Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Saturday 21 April 2012 00:41:17 Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
> On 16.04.2012 14:38, zotz AT 100jamz.com wrote:
> > Only because they insist on being exclusive.
> >
> > Say I put two licenses on my song.
> >
> >
> > 1. CC BY-SA
> > 2. Some license crafted for my CS/PRO that they love.
> >
> >
> > They can just ignore the BY-SA and enforce license #2. The ones I know
> > about give blanket licenses for everything they license for a set
> > percentage of revenue. (For example from a music playing oriented radio
> > station.) So they just collect on license #2 from their licensees and
> > give me my cut. People playing only Free Licensed music would not need
> > to enter into a license with them and so they could not collect under
> > #2. People playing a mix of Free and non-Free music would need to enter
> > into a license with them and they could then collect on license #2.
> >
> > Flaws in this thinking?
>
> CS'/PROs are member-governed organisations, and allowing you do this
> is not currently in the pecuniary interest of the majority of their
> members.  Therefore they won't.  The majority insists on exclusivity
> *because* they want to prevent members from using dual licensing.
>
> It is not difficult to understand why:
> If the pool of Free music becomes sufficiently large, more People
> will opt for playing *only* Free Licensed music and don't need to
> hold a blanket license.  This will reduce the total income for the
> PRO/CS.  Since each member's payout at the end of the day comes out
> of this income, most member's will not want this to happen.  There
> are  some exceptions to this (as noted by Paul Keller), but the norm
> is that the members of CS' and PROs thinks that their pecuniary
> interests are best served by insisting on exclusivity as a condition
> for membership.
>
> At one point in this discussion, Diane Peters wrote:
>
>    CC licenses, on the other hand, are non exclusive and can be used
>    alongside other licensing models where those models so permit.
>    For the most part, it's up to the creators to choose (or not)
>    to participate in a collecting society that requires exclusivity.
>    Ideally, we would like all creators to have the ability to choose
>    our licenses if they think our licenses are right for them.  But
>    there's nothing CC can do once exclusivity is the path chosen.
>
> The above is correct.
>
> However, the next sentence is not.
>
>    No revision to the definition of NC itself or in the way CC
>    licenses treat royalties can change the reality that where
>    collecting societies take an exclusive assignment of rights,
>    the creator is no longer able to use CC.
>
> What this paragraph fails to recognise is that the creator does
> not have to become a member of a collecting society to receive
> payment for blanket license royalties.  And there is nothing that
> prevents a *non-member* of a collecting society from using a
> dual license.
>
> This may sound like a weird thing to do.

Not to me it doesn't.

> However, in jurisdictions 
> with extended collective licenses, where Collecting Societies by
> law are required to collect for non-members as well as members,
> this *may* make sense (but currently, it does not - because the
> CC contains a royalty-waiver clause which takes precedence over
> any royalty-bearing license arrangement).

I have been proposing for years that this be changed so that the waiver only 
occurs if it would save the licensee money. Which is basically what you 
propose below and this will even work for BY and BY-SA licensed works. The NC 
clause is not need on a license for this to work.
>
> What I want is that the royalty-bearing licensee apply when the
> licensee holds a *some* license that generates royalties, and
> that the CC license should apply in all other cases.

Either license could hold if the CC license waved royalties conditionally on 
it saving the user / licensee money. (And perhaps it should be an equivalent 
amount of money to the royalty just to stop monkey business.)
>
> The way I see it, it is up to CC to fix this.

Yes it is. I think they are not thinking "outside the box" to use a cliche.

> My suggestion 
> is to say that *when* an extended collective license, or other
> applicable blanket license, is held by the licensee, the right
> to collect royalties is *not* waived by the Licensor.

Bingo! This is what I have been proposing for years as well. The licenses 
should be changed to reflect this on this iteration. I am just concerned that 
the fix is not done in a way that only works for NC licensed works when it 
could work for all.

+10000000 ad infinitum.

> (But that 
> in the in the cases where the licensee does *not* hold an extended
> collective license, or other applicable blanket license, the Work
> is available for use under the CC public license.)

Or the waiver in the cc license kicks in.
>
> > Rob Myers wrote:
> >> I can give you the right to freely use my work, or I can give the
> >> collecting society the right to collect fees from everyone who uses my
> >> work. I cannot do both at the same time...

Rob, you may be caught in a rut. I can give you the right to use my work 
without payment if it saves you money but reserve my right to collect my 
share of the royalties you are already paying to use music in general where 
you already have some sort of blanket license and me waiving my royalties 
will not affect the amount you pay for that license one way or another. It 
will just mean I don't get a share of the money you pay in any case.
>
> Nobody is proposing that.
>
> What is proposed is that I can give you the right to freely use my
> work, *unless* you have entered into a blanket license agreement
> with a collecting society.  Then I am entitled to my fair share of
> whatever you pay the collecting society.
>
> For avoidance of doubt: If you choose to *not* enter into a blanket
> license agreement with a collecting society, you will have the right
> to freely use my work.

Gisle, it could be even more nuanced than that. (If the societies get their 
act together.)

They could even manage the Free cc licenses for attribution and other 
compliance for us.

Pay their blanket license and don't fret the attribution and other 
requirements. (No DRM, etc.) Skip the blanket license and take care to 
comply.

all the best,

drew