cc-nz AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand discussion

List archive

Re: [Cc-nz] CC Licensed Photos, a review of use

From: Richard White <richard.white AT otago.ac.nz>
To: Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand discussion <cc-nz AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [Cc-nz] CC Licensed Photos, a review of use
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:06:01 +0000

Hmm, interesting point.

However, I think the term 'licensing scheme' as used in the Act is intended to mean a more formal setting out of terms that apply to types of copyright material that people can 'buy' into by paying a fee to the operator of the scheme. Examples of what we have here at the University of Otago are the Copyright Licensing NZ (formerly CLL) scheme covering hard-copy sourced materials, an APRA/AMCOS/PPNZ licence for educational and administrative copying of music recordings and the Screenrights licence that covers broadcast radio and TV. These are formal agreements we sign up to (with the other 7 universities) that set out in very specific detail what is and what is not covered - and set the fee we pay for copying beyond what the Act allows. In Australia some of these (maybe just the first two, from memory) are statutory requirements for educational copying; here they are optional to the extent that we could obtain all resources by other means (e.g. by other exceptions or by purchase direct from a supplier).

This may not be much help (given that this is direct from the legislation) is what the Act says:

licensing scheme means a scheme setting out—

(a)the classes of cases in which the operator of the scheme, or the person on whose behalf the operator acts, is willing to grant copyright licences; and

(b)the terms on which copyright licences would be granted in those classes of cases;—

and for the purpose of this definition a scheme includes anything in the nature of a scheme, whether described as a scheme or as a tariff or by any other name

Whether you could argue that a CC licence is a 'scheme' is dubious to me - the operator would be CC itself and I think by definition the 'operator' is meant as someone who is acting on behalf of the actual rights holder.

While I know more about licensing schemes than the average person (given what is going on at the moment), much of this is still a complete mystery to me. There’s more in sections 149ff. about licensing schemes. But my inclination is that the Tribunal would not be the route to pursue an infringement case against a CC licence and the regular courts would be the way you’d have to go.

-----Original Message-----
From: cc-nz-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:cc-nz-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Danyl Strype
Sent: Monday, 15 July 2013 11:10 p.m.
To: Creative Commons Aotearoa New Zealand discussion
Subject: Re: [Cc-nz] CC Licensed Photos, a review of use

Kia ora koutou

On 15 July 2013 11:24, Richard White <richard.white AT otago.ac.nz> wrote:

>> Danyl - as far as I know the Copyright Tribunal is only able to hear

>> applications that relate to licensing schemes or file sharing

>> infringements, <<

Is CC not a "licensing scheme"? If not, what aspect of the definition of "licensing scheme" used by the Copyright Tribunal excludes it?

Hei kōnā

Strypey

Danyl Strype

Community Developer

Disintermedia.net.nz/strype

"Geeks are those who partake in our culture."