Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Anthony <osm AT inbox.org>]

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Andrew Rens <andrewrens AT gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18 May 2012 12:27, Anthony <osm AT inbox.org> wrote:
>>
>> >> Would the same purposes be achieved by defining commercial as sale,
>> >> barter, letting and use in a paid for advertisement?
>>
>> What about public performances?
>
> As it stands right now yes.

What do you mean yes?  A public performance is not a sale, barter, or
letting.  It may be a use in a paid for advertisement, but there are a
lot of other commercial uses.

On the other hand, you obviously don't want to ban all public performances.

> But the since public performance is defined in most copyright legislation
> around the world it would be easy to include. The definition would remain
> clear and certain.

I don't understand.  What is the definition going to be, such that it
allows noncommercial public performances, but disallows commercial
public performances?

> If the Commercial Rights Reserved did not permit public performance then
> public performance would have to take place in terms of a collecting society
> license or the equivalent take and pay rule under legislation.

If there is one.  There aren't statutory licenses for all types of
public performances.

I would think Commercial Rights Reserved means, to the full extent
allowed by law, commercial rights are, reserved.  If you want to make
a public performance for commercial purposes, and there is not
statutory license available, then you have to negotiate with the
copyright owner directly.

Are you suggesting that all public performances of NC works, except
for use in a paid for advertisement, should be allowed?  Might as well
drop the NC if you're going to do that.