resell their adaptation or your adaptation of
> their adaptation or your
> remix of their remix or adaptation without so much
> as a $1 tip for them.
>
> I can see the big guys taking advantage of BY-SA and
> reselling your original
> work. I would be very interested and surprised to
> see the big players taking
> advantage of BY-SA to make and sell covers.
>
> I would think they would use the
> compulsary/statutory? license instead and pay
> you your money.
>
> Does anyone see them going the other way?
> >
> snip
> >
> > Kev
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
> --
> (da idea man)
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
> > So alternatively I can license a song under BY or
> >BY-SA and earn nothing
> > (compulsory licenses are waivered), yet other
> >musicians can freely adapt or
> > use my song, go on to resell their spin-offs or
> >remixes without so much as
> > a $1 tip for me.
>
> One thing with BY-SAas opposed to a bare BY, you
> could also turn around and
> freely resell their adaptation or your adaptation of
> their adaptation or your
> remix of their remix or adaptation without so much
> as a $1 tip for them.
>


Yes, SA creates space for a competitive market in lieu
of a structure for royalty payments. If an RIAA label
sold a compilation of BY-SA music on iTunes for $9.99,
you'd be free to sell that same compilation on your
own website for half that amount, thus gaining a price
advantage. Though arrangements are copyright-able, the
label couldn't stop you because their arrangement
would also have to be BY-SA.

But I don't see why this wouldn't be the case if only
the Attribution license was used. This clip from the
legal code for the Attribution license (section
4-Restrictions, part a) says: "You may not offer or
impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms
of this License or the ability of a recipient of the
Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient
under the terms of the License.") Doesn't this mean
that the label couldn't impose a standard copyright on
the compilation, or does it only apply to the
individual tracks therein?




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page