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: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.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 17:02:08 -0400

On Thursday 03 May 2007 04:34 pm, Kevin Phillips (home) wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> [snip]
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > The argument goes like this (corrections welcome if I get any of this
>
> wrong):
> > If they made a CD of recorded music that was licensed BY, you would be
>
> right.
>
> > If they had their own artists cover the BY licensed tunes, they do not
>
> have to
>
> > keep the BY license for the new copyright they get.
> > If they make a derivative of the song (new/changed lyrics, melody) and
>
> have
>
> > their artists record that, they do not have to license the new work BY.
>
> uh oh. So a "cover", where something is re-recorded cuts the rope to the
> originator?

Well, you are gonna need someone who really knows the law to answerbut my
take
is a cover gets a new copyright and BY does not stop someone from changing
terms on the new copyright. That's what BY-SA is for.

I don't think I have ever had someone answer this for me (or at least I don't
remember getting an answer.)

In the US, a cover would get a (P) copyright and not a (C) copyright. Is that
right? Wrong?

At that point, the new work could be made All Rights Reserved. You can't
change the license on the original work.

I am not sure what you are getting at by "cuts the rope" though.

> Even though they created the seed idea? Not only that but the
> conditions of his/her original license for the work? Doesn't that render
> the BY license slightly impotent?

Any CC license without SA lets this game be played to some extent with the
exception of ND perhaps. Again, I don't know how the (P) copyright is treated
and I don't have a clue if other countries make the (P) vs (C) distinction.

> Afterall, the rules for sampling in the
> commercial world now say any amount of a sample must be credited/licensed
> where it's recognisable.

Well, BY would require the crediting. It does stand for Attribution after all.
>
> > > 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?
> >
> > So, they can't change the license on the work, but they can for new
> > works. Is that clear? Correct?
> >
> > all the best,
> > drew
>
> Surely a "work" should mean any recognisable element of the work, not the
> work in it's entirety? 1 hour, 1 minute, or just 10 seconds.....

Please note, I am not talking sampling when I say a cover, but I am not sure
your thinking holds even in the case of sampling.

Comments by others requested.
>
> Hmm.....
>
> Kev
>

all the best,

drew
--
(da idea man)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page