Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Tuesday 10 April 2012 01:57:20 Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
> On 09.04.2012 12:46, Christopher Covington wrote:
> > What specifically is
> > preventing you from registering with performance rights organizations?
>
> *Most* performance rights organizations and collecting societies
> insists on exclusive rights (i.e. you cannot do dual licensing).
> ASCAP (in the USA) does not, and a few PROs (e.g. Stemra/Buma
> in the Netherlands) allow you to exempt single works from licensing
> by the pRO (so you can use CC for that work).
>
> But many performance rights organizations requires to the author to
> hand over  rights for *all* works (past and future) to the PRO for
> exclusive licensing of all rights.
>
> > Lessig mentions that ASCAP agreements are nonexclusive,
>
> True. But ASCAP is not the typical PRO.
>
> > but it seems clear from the same blog post that there is a good deal
> > of FUD flying around that topic [2].
> > 2. http://lessig.org/blog/2007/12/commons_misunderstandings_asca.html
>
> I don't think this Lessig blog post is very relevant.  It addresses
> a particular statement put out by ASCAP, wich is a very atypical
> PRO compared to those European PROs I am somewhat familiar with.
> And his answer in some areas is less than helpful.  For instance he
> fails to recognise that a significant amount of the income generated
> by PROs and  CSs are from secondary uses in public service
> broadcasting and education where the term "noncommercial" as defined
> by the CC makes no difference (i.e. even works with a "noncommercial"
> clause makes the PRO or CS unable to collect and therefore unable to
> pass on rolyalties to the artist).
>
> The problem with PROs with respect to CC is that *most* professional
> composers and performing artist wish to collect royalties, including
> royalties from non-commercial uses such airplay on public service
> broadcasting and education - and the current and proposed licenses
> is incompatible with that wish.

I don't think it is the licenses that are incompatible with that wish, it is 
the attitude and practices of the PROs.

They "could" allow for dual licensing and administer the normal license and 
not the cc license. They offer blanket licenses. Their licensees can pay the 
blanket license and proceed as normal with them. No problem whatsoever.

It is only if their licensee wants to claim to be using some cc licenses and 
not their blanket license that anything other than business as usual need 
apply.
>
> PROs are important and valuable members of the infrastructure that
> ensures public access to culture.  But the current anti-PRO clauses
> in *all* variants of the CC licenses only ensures that at least in
> *some* jurisdictions (like Norway) this makes the use of CC licensing
> incompatible with being a professional composer, author, or performing
> artist - so CC remains a fringe phenomenon cultivated by amateurs and
> conceptual artists that explore remixing as a genre.
>
> We can change this. We can make CC relevant to popular art and
> authorship.  What we need to do is to make *non-free* variants of the
> licenses "PRO and CS friendly".

Fine with me as it will not affect me. (Well, unless I am forced to start 
using BY-NC-SA for my photos and there are the equivalent of PROs in that 
area.)

However, I think even the Free licenses can be PRO and CS friendly if the 
PROs 
and CSs would think a little differently and adjust their ways accordingly.

> I don't think that would be too 
> controversial. The "free culture" and "free software" pure-hearts
> that seem to dominate the CC membership these days *only* care about
> the BY and BY-SA licenses.  This means that those whose main interest
> is the so-called "non-free") variants of the CC infrastructure should
> have an in-depth discussion about how to design to licenses in other to
> best stimulate the *creation* of cultural works.  I think this means
> that the CC needs to re-think its position with respect to PROs, CSs,
> as well as statutory and compulsory licensing schemes (but again:
> *only* in relation to the *non-free* licenses).
>
> So I am still hoping that CC is willing to recognise the great work done
> by PROs and CSs to make sure the public has access to culture a no cost,
> while at the same time making sure that artists are getting paid through
> collective or statutory licensing arrangements.

all the best,

drew