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

[Don Joyce <dj AT webbnet.com>]

This vagueness in a license would only serve to let more mud into the 
swamp, I think.
"Artistic" would be even more difficult to pin down than "not 
primarily" in many cases.
Has anyone thought of, "the less said, the better"?
Besides, I'm not sure of what everything non-artistic might totally 
consist of at this point, but I know pretty clearly what advertising 
is. I think the best thing is to simply ban all forms of advertising 
from free re-use, with an option which can include advertising in 
free re-use too if desired for some reason (?)
DJ




> Posting for the first time...
>
> What about making permission required for any application of the work that
> isn't *primarily* artistic in nature?
>
> On 6/26/03 10:52 AM, "Glenn Otis Brown" <glenn AT creativecommons.org> wrote:
>
> >  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?
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-sampling mailing list
> cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling