Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Creative Commons and Collection Society

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Paul Keller <pk AT kl.nl>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Creative Commons and Collection Society
  • Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:32:33 +0200

On Jul 15, 2007, at 5:32 AM, Javier Candeira wrote:

Kevin Phillips (home) wrote:
There are differences in the licenses, some waiver collection society fees
and some (ironically imho "NC") do not.
Far from making the whole collection society thing obsolete, the NC licenses
fully support it. As long as CC supports collection societies it's never
going to render them useless or defunct.

eh, i do not think it is the intention of CC nor in the intrest of artists using CC that Collecting Societies become 'useless' or 'defunct'. Collecting Societies are doing a fairly good job at generating income for artists who chose to become members. As far as i understand this is alos CC's 'official' position.

regarding the NC licenses i think you do not really understad what NC does mean. it does not stand for no commercial uses whatsoever but rather states that only non-commercial uses are covered by the license. most artists using NC licenses do this because they do what to get paid when commercial uses of the licensed works occur. In the field of music significant parts of commercial use are covered by (blanket) licenses that are administered by collecting societies on behalf of their members (and in most countries these are the only ways to get paid for use of works by broadcasters). so the logical consequence for someone who wants to be reimbursed for commercial use of her works is to use a NC licenses and be a member of a CS. unfortunately this is not possible outside of the US (speaking about musical works here) as the Collecting Societies insist on an exclusive transfer of rights to them and do not allow their members to use any of the CC licenses. We are working on resolving this issue on a number of levels. the references to Collecting societies in the CC licenses (which have been standardized in 3.0 see: http:// wiki.creativecommons.org/ Version_3#International_Harmonization_.E2.80.94_Collecting_Societies) try to take the above scenario into account. If you do not care about Collecting Societies you are better advised using a non-NC license.

IANAL, but as I understand it, in Spain law some economic rights are
a) not waivable
b) collectable only in a "collective" fashion; ie through a Collection Society.

There is still discussion over whether you can have more than one collective
rights society managing rightholder's monies. So the Spanish port of the
license could not waive those rights, nor declare that they should be used
in any other fashion than collected through a society.

I am copying Javier de la Cueva, who is a Spanish lawyer who collaborated in
the porting of the version 1 and 2 licenses and is an expert on Collection
Societies in Spain.

serves me well, there are even some countries where their collection society
isn't cool with Creative Commons at all.

actually it seems that almost all collecting societies are fairly critical of CC. in fact they have been among our most vocal and persistent critics. Lately there have been some less critical noises in some countries and by some representatives, but in general they would probably be very happy if we did not exist at all.

all the best,
paul (cc-nl)

SGAE (Spanish music rights agency) is rather opposed to it. Members sign a
contract whereby SGAE manages their rights exclusively. SGAE has been known
to ask an artist to take down their own music and lyrics from their website,
or pay rights for the distribution.
--
paul keller | knowledgeland
t: +31205756720 | e: pk AT kl.nl | www.knowledgeland.org






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page