Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Conley Owens <xcco3x AT gmail.com>]

I really liked the different solutions Mike Linsvayer suggested in a
talk a while back:
http://www.slideshare.net/mlinksva/the-definition-and-future-of-noncommercial
They included:
1. Deprecate NC
2. Drop BY-NC-SA and BY-NC-ND
3. Unbrand NC, maintaining it, but making it something other than
"Creative Commons"
I was hoping that something would come of this, but I haven't seen
anything beyond those slides.

On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Josh Woodward <joshw AT joshwoodward.com> wrote:
> Hey everyone, I just wanted to post a few of my thoughts on the NC license
> from the perspective of a musician, not a legal scholar. I started releasing
> my music under BY-NC-SA, which I gradually shed down to BY. The decision to
> drop the NC clause was definitely a somewhat agonizing one. I didn't really

Thank you again for this!

> want to give away my rights for licensing music for actual commercial
> enterprises for free (a movie placement, commercials, etc), but it was
> obviously fine for someone to use my music in the background of a family
> vacation slideshow on YouTube. In the end, it was the smart move for me to
> drop it, since the increase in exposure was huge, but the tradeoff seemed
> unnecessary.
>
> It seems to me there's a clear (if hard to define legally) line between the
> outright commercial use of a work, and the work being used in a
> free-spiritied way but being included on a for-profit website.
>
> Another significant issue for me, which I discovered only later, was that
> CC-BY is incompatible with performing rights organizations. Logically, as a
> musician, it seems like I should be able to license my music outside of
> Creative Commons and collect the royalties from that. For instance, someone
> comes to me and wants to use my music in a commercial, but they need a
> traditional license because they can't provide attribution. I'm not able to
> collect royalties on that, since CC-BY works can't be registered with PROs.
> Again, being ignorant of all things legalese, there may be a good reason for
> this, but it seems really arbitrary to me.

Does dual licensing not work here?  Can't you provide them with the
rights they need (to be able to distribute without giving attribution)
or do they require some kind of exclusivity?

>
> tl;dr: Liberalize NC.
>
> --
> Josh Woodward - http://JoshWoodward.com/
>
> [Facebook · Twitter · YouTube]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>