Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Paul Keller <pk AT kl.nl>]

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