Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Jamison Young <jam AT jamyoung.net>]

Hi Jonathon & Paul,

> There aren't any major differences between their (Buma/Stemra) and the
> Creative Commons guidelines. The minor differences tend to be edge
> cases.

I'm still trying to figure out how it works.

Does a non-profit organizations have to pay for the use of content   
of an artist that
has content with a collection society and is also using a CC license ?
Does Burma/Strema give a rebate to commercial venues/radio stations  
when they use content of an artist that is not
a part of their collection system ?

What does Burma/Stemra do with royalties that they are unable to  
distribute ?

Please answer and excuse not being able to understand.
best,
Jamison




On Sep 5, 2007, at 6:00 PM, cc-licenses-request AT lists.ibiblio.org wrote:

> Send cc-licenses mailing list submissions to
>         cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         cc-licenses-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         cc-licenses-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of cc-licenses digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1.  noncommercial guidelines draft: can I take this to       the bank?
>       (erostratus2004-cc AT yahoo.com)
>    2. Re:  buma/stemra (Paul Keller)
>    3. Re:  buma/stemra (jonathon)
>    4. Re:  noncommercial guidelines draft: can I take this      to the
>       bank? (jonathon)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 11:31:51 -0700 (PDT)
> From: <erostratus2004-cc AT yahoo.com>
> Subject: [cc-licenses] noncommercial guidelines draft: can I take this
>         to      the bank?
> To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <971179.86147.qm AT web56409.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi, I have looked through this list for thoughts about commercial  
> use vs. noncommercial use with regard to advertising.
>
> My use case is CC-NC images to illustrate a news site.
> We are thinking of using Adsense or something similar. The image is  
> an illustration to the article.
>
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2007-May/005683.html
> This post listed a draft document and a flowchart which clarified a  
> lot.
>
> However, I want to know how authoritative to view these  
> interpretations. Has the wording been vetted very much? Does it  
> represent any sort of consensus among people who would be in a  
> position to know? The mailing list seems to disagree about the  
> adsense use case. Is there any reason why this analysis somehow is  
> more persuasive?
>
> D1c says this
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/ 
> DiscussionDraftNonCommercial_Guidelines
> As a condition of using another work that includes a verbatim NC- 
> licensed work, where the NC-licensed work is not the primary draw  
> or is an insubstantial amount, both qualitatively and  
> quantitatively (eg. where one NC-licensed image is used in a book  
> that is sold commercially and the image is not a thematically  
> significant part of the book) - this is a noncommercial use  
> (provided that there is no charge associated with directly  
> accessing the work.)
>
> Can I take this to the bank? I've read through the list discussions  
> of this matter and have even opined several places about it. But  
> this is a common case for bloggers and website owners. I guess the  
> best way is to consult an attorney, but I figure an attorney or two  
> hangs around at CC and may have even glanced at the draft already  :)
>
> Robert Nagle
>
>
>
>
> Robert Nagle, Technical Writer, Trainer & Linux Aficionado
> 12777 Ashford Point Dr #1417, Houston TX 77082 T: 832-251-7522
> (Daytime: 281 274 3989)
> CHAT: robertdotnagle (yahoo)
> No, I didn't vote for him!
> "Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without  
> losing your temper." Robert Frost
> http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/attachments/ 
> 20070904/5897d09f/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 21:22:20 +0200
> From: Paul Keller <pk AT kl.nl>
> Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] buma/stemra
> To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
>         <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <7C0BF1D3-1F63-4363-9058-8179A3D6CA69 AT kl.nl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes;
>         format=flowed
>
> On Sep 4, 2007, at 2:50 AM, jonathon wrote:
>
> > Did I understand the definition that buma/stemra is using for
> > "commercial" usage correctly?
> >
> > http://www.bumastemra.nl/nl-NL/MuziekrechtenVastleggen/Flexibel
> > +Collectief+Beheer/Werkdefinitie+Commercieel+Gebruik.htm
> >
> > * Elk gebruik van het Werk door for-profit instellingen wordt als
> > 'commercieel gebruik' aangemerkt.
> > ( All usage by a for-profit organization is "commercial usage");
> > * Werk tegen betaling of andersoortige financi?le vergoeding
> > (All usage that generates revenue is commercial usage.);
> > * 'commercieel gebruik' ...  werk-, verkoop- en winkelruimtes ...
> > kerken, (dans-)scholen, instellingen voor welzijnswerk, en  
> > dergelijke.
> > ( Commercial usage includes ... in a workplace, sales floor, or shop
> > space... churches, dance studios, health clinics, etc.);
> >
> > Everything outside of those three example instances is
> > "non-commercial" and royalties are not required to be paid.
> >
> > a) Did I miss any salient points of what constitutes "commercial"?
> >
> > b) Did I misunderstand any of salient points of what constitutes
> > "commercial"?
>
> dear Jonathon,
> i think your understanding is pretty much to the point. for yoyr
> reference here is our (unofficial) translation of the clarification
> of commercial usage. let me know if you have any more questions.
>
> 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.
>
> all the  best from amsterdam,
> paul keller (cc-netherlands)
> --
> paul keller | knowledgeland
> t: +31205756720 | e: pk AT kl.nl | www.knowledgeland.org
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 20:41:58 +0000
> From: jonathon <jonathon.blake AT gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] buma/stemra
> To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts"
>         <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <c4797ebf0709041341gec068e1p9ba588df21ed43fa AT mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> > i think your understanding is pretty much to the point. for yoyr
> > reference here is our (unofficial) translation of the clarification
> > of commercial usage. let me know if you have any more questions.
>
> Thanks.
> I guess my Dutch isn't as bad as I thought it was.   :)
>
> > Within the scope of the pilot between Creative Commons Netherlands
> and Buma/Stemra, 'commercial use' should be taken to mean the  
> following:
>
> There aren't any major differences between their (Buma/Stemra) and the
> Creative Commons guidelines. The minor differences tend to be edge
> cases.
>
> xan
>
> jonathon
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 23:26:02 +0000
> From: jonathon <jonathon.blake AT gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] noncommercial guidelines draft: can I take
>         this    to the bank?
> To: erostratus2004-cc AT yahoo.com,        "Discussion on the Creative Commons
>         license drafts"    <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <c4797ebf0709041626j7ac42961v4043097ed8d9ad4e AT mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Robert wrote:
>
> > My use case is CC-NC images to illustrate a news site.
> > We are thinking of using Adsense or something similar. The image  
> > is an
>
> a) My suggestion would be to find suitable CC-BY or CC-BY-SA images.
> Or public domain images.
>
> Yes, you may run into unanticipated issues with them, but you won't be
> nailed for either a copyright or license violation.  Using an NC image
> could easily result in either, or both of those effects.
>
> b) The right to use the image is only the first of roughly a dozen
> releases you might have to obtain.  (I've yet to see a model release
> go along with any CC licensed image.)
>
> > However, I want to know how authoritative to view these  
> > interpretations.
>
> That is about the closest to an official Creative Common Foundation
> statement on what constitutes "commercial" and "non-commercial"
> activity that you will find.
>
> > Has the wording been vetted very much?
>
> It has been changed several times.
> The original page that laid out different scenarios appears to have
> been deleted.
>
> > Does it represent any sort of consensus among people who would be in
> a position to know?
>
> In theory, it simply represents what Creative Commons Foundation
> thinks that the license should mean.
>
> If two parties in a lawsuit were to claim that it misrepresents the
> meaning of the license, then what it says won't hold any merit with
> the court.  OTOH, if either party in a lawsuit were to claim that
> their understanding of the license is based upon the CC Guidelines,
> then it would be considered by the court.
>
> > The mailing list seems to disagree about the adsense use case. Is
> there any reason why this analysis somehow is more persuasive?
>
> The adsense usage is an edge-case.
>
> If you are a 501(3)c organization with a couple of matching Form 990s
> to go along with that exemption, then you _might_ be OK.
>
> > Can I take this to the bank?
>
> I wouldn't.
>
> If you don't have a document that outlines what the creator of the
> image considers the CC-NC license to mean, you will run into
> unexpected, even unpredictable situations.
>
> > I guess the best way is to consult an attorney, but I figure an  
> > attorney or two hangs around at CC and may have even glanced at  
> > the draft already  :)
>
> It requires more than a glance at the draft, to grok the effects of
> the NC clause.
>
> One _major_ issue is that the CC-NC license does not define
> "non-commercial" usage.
>
> The buma/stemra definition for "commercial usage" probably has more
> legal weight/standing than the guidelines issued by the Creative
> Commons Foundation. because the buma/stemra definition is part of a
> legally binding contract.
>
> xan
>
> jonathon
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
>
> End of cc-licenses Digest, Vol 54, Issue 3
> ******************************************