Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Third-party licensing of works

cc-licenses AT

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: drew Roberts <zotz AT>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Third-party licensing of works
  • Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 20:58:53 -0400

On Monday 02 July 2007 05:20 pm, Liz Berg wrote:
> Thanks for the insight, Jo and Terry!
> WFMU is actually a 501(c)(3) non-profit, so I'm about 99.999% sure we fall
> under the CC definition of non-commercial. Rather than cull from the pool
> of currently available CC-licensed music, we'll be trying to convince
> artists who might not know about CC to license their works as
> such, and then we'll include those tracks on our site.
> Because these artists may be finding out about CC for the first time
> through us, we want to make sure that we give them all necessary
> information and have some definitive statement from them about which
> exact songs they'd like to license, should they choose to.
> As I understand from Terry's advice, we should license the right to
> distribute the work (we're actually not compensating the artists in any
> way, just providing a curated platform for distro), making by-nc or
> by-nc-nd conditions for the agreement. Sounds like a great plan that will
> cover all bases.

Is there any reason to limit the choices to by-nc and by-nc-nd? Wouldn't
BY-SA and plain BY also work for your purposes? Or am I missing something?
> Again, thanks for your advice, this is very helpful!
> -Liz

all the best,

> > Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> >> Liz Berg schrieb:
> >>> WFMU wants to write up a contract that summarizes the by-nc or
> >>> by-nc-nd licenses (also providing the URL for the full legalese
> >>> version of the license), lists songs that the artists agrees to
> >>> license under CC, and asserts that these songs will be included in
> >>> WFMU's Free Music Archive website. Does this kind of agreement sound
> >>> kosher? Or should we approach this in a different manner?
> >>
> >> The artists will have to place the works under BY-NC resp. BY-NC-ND.
> >> That's enough so that everybody can download the works for free.
> >>
> >> If WFMU is non-commercial [...]
> >> However, if neither of these scenarios hold, you need to license the
> >> songs from the artists so that you're allowed to redistribute them.
> >> Should be a rather straightforward license though - you only need the
> >> license to distribute, you don't need the right to sublicense or
> >> anything because that's already covered by BY-NC resp. BY-NC-ND. [...]
> >
> > Actually, if you're acting as the publisher -- and particularly if you
> > are paying for the work or otherwise compensating the artists -- then
> > it's pretty straightforward: you simply license the right to distribute
> > the work under one of the licenses you listed (you can allow the artist
> > to decide which one or you can insist on one).
> >
> > This is technically the same as granting one license (NC) to others and
> > a special license to you, but it's a little more conventionally stated:
> > you are making your right to distribute the works under the stated
> > licenses a condition for publication on your site. Since publishers'
> > licensing arrangements are often custom, this is nothing particularly
> > new.
> >
> > But, I'm not a lawyer, etc. So if you are really trying to draw up a
> > contract, you'll probably want somebody to review it.
> >
> > Which suddenly makes me wonder why we don't have a list of
> > CC-knowledgeable lawyers to refer people directly to. Wouldn't it be a
> > good thing to have a list of lawyers willing to review contracts? Seems
> > like it would be a good little job mill, too. Does that already exist?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Terry

(da idea man)
Working on a Movie Script or two in June 2007

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page