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

["t hall" <markhosler AT charter.net>]

Oh - sorry about my name saying T HALL. Right now I cant 
fix it. But this is Msrk from Negativland writing in from 
on the road.


mark


On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:44:42 -0800
 "Glenn Otis Brown" <glenn AT creativecommons.org> wrote:
> It seems we're more or less settled on the meat of the 
> sampling language,
> but we have to figure out (1) this warranty and 
> third-party rights issue;
> (2) how this license fits in the overall CC model.
>
> Issue (1) is something our board is talking about right 
> now. There's been
> discussion about this re: all our licenses, and I think 
> we'll have some
> decision soon. So let's hold off on that for now.
>
> (2) We haven't talked much about how the license will fit 
> in the overall
> model. Here are my thoughts: first what I think CC policy 
> should be, and
> second, why.
>
> The sampling license should be a stand-alone specialty 
> license.  A user
> comes to CC, clicks choose license, and sees pretty much 
> the same menu of
> choices they see there today: 
>   <http://creativecommons.org/license/>.
> But they also see, prominently flagged next to this menu, 
> a list of our
> "specialty licenses": sampling, education, developing 
> nations, founders
> copyright. 
>
> Let's say the user then clicks on "sampling." My ideal is 
> that this is a
> standard license with no options: 
> Attribution is always required (BY:), and commercial use 
> is permitted
> only for transformative works (sampling, mash-ups, etc.); 
> "share alike"
> is not an option, and "no derivative works" is obviously 
> not an option.
>
> Here's why:
>
> a) More options aren't necessary. Offering a 
> commercial-noncommercial
> option in the sampling license wouldn't make sense. Right 
> now, if you
> wanted to allow any commercial use of your work, 
> including derivatives
> and verbatim copies, you could simply use any of our 
> current licenses
> that 1) don't specify "noncommercial" and 2) allow 
> derivative works. The
> whole point of this license is refining that 
> noncommerical provision to
> allow commercial transformations but not commercial 
> verbatim copying.
>
> Also, 99% of our users now require Attribution, and 
> Negativland has
> seemed keen on requiring it, too. I like the idea.
>
> b) Simplicity. I like our main menu of options right now 
> and want it to
> remain pretty stable and simple. The more options we 
> throw into that
> menu, the more confusing, time-consuming, and complicated 
> the licensing
> process gets.  So let's stick with our "a la carte" menu, 
> and offer a
> separate "prix fixe" menu next to it.
>
> --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