Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] collection societies

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] collection societies
  • Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:17:16 -0400

On Monday 27 August 2007 07:47 am, Paul Keller wrote:
> On Aug 27, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Jamison Young wrote:
> > Hi CC mailing list,
> >
> > Last week I got an email that talks about a new type of CC license
> > that is able to be used in conjunction with collection societies in
> > the Netherlands for a trail period. This CC license that is to be
> > potentially adopted by the collection society shall allow the
> > licensor to choose the way that a commercial use shall be defined (if
> > i read the press release the right way). The choice takes place
> > within the Burma/Stemra system. So I'm thinking that Burma/Stremra
> > are going to decide what a commercial use is.
>
> Dear Jamison,
> you definitely do not read the press release the right way. first of
> all there are no new CC licenses. The whole point of the pilot is to
> let members of Buma/Stemra use the existing CC licenses (in this case
> limited to the three NC licenses). Also the choice does not take
> within the buma stemra system. However in order to use the CC
> licenses B/S members need to get the requited rights retransferred
> from Buma/Stemra. This is done via a set of special conditions that
> are added to their membership agreements. These special conditions
> also contain a clarification of what the author will consider to be
> commercial uses of his or her works. This clarification was NOT
> decided upon by Buma/Stemra, but is the result of long negotiations
> between us (Creative Commons Netherlands) and Buma/Stemra. This
> clarification is a compromise and should be seen as such.

Huh, clarifications as to what the author will consider to be commercial uses
of his or her works? This makes no sense to me and doesn't seem possible.

Up to now on these lists, everyone insists that it is the person giving out
the license whose "meaning" would hold. (In a loose way.) Certainly it is
claimed that it can't be CC's meaning. Now somehow CC and Buma/Stemra have
worked out some way to determine what the author intends without the authors
even being in the meeting? How is this possible?
>
> > "In order to make this possible Buma/Stemra will - upon request -
> > retransfer the rights needed for using a non-commercial CC licenses
> > to their members. This happens online (on their website) and is
> > stored in their internal processing and administration systems. the
> > whole process takes about 30 seconds per song." extract from press
> > release CC Netherlands.
> >
> > If the collection societies are able to create a CC license with a
> > definition of what a commercial use is, what is the effect of this ?
>
> No collection society can create a CC licenses. This is not what is
> happening here and it is not our intention. What is happening here
> that Buma/Stemra and CC-Nl have looked to provide a clarification
> that makes the distinction between commercial and non-commercial use
> workable within the systems used by Collecting Societies.

This seems possible.
>
> > I reckon that creating a CC license that can adapt to anything is a
> > good idea. Yet this is something new to the way I see CC and is this
> > not a new form of licensing all together ?
> >
> > Also:
> > I'm still relatively new to CC licensing, so maybe I have
> > misinterpreted the situation. My view at the moment is that very few
> > music artists (outside the US) have heard about CC, to create
> > something without a reasonable demand is not easy, yet I agree its
> > maybe possible.
> >
> > thought:
> > From talkin with artists in Australia through http://www.myspace.com/
> > optoutofAPRA it seems that the only income that very much more than
> > most "Self Published" artists are able to get is through "Live
> > Performance". also, some artists have said that they are upset that
> > non-profit clubs/venues/spaces end up having to pay for the use of
> > content. So question is.
> > If an artist performs works in a non-profit space, does that non-
> > profit venue still have to pay the collection societies for use of
> > that artists works ? that is if the artist has licenses that/those
> > works with a CC license.
>
> this very much depends on the circumstances. in most cases these
> places will have to pay if CC licensed repertoire of Buma/Stemra
> members is performed. This depends on a number of factors especially
> if a cover sis charged for the event, if there are other revenue
> generating activities in connection with the gig

These make sense.

> and if the concert
> does only consist of CC licensed material.

This does not make sense. This can also be seen as dangerous. Is CC trying to
drive Free Music, including CC-BY and CC-BY-SA music out of the marketplace?
>
> I do not think that this issue will be easyly resolved by any
> arrangement between CS and CC. In this situation it might make more
> sense to simply not become a CS member in the first place (but then i
> do not really know enough about the concrete situation in Australia)

I think perhaps there is an opportunity for Free loving collection societies
somewhere in this equation.
>
> best,
> paul (cc-netherlands)
> --
> paul keller | kennisland
> t +31205756720 | e: pk AT kl.nl | www.kennisland.nl
>
all the best,

drew
--
(da idea man)
http://pc.celtx.com/profile/zotz




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page