Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Saturday 05 May 2007 03:44 pm, Kevin Phillips (home) wrote:
> ok, but do I smell our old friend Sound Exchange sneaking around under the
> floor boards?
>
> Greg explained : "Alice creates a song. It is automatically put under All
> Rights Reserved by copyright.
> Alice then adds CC-NC-ND-BY to her song. Bob comes along and likes Alice's
> song. He decides to use the compulsory license approach to create his own
> cover of the song. He pays some amount of money, and creates
> his version of the song. Alice doesn't like it, but she can't stop him. Bob
> keeps his version under All Rights Reserved. Alice's version is still ARR
> and CC-NC-ND-BY."
>
> So, the obvious question is : Does anyone know if the two "recordings"
> ....1x Alice 1x Bob are treated as unique (in terms of their licenses)?
> This makes most sense to me.  In which case Alice's original non-commercial
> intention for her song/recording has been levered into the commercial space
> via the compulsory license.  Ooo fragmentation, it's so purdy! :)

Bingo, but that's the law.
>
> *flash* Alice needs to be registered with ASCAP (or similar) to ensure she
> gets her dues.

Is that so? Or can she sue stations and venues that play either her version 
or 
Bob's cover? They don't have a license to play if she is not part of a 
collection agency. Or do they?honcho987

>
> If the two "recordings" somehow get entangled legally, then we have a big
> big mess.  For instance - Alice maintains authorship of the song,
> obviously, and therefore if the song is performed she should receive
> payment from her collection agency (eg ASCAP) via Sound Exchange. 

I think ASCAP and BMI collect for the lyrics and tune (C), Sound Exchange for 
the recording (P).

Is that correct or incorrect? Can someone with more knowledge fill us in?

> The NC 
> component of her license ensures the fees are not waivered, she can collect
> the money and buy a new car.  BUT only if she's an ASCAP member (or similar
> society member in another country).....otherwise everyone's friend Sound
> Exchange will dutifully collect the money and place it in their bottomless
> pot.....without telling a soul.  So, it's a good thing for Alice that she
> registered with ASCAP, and that she didn't choose SA or her CC license
> would have waivered those fees, no new car :/  

SA and NC would work the same in the case of a statutory license as neither 
would apply. Correct? In fact, this is one of the revenue streams reserved 
for the original author in a BY-SA situation.

> ....just because she chose 
> the SA license (commercial allowed aka no wheels for Alice) and not the NC
> license (commercial not allowed aka hot rod & sunglasses).....ironic?  

SA would only work that way if Bob made his recording SA as well in which 
case, Alice can sell copies of Bob's recording.

> If 
> the license fee is also paid via the Sound Exchange mechanism (or similar -
> because the new SA license doesn't specifically mention SE by name), that
> may also be waivered.

Are fees paid to Sound Exchange on CC non-NC works?
>
> Whichever is the case, I still can't get my head around SA having waivered
> fees whilst NC does not.

If you want SA not to waive fees in general, you need NC-SA but then we are 
non-Free. However, as I say, I don't think any fees get waived where a person 
chooses to force a ShareAlike author to grant a statutory license instead of 
going with the offered SA license.
>
> Kev
>
> ps. sorry Jake we do appear to have hijacked the thread somewhat, oops.

all the best,

drew
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Garner" <ejgarner AT yahoo.com>
> To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts"
> <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 4:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Need clarification: What is "commercial"?
>
> > > Personally, I think there are bigger
> > > fish to fry with the current set of copyright laws
> > > that I'd rather focus attention there. DMCA, DRM,
> > > infinite copyright terms, etc.
> >
> > Indeed. Now that I'm up to speed with this, I'm
> > inclined to agree.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

-- 
(da idea man)