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

[Don Joyce <dj AT webbnet.com>]

Glenn,
Would it then be possible to have an option in the sampling license 
to restrict any and all uses in commercials or advertising 
specifically without payment/permission. This means transformed or 
not. This is because what some of us may want is to NOT appear in 
commercials at all, not on the basis of whether we're transformed or 
not, but on the basis of commercial intent which we don't wish to be 
associated with in any form. We do not claim claim this right of 
control over association in art if we are "transformed," but we sure 
should be able to with regard to commercials which are not art.
DJ




> 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