Development of the Creative Commons Sampling license (or license option)

["Kirkman, Catherine" <CKirkman AT wsgr.com>]

I thought I saw someone already respond on this, but anyway here's my input:

It is correct that because there are two sets of rights involved, the 
musician will need to control both sets in order to grant the license and 
comply with the warranty that the use is non-infringing.  The sampler needs a 
mechanical license for use of the song in the sample, and a master use 
license for use of the sound recording.  The compulsory license does not 
apply when the basic melody or fundamental character of the original song is 
changed, so this is generally not an option for sampling.

In terms of building this into the license, I agree that this goes to the 
prior discussion about third party rights.  Obviously we can't alter third 
party rights with the license, so either the artist must contribute only his 
own work (or works for which he has secured all the necessary rights for all 
the sampling reuses) or the warranty needs to be modified in some way, such 
as to permit the artist to disclose exceptions (e.g., "no rights are granted 
to re-use of XXX musical composition, which must be cleared by the 
licensee").  

I guess another way to address this would be for the artist to carefully 
define what he is licensing -- e.g., sound recordings only, so he is not 
granting any license to the musical composition, but a lot of people would 
probably forget to do this or not understand this, and a lot of licensees 
would likely be confused and end up with problems.

This is not intended as individual legal advice and does not create any 
attorney-client relationship.  These comments reflect our preliminary 
judgment that is expressed in a short-hand manner, is subject to revision and 
is not for reliance by any party.

-----Original Message-----
From: mark / negativland [mailto:markhosler AT charter.net]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 11:33 AM
To: Glenn Otis Brown; cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [cc-sampling] a question about music specifically


At 12:25 PM -0800 5/30/03, Glenn Otis Brown wrote:
>Here's one for you musicians and music lawyers on the list . . .
>
>There typically two sets of rights in a given song: the rights to the
>musicial composition and the rights to the sound recording.  In order to
>offer a song under the Creative Commons sampling license, as written,
>would a musician need to own both set these sets of rights? What's the
>relationship between the composition rights and the recording rights when
>it comes to sampling?
>
>Example:
>
>I record a cover version of  "Satisfaction" by the Rolling Stones, and I
>try to offer my recording under the CC sampling license, so that the
>world will be free to use my version of the song's great intro riff. Is
>this possible without the Stones' (or their publishers') permission?  If
>not, does language to this effect need to be built into the license?


has this been answered yet?? I certainly dont know! And doesn't this 
kinda sorta get back to the third party problems discussed before?

mark




>
>Thanks,
>
>Glenn
>---------------------
>Glenn Otis Brown
>Executive Director
>Creative Commons
>glenn AT creativecommons.org
>+1.650.723.7572 (telephone)
>+1.415.336.1433 (mobile)
>_______________________________________________
>cc-sampling mailing list
>cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling


-- 
_______________________________________________________
*******************************************************

HEY!! LOOKEE!! Please note my new e-mail address that I am writing to 
you from -

mark / negativland <markhosler AT charter.net>


My old address at attbi.com is no longer being used.
_______________________________________________
cc-sampling mailing list
cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling