Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-sampling - Re: [cc-sampling] where Sampling will fit in the overall licesning model

cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org

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

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Don Joyce <dj AT webbnet.com>
  • To: creative commons license list <cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-sampling] where Sampling will fit in the overall licesning model
  • Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 04:12:28 -0700

Something like:
"This license strongly encourages that, where possible, the attribution of sources be stated in any work that benefits from the use of samples or appropriation."
DJ





Personally, while i philasophically and ethically like the idea of attribution, I dont want to see it be required. It should be strongly encouraged but left as a choice. Is there a way we could do that?? Making it a rule leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Sounds too bossy and rules are meant to be broken! Whattya all think?

Glenn - I am forgetting why "no derivative works" would not be an option. Can you explain that again?

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

_______________________________________________
cc-sampling mailing list
cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page