Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Micaela Gallerini <mat.r.gl AT gmail.com>]

2012/1/11 Gunnar Wolf <gwolf AT gwolf.org>

Hi Micaela,

Excuse me for replying so late, I've got quite a bit of catch-up to do
on my mails after the vacations.

no problem, I know

 

Micaela Gallerini dijo [Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 08:01:12AM +0100]:
> (...)

> I've put a copyright license for my own reason and I want to remain so even
> if in the public domain. After all how many of us would change Plato or
> Aristotle? Can I write something that enhances their initial work from what
> they have written making it much, but change a piece of any of their
> writings for any other author would be an abomination.

As a little note (my main argument is to the following paragraph): A
certain number of years after our death (depending on the country), no
matter the licenses we put to our work, it will become public
domain. There's (fortunately!) nothing we can do about it as
individual authors. And I hope legislators don't allow for it to
change.

I know in europe is 70 years, the problem is that for many authors is too much. The real problem is the license that is in the publication, if the author uses the classic copyright, for us 70 years from the death authors will be the public domain, for who don't want the classic copyright there is a glimmer; because, the author choosing a different license for own works, maybe not a CC license but he could make it on his own. At the end is a right that I like author waive and no law can compel me to want to continue my copyright over the period that other have set.

 

You raise an interesting point, which I'll try to generalize: Allowing
for licenses to expire not just on a given time, but on a given
event. That event could be anything clearly verifiable from the
outside (such as the author's death, but not as somebody else
mentioned on the list, the author receiving a given amount of money).

As for the semantics, I favor what I've also seen in this thread,
specifying the condition next to its expiration -
i.e. BY-SA(PUD)-NC(2015) would mean that the work is noncommercial
until year 2015, share-alike while the author is alive, and requires
attribution as long as it's covered by copyright.

Exact...^__^

There are some points made in recent time but they made me think.

1) the year of publication in public domain. Some of you, say to put a date 14-20-30 years from the first publication. There is a problem.

Blog, every day I can write something or not, in this case it's difficult have a precise date so BY-SA(PUD)-NC(2015) have not a great sense.

Second, I can write in my blog some poems for examples, and in a second time I can write a poems book with new poems and the old just publicated in my blog. So in this case the public domain at which date it's applied? Because the first publication of a part of book is predates the publication of the whole book. The same thing will be with some kind of musical EP for example.

2) The NC situation. I read all your letters, and I thank this: when the copyright is active the nc solution is seen so, I author have some cent on my work and in the same time I can't permit to the great companies to gain behind me. After the public domain, the licence NC would provide that no big company profits at the expense of the authors, I don't know how many of you know exactly how small or large music or writer publisher earn on the work of the public domain, I mean. A work in the public domain should be reproduced at cost, for example, Plato should I have to pay to publish one of his book the same price that I had to print it. Some publisher, however, as we say in Italy, eating on the price and also republished at 20-30 cents more than the author nor anyone else will. 

So the claim does business could be left to avoid immortality, that the author makes money but we don't earn even a company that has no kinship whatsoever with the author himself.

good morning or evening for all when you read this...:D

-- 

Micaela Gallerini