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: Jake McKee <jake AT countersinkdg.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: Sat, 05 May 2007 08:37:56 -0500

As someone new to the discussion, it seems like there's a distinction between issues of music and of all other content. While the issues seem a bit different (as well as the real world operations), it seems like the conversations are the same... intertwined and mixed up. Is that perhaps where some of the complication is coming from?

Jake

drew Roberts wrote:
On Saturday 05 May 2007 07:49 am, Eric Garner wrote:
--- Greg London <email AT greglondon.com> wrote:
If the work qualifies in some way for a
"compulsory license", then someone could sell the
work and pay you money because the work is still
a normal copyrighted work, it's just got some
rights that have been licensed around. But it
still

qualifies for a compulsory license.
Whoa...I'm not too sure about this line of
thinking.

NC music *does* qualify for compulsory licensing,
so

isn't this like saying BMG can sell a Warner music
track without permission just by paying the
compulsory

license fee, even though the copyright belongs to
Warner?
A "compulsory license" has nothign to do with
Creative COmmons. It is a part of copyright law.
I believe it only applies to songs. The law
basically
says that someone can perform a cover of a song
by paying some fixed amount of money or percentage
or something. And the original artist cannot refuse.
Now I understand. Thanks for clarifying that.
So only the cover version of a CC-licensed song
qualifies for full copyright protection, correct? At
first I was thinking that the original artist's CC
licensing intentions (and ability to re-use his own
work for that matter!) would be compromised if the
cover version were fully copyrighted. Seems that's not
the case though, since a licensor who fully copyrights
his work would theoretically have even more to lose
than someone who CC-licenses away some of his rights.
What a litigious state we'd be in then, if people were
swiping copyrights away from musicians simply by
making cover songs!

Right, if you use the statutory license to cover a song, you get a copyright on your cover version and have to pay license fees to the original copyright holder for the use of their copyrighted material.

You don't come into posession of their copyrights by paying these license fees.

all the best,

drew




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page