Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Thoughts on NC

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Christopher Covington <cov AT vt.edu>
  • To: Development of Creative Commons licenses <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Thoughts on NC
  • Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2012 06:46:58 -0400

On Sat, 2012-04-07 at 20:01 -0400, Josh Woodward wrote:

[...]

> 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.

I'm puzzled as to what the real snag is here. It's somewhat common for
software to be dual-licensed. Take for example Qt. It is available under
the terms of the LGPL, and also under the terms of a commercial license
[1]. Is there some part of the Creative Commons suite that prevents dual
licensing? Do the traditional licenses for commercials require exclusive
terms and that point can't be negotiated? What specifically is
preventing you from registering with performance rights organizations?
Lessig mentions that ASCAP agreements are nonexclusive, but it seems
clear from the same blog post that there is a good deal of FUD flying
around that topic [2].

1. http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing/
2. http://lessig.org/blog/2007/12/commons_misunderstandings_asca.html

Regards,
Christopher





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page