Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Sunday 13 May 2007 10:52 am, Eric Garner wrote:
> > Please, CC-NC is not a copyleft license in any way,
> > shape or form.
>
> But for the purposes of this argument, it's not
> straight-up copyright, either. After all, it *does*
> grant a copy right (ie.: right to copy) the work to
> the licensee, provided there is no money stream
> involved.

It is a straight-up copyright and a license in combo.

And I might not have the terminology right, but isn't this very thing done 
all 
the time?

North American First Publishing Rights.
Serial Rights.
Movie Rights.
Etc. Etc.

Granted, CC is a twist on this, but still.

The way I have had the law explained to me is that you get the copyright 
automatically. Unless you assign that to someone else later, you have to 
copyright. Everything else is a license grant or contract or whatever.

I think I know what you are getting at, but I don't buy it.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)