Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Monday 27 August 2007 08:43 am, Paul Keller wrote:
> 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.

Got you.

> 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

I think this then is not the intent of the author any more.

I think what is happening is that the author cedes his right to the CS.  The 
CS then allows the author to use certain NC licenses if the author agrees to 
the CS meaning of NC.

(Please note, I am not saying that this is good or bad, just trying to get a 
clear understanding as it relates to the whole agreement of the parties 
thoughts expressed on this list before now.)

I definately like (1) above. The thing is, CC seems to claim that this 
consistency is not possible in the general case. If they are correct, then it 
would seem that the only reason it is possible in this case is because 
something like what I suggest above is happening.
>
> 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. 

well then perhaps you or I worded something incorrectly.

Situation:

non-profit venue / organization puts on a gratis concert.

Music played consists of CC NC works from artists who have the CS NC 
execption 
under discussion here. Plus other CC BY and CC BY-SA works by artists not 
affiliated in any way with the CS and works covered by other Free licenses 
that are not CC licenses and whose artists are also not affiliated with the 
CS in any way.

Now, from tha above wording:

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

this condition is not met as some of the material is under Free licenses that 
are not CC licenses.

What happens in this situation?

> 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
> > _______________________________________________

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

all the best,

drew

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