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

["i.d." <id AT blackboxstudio.com>]

Sorry - I wasn't being clear. I'm FULLY advocating a restriction on 
advertising. I meant that it should be a blanket restriction on 
advertising, not chopped up into language that defined different types of 
advertising. The definition of advertising should be broad so that the 
license can be used within the broadest range of applications.

I'm suggesting that it will be impractical to define advertising exceptions 
(political, non-profit, or whatever). All advertising should be restricted, 
it's just a matter of coming up with a definition that suits everyone's 
needs. And since i don't think we have any full-time marketers on this 
list, i think that that definition will be pretty broad. I don't know of 
many artists that are comfortable with the idea of advertisers using their 
works to promote a product or idea without their consent. It is a 
justifiably sickening idea.

However, Glenn's questions do need to be addressed. Like when Negativland 
was sampled for the MTV Music Awards - is that advertising? Can their work 
be used in a live event ceremony but not in an ad promoting the live 
ceremony? And here's a can of worms for you: Are the MTV Music Awards artistic?

david

At 11:33 AM 6/26/2003, Lisa Rein wrote:

> On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 08:26 AM, i.d. wrote:
>
> > I think it will be difficult enough to create a definition of prohibited 
> > advertising uses without getting into the specifics of *types* of 
> > advertising. It seems like it will be more pragmatic to create a blanket 
> > restriction if we can come up with a suitable definition of advertising.
>
> hmmm.  Seems like the opposite to me. That we want to keep the definition 
> of "advertising" as broad as possible.
>
> For instance.  Of course, "product shots" would be included.  I don't 
> think anyone would argue that product shots are "advertising."
>
>  I don't think anyone would argue that a 30 second spot is "advertising."
>
> When art is art first and then *used for advertising later* I can see 
> trouble. I mean, all that it would mean is that the art licensed under our 
> sampling license can not be used for advertising later. Which is something 
> the artist would take into consideration before incorporating the licensed 
> sample...i think...
>
> thanks,
>
> lisa
>
>
> On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 08:26 AM, i.d. wrote:
>
> > I think it will be difficult enough to create a definition of prohibited 
> > advertising uses without getting into the specifics of *types* of 
> > advertising. It seems like it will be more pragmatic to create a blanket 
> > restriction if we can come up with a suitable definition of advertising.
> >
> > The "product shot" is a great example. That IS advertising, just not a 
> > traditional 30-second spot on TV ad. We could start off with this 
> > dictionary definition:
> >
> > advertising: The activity of attracting public attention to a product or 
> > business, as by paid announcements in the print, broadcast, or electronic 
> > media.
> >
> > Seems like we'll need to expand "announcements" since a product placement 
> > is obviously a non-verbal promotion. Maybe "paid promotions" would work. 
> > But the distinctions between "paid" and not paid could be tricky as well, 
> > since advertisers are increasingly using viral marketing as ways around 
> > traditional modes of selling. The coolhunting never ends...
> >
> > david
> >
> > At 10:52 AM 6/26/2003, Glenn Otis Brown wrote:
> > > > This is a basic question, but i'll ask it for clarification's sake:
> > > > Almost
> > > > all of the conversations have focused on audio, but I assume that these
> > > > licenses would apply equally to video, print, etc, right?
> > >
> > > Right, we want it to be cross-media. Which is part of what makes it hard,
> > > but fun, too.
> > >
> > > The complications here arise from the fact that we're
> > > > allowing commercial application usage (ie derivative works that can be
> > > > sold), but not usage for advertising that implies endorsement of a
> > > > product
> > > > or idea. Just wondering if there's any precedent for this type of
> > > > distinction.
> > >
> > > That's exactly the complication. I don't know the answer to your question
> > > off the top of my head but can look into it.
> > >
> > > While we're on the subject, and since you hint at it, let me ask the
> > > people in favor of an anti-advert clause: Would you be okay with a
> > > nonprofit corp using your stuff in a commercial? Would you be okay with a
> > > university using it? What about if they were doing it for fundraising
> > > purposes?  How about a politician?  Would you be okay with your song
> > > being sampled in film score that played in a film right at the moment the
> > > main character made a shameless product placement plug (think Mike Meyers
> > > & Austin Powers)?  What if your song were used in fundraising materials
> > > for a nonprofit -- advertising or not?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:36:50 -0400, "i.d." <id AT blackboxstudio.com> said:
> > > > David McConville here with my first post to the list. I've been following
> > > > the threads, and have been most intrigued with the anti-advertisement
> > > > clause.
> > > >
> > > > Is there any precedent for limiting derivative uses to works that are
> > > > *not*
> > > > selling product? Is there any analogy that can be used for this in other
> > > > case law? There has been a lot of controversy over the use of an
> > > > individual's image or name in commercial media, most of which has focused
> > > > on tightening control of IP (like the latest brouhaha between Spike Lee,
> > > > Spike TV, and Spike Jones' son).
> > > >
> > > > Are there distinctions in these cases between using a person's name or
> > > > image for artistic or fair use applications and commercial or advertising
> > > > applications? The complications here arise from the fact that we're
> > > > allowing commercial application usage (ie derivative works that can be
> > > > sold), but not usage for advertising that implies endorsement of a
> > > > product
> > > > or idea. Just wondering if there's any precedent for this type of
> > > > distinction.
> > > >
> > > > This is a basic question, but i'll ask it for clarification's sake:
> > > > Almost
> > > > all of the conversations have focused on audio, but I assume that these
> > > > licenses would apply equally to video, print, etc, right?
> > > >
> > > > thanks,
> > > > david
> > > >
> > > > At 10:23 AM 6/26/2003, you wrote:
> > > > >I would personally feel a lot better if there was some kind of
> > > > >anti-advertising clause in there.
> > > > >
> > > > >This would differentiate between musical artists using my music and
> > > > >selling it -- which I have no problem with -- and advertisers taking
> > > > >advantage of it, which kinda makes me sick just thinking about it...
> > > > >
> > > > >thanks :-)
> > > > >
> > > > >lisa
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 07:10 AM, Glenn Otis Brown wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>Hi Don,
> > > > >>
> > > > >>I was considering the inclusion of an anti-advertising as an issue open
> > > > >>for discussion still. I figured that that anti-advertising idea we've
> > > > >>been batting around on the list would do what you say below.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Was just trying to settle on the stuff we can probably agree on
> > > > >>relatively easily before we finally settle how the advert. idea would
> > > > >>work. (But yes, in principle, this option could exist.  I still worry
> > > > >>about making it work, but that doesnt' mean I'm not willing to try.)
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Glenn
> > > > >>
> > > > >>On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 04:05:24 -0700, "Don Joyce" <dj AT webbnet.com> said:
> > > > >>>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
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>_______________________________________________
> > > > >>>cc-sampling mailing list
> > > > >>>cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > > >>>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling
> > > > >>---------------------
> > > > >>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
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > cc-sampling mailing list
> > > > cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling
> > > >
> > > ---------------------
> > > 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