Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Paul Keller <pk AT kl.nl>]

On Aug 27, 2007, at 2:17 PM, drew Roberts wrote:

[please also note that i am speaking on behalf of CC netherlands  
here. CC netherlands is not part of CC and this whole pilot project  
is the result of interactions between CC netherlands and Buma/Setmra.  
CC has not been part of the negotiations and is not part of the  
project. We have however consulted with CC at various times during  
the process]

> 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?

This is exactly what happens. if a buma stemra member wants to use  
one of the NC licenses they have to commit themselves to the  
clarification that is contained in the special conditions that cover  
the re-transfer of the rights to the member. This is to ensure 2  
things: (1) consistency of the meaning of commercial for the entire  
repertoire that is administered by B/S and (2) to assure that the  
scope of commercial use is compatible with the (automatic) collection  
mechanisms of B/S

before the pilot B/S members could not use CC licenses whatsoever.  
Now they can use them as long as they agree to the clarification  
offered by Buma/Stemra. The clarification might not be ideal from our  
point of view (it is a compromise) but it definitely offers more  
opportunities than the situation before.

for the record, here is the (in-official) english re-translation of  
the clarification in question:

<start clarification>

Within the scope of the pilot between Creative Commons Netherlands  
and Buma/Stemra, ‘commercial use’ should be taken to mean the following:

Every use of the Work by for-profit institutions is qualified as  
‘commercial use’.

In addition, within the scope of the pilot, distributing or publicly  
performing or making available online the Work against payment or  
other financial compensation (including the use of the work in  
combination with ads, publicity actions or other similar activities  
intended to generate income for the user or a third party) is  
qualified as ‘commercial use’.

Within the scope of the pilot, ‘commercial use’ also includes the  
distribution or public performance or having broadcasting  
organisations make the Work available online, as well as using the  
Work in hotel and catering establishments, work, sales and retail  
spaces.This also applies to organisations that use music in or in  
addition to the performance of their duties, such as, for example,  
churches, schools (including dancing schools), institutions for  
welfare work, etc. Separate licenses are available from Buma/Stemra  
for such kinds of use.

</end clarification>

i guess this will be a start of a long discussion here, which i am a  
bit hesitant about. this is because this is intended as a pilot  
project to see if this is workable and useful for members of Buma/ 
Stemra who want to use the licenses. As far is i know there are no  
such people on this list and therefore i would rather not spend to  
much energy on discussing this before we have actually had feedback  
from our target group. So please do keep in mind that (1) no one (not  
even members of Buma/Stemra) is being forced to agree with this  
definitions (well Buma/Stemra members, should they want to use CC  
licenses have no other choice at the moment) and (2) this is  only  
applicable in the context of this pilot project and is not intended  
to be a CC definition of what constitutes commercial use (neither in  
general, nor in the field of music).


> > > "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?

nope, this is not the case. the situation is that Collecting  
Societies tend to collect as soon as some of their repertoire is  
performed and do not care much if there is other repertoire performed  
as well (sometimes they give cheaper rates) if a venue/radio  
station/... plays exclusively CC-BY or CC-BY-SA or CC-BY-ND material  
they have no basis for collection and this has not changed with the  
pilot. the only thing that has changed that Buma/Stemra will now  
collect for commercial uses of CC-NC licensed repertoire from their  
own members

best, paul



> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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