Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] SoundExchange, 2.5 and 3.0 licenses

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] SoundExchange, 2.5 and 3.0 licenses
  • Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 18:15:45 +0200

Dear Liz,
i think you are making a mistake here. you are comparing the generic 2.5 licenses with the unported 3.0 licenses. The generic licenses where essentially US licenses based on US copyright law. The unported 3.0 licenses are intended for jurisdictions that do not have a ported version of the CC licenses. As of 3.0 there is a US version of the CC licenses and these licenses do contain the same provisions regarding mechanical and performance royalties as the generic 2.5 licenses. have a look at:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/legalcode and
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/legalcode

(note that the provisions are different for NC and non-NC licenses).

The term non-waivable coplulsory licensing schemes has been introduced to deal with things like levies on blank media that are collected in many European jurisdictions to reimburse authors for private copying of their works. these shcemes are non-waivable, which means regardless if you are using blank media for cc (non-NC) licensed music, music that is under all rights reserved or even public domain material people have to pay this fee when they purchase blank media and the collected money will be distributed among artists via collecting societies. as there is no way to get around these levies it was decided to make it clear in the authors of cc-licensed works do reserve this right. hope this helps

all the best from amsterdam,
paul

p.s i think that CC needs to be more upfront about the new US CC licenses. as far as i can tell these are not really widely know


On Aug 3, 2007, at 5:33 PM, Liz Berg wrote:

For clarity, it seems as though the CC 2.5 licenses (by-nc and by- nc-nd)
address the issue of performance and mechanical royalties in more explicit
terms than the equivalent 3.0 licenses.

From what I gather, an artist who uses a CC 2.5 by-nc license cannot
collect royalties from a performance rights society, music rights agency,
or SoundExchange unless their work was used for a commercial purpose. But
please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

The 3.0 license, on the other hand appears to be more vague about this
issue, breaking it down under more general terms: non-waivable and
waivable compulsory license schemes, plus voluntary license schemes. In
this 3.0 license, it appears as though there is one case where an artist
may still collect royalties on a non-commercial use of their work: if they
are bound by a non-waivable compulsory license scheme.

What are some examples of a non-waivable compulsory license scheme? And
where do SoundExchange, performance rights organizations, and music rights
agencies fall under these 3.0 classifications?

If I set up a non-commercial web stream that exclusively plays CC 3.0
music, will I owe royalties to SoundExchange? How about if that stream
exclusively plays CC 2.5 music?

Any help or insight would be much appreciated, thanks!

-Liz
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

--
paul keller | knowledgeland
t: +31205756720 | e: pk AT kl.nl | www.knowledgeland.org






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page