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: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Creative Commons and Collection Society
  • Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:17:40 -0400

On Monday 16 July 2007 06:51 pm, Dana Powers wrote:
> The URI inclusion section is not unique to the ShareAlike licenses
> (it's in all of them). Yes, it may be a hinderance to radio
> broadcasts, depending on how it is interpretted. I think creative
> radio minds could come up with a reasonable solution. Moreover, I'd
> be terribly surprised if saying "that song is licensed under a
> Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license" instead of naming an
> exact URI would be considered a material breach. But, again, this has
> nothing to do with Share-Alike-ing.

Yes, I got that. I thought you were responding in some way to my question.

NC is enough to get a collection society in the mix.

That leave what? BY, BY-SA, and BY-ND. I chose BY-SA as an example, but the
thought would apply to all right?

Even just saying "that song is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike license" can make for a strained radio show, no?

So, a station that has a deal with a collection society may just decide to
pay
on those 3 licenses as well as the NC licenses just to be simple.
>
> My only point was that radio broadcasts are unlikely to trigger a
> Share-Alike clause.

No, not for simply playing a song on the radio.
>
> dp

all the best,

drew
>
> On 7/15/07, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday 15 July 2007 09:00 pm, Dana Powers wrote:
> > > In the U.S., and I assume elsewhere, it is the performance right for
> > > the musical composition that is required to broadcast a song over the
> > > (spectrum) radio. A broadcast isn't considered a derivative work so
> > > the Share-Alike section of the CC would likely not be triggered.
> > >
> > >From 3.0 4.a. :
> >
> > "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms of
> > this License. You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource
> > Identifier (URI) for, this License with every copy of the Work You
> > Distribute or Publicly Perform."
> >
> > So, to play a BY-SA song on the radio and keep with the license, you need
> > to include a copy of the URI... That is a public performance, right?
> >
> > When I asked about this before, it was suggested that the URI be read out
> > (letter by letter?) whcih seems like it would not make for the best
> > radio.
> >
> > Does anyone have any other ideas as to how BY-SA works could be broadcast
> > in a normal sounding radio music show?
> >
> > So, in the absence of better ideas, it seems the choices might be to use
> > the BY-SA license and have a funky sounding show or pay for a liecnse
> > through a collecting society and have a decent sounding show.
> >
> > Or am I being totally daft and missing something basic?
> >
> > > You
> > > could try to argue that "adaptations" under the license are broader
> > > than derivative works, but my guess is that would not get very far.
> > > Very bad idea to rely on a judge to apply Share-Alike to radio
> > > broadcasts.
> > >
> > > dp
> >
> > all the best,
> >
> > drew
> >
> > > On 7/15/07, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 15 July 2007 09:02 am, Paul Keller wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 15, 2007, at 2:57 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
> > > > > >> If you do not care about
> > > > > >> Collecting Societies you are better advised using a non-NC
> > > > > >> license.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't follow the logic of that last sentence, can you please
> > > > > > elaborate.
> > > > >
> > > > > longer version: if you do not care about collecting societies (and
> > > > > this i am assuming means that you are not interested in royalty
> > > > > payments for uses of your works) you can better use license that
> > > > > includes royalty free use of your work by anyone even for
> > > > > commercial uses.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, my bad. I must have been blind on that sentence. Missed the
> > > > non-non-commercial and read simply non-commercial. It makes fine
> > > > sense as written. I was just caught out by the double negative...
> > > >
> > > > Would you care to comment on the thoughts of collecting societies
> > > > collecting for use of BY-Sa works on broadcast radio.
> > > >
> > > > > best, paul
> > > > > --
> > > > > paul keller | knowledgeland
> > > > > t: +31205756720 | e: pk AT kl.nl | www.knowledgeland.org
> > > >
> > > > all the best,
> > > >
> > > > drew
> > > > --
> > > > (da idea man)
> > > > Working on a Movie Script or two in June 2007
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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)
> > http://pc.celtx.com/profile/zotz
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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)
http://pc.celtx.com/profile/zotz




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page