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: Paul Keller <pk AT kl.nl>
  • 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 14:43:44 +0200

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







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page