Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 22 December 2011 13:05:43 Heather Morrison wrote:
> Thank you for this clarification, Gregor.
>
> I think that what I mean to suggest is a limited time for the CC license,
> after which the item would go to the public domain rather than fall back
> into copyright.

The work can't "fall back into" ARR copyrights status as the cc licenses 
don't 
expire. (That's how I read it at least.) You could set a time limit for one 
license to move to another though.

So, BY-NC10-SA could for instance have the NC dropped after 10 years and then 
be licensed under BY-SA (as well) from there on.
>
> Thoughts on the feasibilty of this appreciated.

Again, personally, I would always move to BY-SA as the final offering until 
copyright laws get better. (No jail time, copyright notice requirements, no 
statutory damages, etc.) That is I would recommend this for those determined 
to play this game.

One could get really fancy and go the other way. Allow someone to take an 
adaptation (or other BY-SA covered/controlled work) of a BY-SA work to 
BY-NC-SA for 5 years. E.G. Say I wrote the lyric and music for a song and put 
it under such a fancy BY-SA license. It would let someone cover the work 
under a BY-NC-SA license what was forced to go BY-SA in 5 years. My call in 
putting the special BY-SA license on the original lyric and music. I don't 
think this is a smart idea either but if we are discussing possibilities in 
the area.

Another trigger other than time could be revenue. BY-NC$5,000-SA where the NC 
drops and becomes BY-SA once I earn $5,000.00 in revenue from the work. (I 
would say profit but we know how many hits lose money. ~;-)
>
> best,
>
> Heather Morrison

all the best,

drew
>
> On 2011-12-22, at 9:25 AM, Gregor Hagedorn wrote:
> >> make this an option for new licenses? If time limiting is used, I
> >> would like to suggest that this be extended to all types of licenses,
> >> not just NC.
> >
> > The idea is to apply it to the condition, not the license. Limiting
> > the license would fall back to standard copyright = no publicly
> > licensed re-use.
> >
> > But yes, it could be offered to all 4 conditions. I don't see a
> > time-limited BY particularly useful, but a time-limited ND may be
> > useful, and perhaps a time-limited Share-Alike would be.
> >
> > My reservation with that is, that I actually believe each of the time
> > limited licenses should have a real URL, deed, contract, etc. Perhaps
> > CC drops the distinction between NC-non-SA and NC-SA-licenses (which
> > is very confusing, since the conditions must be fullfilled, even by
> > means of other licenses). This would mean, for a time-limited NC
> > license offered with a maximum term of 25 years, CC would add 15
> > additional URLs (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2024,
> > 2026, 2028, 2030, 2032, 2034, 2036).
> >
> > I would propose for the Version 4 to explore this only for the NC
> > condition, perhaps as a pilot.
> >
> > Gregor
> > _______________________________________________
> > List info and archives at
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses Unsubscribe at
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
> >
> > In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
> > in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
> > process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
> _______________________________________________
> List info and archives at
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses Unsubscribe at
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
>
> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community