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

[mark / negativland <markhosler AT charter.net>]

I hthink for Negland, a re-mix *is* a re-use( since, these 
days,  most re-mixes pretty massively alter teh origanal) 
. Its the same thing. But I can see how others wouldnt see 
it that way.

With the "click here" options list that Glenn has laid 
out, I'd lke to see more postive language in there that 
makes it clear you have the option to let folks 
transformatatively re-use your work for profit. Right now 
that only becomes clear when you click deeper.

Good to hear from Joshua that the no-ad aspect mkaes  this 
more appealing!

I still hope that when folks click deeper, we have some 
background thinking on why they might want to choose 
transformative re-use for profit, and no ads. Not 
everyone  will have thought this through....


Mark



mark



On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:57:17 -0700
 Glenn Otis Brown <glenn AT creativecommons.org> wrote:
> > How open are you guys to making an open-source option to 
> > the SL,  
> > making it not just for sampling, but also remixing?
>
> I like this idea a lot, and it's one we talked about in 
> our Creative  Commons course this last spring. Here's the 
> idea we came up with for  now:
>
> If a licensor wants the public to remix the very basic 
> elements (bass  and drum lines in a song, "layers" in a 
> photoshop doc), then they  should make
> those layers available individually as licensed works -- 
> but they  shouldn't be required to.  It's a tough 
> question, but this approach is  the most flexilbe/least 
> complicated, I think, and
> the most inline with our purely voluntary, 
> give-only-as-much-as-you-want model.
>
> In our upcoming cartoon contest, see 
> <http://creativecommons.org/weblog/archive/2003/07/#3765>, 
> Creative  Commons will encourage people to mash-up our 
> own Flash movie, see 
> <http://mirrors.creativecommons.org>, among other 
> things. We'll be  making the basic elements of our Flash 
> available-- the audio, the  static illustrator files-- 
> under CC licenses so that people can
> make the most of it.
>
> Hope that helps. It's really a great question and I don't 
> think my  answer above totally settles it -- there are 
> some crazy-complex  hypotheticals you can think of -- but 
> that's the best we can do
> right now I think and will probably work well for most 
> cases. I'll  certainly keep everyone posted if our class 
> at Stanford this fall comes  up with other solutions, and 
> I hope you'll do likewise as
> you come up with ideas.
>
> thanks,
>
> glenn
>
>
>
>
> > J
> >
> >
> > Glenn Otis Brown wrote:
> >
> > > I understand your point here, but a few things:
> > >
> > > (1) I can't let the sampling license change our overall 
> > > architecture  
> > > and licensing strategy. We settled on that architecture 
> > > and licensing  
> > > strategy a long time ago, through a months-long public 
> > > review  
> > > process. Letting this three-month discussion on a special 
> > > purpose  
> > > license now change fundamentally how that architecture 
> > > works would  
> > > wreak havoc and reinventing the wheel as its rolling full 
> > > speed  
> > > already. (800,000 pages now link back to our licenses.) 
> > > Some things  
> > > that come out of this licensing process might be useful 
> > > to include in  
> > > other licenses, but I had never contemplated that the  
> > > anti-advertising clause would become a universal option. 
> > > To me, it's  
> > > part of the definition of what bona fide sampling means. 
> > > This isn't  
> > > the advertising discussion list, but the sampling one. To 
> > > the extent  
> > > that "what is advertising" feeds into the question "what 
> > > is true  
> > > sampling?" i'm happy to entertain it. But I can't let it 
> > > change the  
> > > structure we worked so hard to put in place these last 12 
> > > months.
> > >
> > > (2) Our Technical Advisory Board, metadata advisors, and 
> > > main coders  
> > > prefer to have this be a one-off license. They're the 
> > > ones who have  
> > > to build this thing, and I happen to agree with them.
> > >
> > > You're not crazy at all, and everything you've said makes 
> > > sense. I  
> > > have to take into account many factors here, and the two 
> > > biggest are  
> > > 1) what would add the greatest benefit while -- crucially 
> > > -- 2)  
> > > causing the least amount of disruption to our staff time, 
> > > web site,  
> > > current user base, current user experience? I can't let 
> > > this one  
> > > innovation change everything that came before it.
> > >
> > > G.
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 05:17 PM, Joshua Csehak 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >     I understand your need for simplicity, and 
> > > completely agree with  
> > > it, but having worked as a coder, the phrase "just one 
> > > extra  
> > > scenario" is a huge red flag for me.
> > >
> > >     First, I imagine a prospective user wondering "How 
> > > does the  
> > > Sampling License differ from just clicking "allow 
> > > modifications of  
> > > your work?" I'd figure they'd assume that the sampling 
> > > license only  
> > > let people take small bits of the work, while the latter 
> > > let them  
> > > change it as a whole. But it's mostly just about making 
> > > the  
> > > derivatives commercially available, and it theoretically 
> > > has that  
> > > whole "no ad" business. How do you convey that?
> > >
> > >     But more importantly, the current situation doesn't 
> > > allow for  
> > > some very valid possibilities:
> > >
> > >     -what if I want to let people distribute my work, 
> > > but not make  
> > > derivative works, and I also don't want people using it 
> > > in ads? I  
> > > mean, right now, the Attribution NoDerivs (I'm guessing 
> > > the most  
> > > popular license) doesn't prevent Bell Atlantic from using 
> > > it as the  
> > > soundtrack for their next cell phone commercial (correct 
> > > me if I'm  
> > > wrong). This is a major reason why I personally am not 
> > > licensing my  
> > > work under a CC license.
> > >
> > >     "So?" You say. Big deal. Some no-name doesn't want 
> > > to use our  
> > > licenses.
> > >
> > >     But what happens when someone like Bono has the same 
> > > problem? I  
> > > can't imagine why any big-name artist would let 
> > > advertisers use their  
> > > song for free, for any reason. Now you have to write 
> > > another extra  
> > > license, the Attribution Derivs NoAd license.
> > >
> > >     Now let's say Bowie gets hip to the open-source 
> > > movement and  
> > > wants to release his next single as open-source. Let's 
> > > say he  
> > > convinces the label to let people use the source to make 
> > > remixes (but  
> > > not for profit), but they won't let him make it legal for 
> > > people to  
> > > share his original song on p2p. Now things start to get 
> > > really  
> > > complicated. Maybe you're much further along into the 
> > > project, and  
> > > it's cost and/or time-prohibitive to restructure it, so 
> > > you add  
> > > another specific license. And now you've got three extra 
> > > licenses out  
> > > there.
> > >
> > >     Thing is, any time you address an exceptional 
> > > scenario by making  
> > > an exception-specific rule, rather than making the 
> > > original rules fit  
> > > it, you're asking for trouble later on. My solution may 
> > > not be the  
> > > most elegant, or even the most logical, but I really 
> > > think there must  
> > > be some way keep it consistent and scalable without 
> > > having any  
> > > extemporaneous licenses floating around.
> > >
> > >     does that make sense, or am I crazy?
> > >     Josh
> > >
> > >     On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 07:29 PM, Glenn Otis 
> > > Brown wrote:
> > >
> > >          my response all the way at the bottom. . . .
> > >
> > >               Hi Glenn,
> > >
> > >               The page would have to be a little more 
> > > complicated.  
> > > But one of the reasons
> > >               I personally haven't released any of my 
> > > work under a  
> > > CC license is the
> > >               advertising issue. I think more options 
> > > might be a  
> > > good thing.
> > >
> > >               It would have to look something like this 
> > > ("o" is a  
> > > radio button, "[]" is a
> > >               checkbox):
> > >
> > >               Do you want to let people distribute 
> > > and/or broadcast  
> > > your work?
> > >               o no
> > >               o yes, however they wish
> > >               o yes, but
> > >               [] only if they credit me
> > >               [] not for profit
> > >               [] not in advertisments
> > >
> > >               Do you want to let people make and 
> > > distribute and/or  
> > > broadcast modified
> > >               copies of your work?
> > >               o no
> > >               o yes, however they wish
> > >               o yes, but
> > >               [] only if they credit me
> > >               [] not for profit
> > >               [] not in advertisments
> > >
> > >               And then if we decided to make all the 
> > > options  
> > > available, it'd look
> > >               something like this:
> > >
> > >               Do you want to let people distribute 
> > > and/or broadcast  
> > > your work?
> > >               o no
> > >               o yes, however they wish
> > >               o yes, but
> > >               [] only if they credit me
> > >               [] not for profit
> > >               [] not in advertisments
> > >               [] not alongside any other media
> > >               [] only for educational purposes
> > >               [] only in underdeveloped countries
> > >
> > >               Do you want to let people make and 
> > > distribute and/or  
> > > broadcast modified
> > >               copies of your work?
> > >               o no
> > >               o yes, however they wish
> > >               o yes, but
> > >               [] only if they credit me
> > >               [] not for profit
> > >               [] not in advertisments
> > >               [] not alongside any other media
> > >               [] only for educational purposes
> > >               [] only in underdeveloped countries
> > >               [] only if they provide the source 
> > > material (like I do)
> > >
> > >               Do you think that's too complicatied?
> > >
> > >               (again, I'm skirting the share-alike 
> > > issue, but mostly  
> > > because there may be
> > >               good reason to make it mandatory in all 
> > > licenses. But  
> > > at worst it could
> > >               simply be another check box in the 
> > > derivative category)
> > >
> > >               Josh
> > >
> > >               Do you think that's too complicatied?
> > >
> > >          With all due respect, I think it is.
> > >
> > >          Here's what mine version would look like:
> > >
> > >          The choose license page would be the same:
> > >
> > >          Do you want to:
> > >
> > >          Require attribution? (more info )
> > >          Yes
> > >          No
> > >
> > >          Allow commercial uses of your work? (more info 
> > > )
> > >          Yes
> > >          No
> > >
> > >          Allow modifications of your work? (more info )
> > >          Yes
> > >          Yes, as long as others share alike ( more info 
> > > )
> > >          No
> > >
> > >          But along the right margin, or somewhere 
> > > prominent, there  
> > > would
> > >          be a big button that said SAMPLING LICENSE.
> > >
> > >          When you click on that, you get a little 
> > > information about
> > >          the sampling license, plus a single question:
> > >
> > >          Require attribution? (more info )
> > >          Yes
> > >          No
> > >
> > >          On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 03:58 PM, Joshua 
> > > Csehak wrote:
> > >
> > >               Glenn Otis Brown wrote:
> > >
> > >                    Joshua,
> > >
> > >                    Some great points here.
> > >
> > >                    In response, I'll say that one of top 
> > > priorities  
> > > is to keep our
> > >                    licensor interface, found here  
> > > <http://creativecommons.org/license/> as
> > >                    simple and easy to use as possible.
> > >
> > >                    Under the vision you describe below, 
> > > what would  
> > > that page look like?
> > >
> > >                    My idea is to leave that great page 
> > > exactly as  
> > > is, and to offer the
> > >                    Sampling license (with an attribution 
> > > option) as  
> > > a one-off specialty
> > >                    license.
> > >
> > >                    Thanks,
> > >
> > >                    Glenn
> > >
> > >                    On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 03:26 
> > > PM, Joshua  
> > > Csehak wrote:
> > >
> > >                         Hi all,
> > >
> > >                         I just read all the archives on 
> > > the sampling  
> > > list. Let me first say
> > >                         that I'm very excited about 
> > > being part of  
> > > this discussion. I think
> > >                         creating a standard licensing 
> > > scheme is a  
> > > huge step toward
> > >                         consolidating artists in the 
> > > open-* (star  
> > > being techno-speak for
> > >                         "whatever") movements and 
> > > eventually  
> > > bringing to light problems with
> > >                         current copyright law and maybe 
> > > someday  
> > > getting it changed. Who knows,
> > >                         if we create a widely-used 
> > > standard, and  
> > > enough big-name artists adopt
> > >                         it, maybe one day sampling will 
> > > be  
> > > considered "fair use."
> > >
> > >                         I hope I'm not jumping in too 
> > > late here, but  
> > > I had an overriding
> > >                         concern since just about page 
> > > one. Chris  
> > > brought it up eariler:
> > >
> > >                              [CG] I see. Hm, do you 
> > > think you might  
> > > need, or it might be better
> > >                              to have, separate licenses 
> > > instead of  
> > > alternate versions of this
> > >                              language? It could get 
> > > really confusing  
> > > to conditionalize the same
> > >                              language to handle both 
> > > kinds of  
> > > attribution requirements, especially
> > >                              if there are various 
> > > options for the SL.
> > >
> > >                         Yes yes yes, a thousand times 
> > > yes.
> > >
> > >                         You guys have started a really 
> > > great thing,  
> > > covering all (or most of)
> > >                         the bases not by having a 
> > > bazillion  
> > > licenses, but by offering license
> > >                         terms a la carte. Why mess with 
> > > a good  
> > > thing? Creating a whole new
> > >                         license is confusing to me, and 
> > > I've spent a  
> > > lot of time thinking
> > >                         about all this stuff. We 
> > > absolutely have to  
> > > make the licensing scheme
> > >                         as easy as possible to 
> > > understand by someone  
> > > with all the mental
> > >                         capacity of say, Ozzy Osborne.
> > >
> > >                         What confuses me (or what will 
> > > confuse me,  
> > > if the SL is added to the
> > >                         list): why is there a 
> > > "no-derivatives"  
> > > option, and a "derivatives"
> > >                         (SL) option? Does that mean that 
> > > the  
> > > attribution-only license allows
> > >                         for making of derivative works? 
> > > No, of  
> > > course not. So why the overlap?
> > >                         Is there a way to work 
> > > everything so there's  
> > > no overlap, but a
> > >                         consistent and 
> > > easy-to-understand licensing  
> > > scheme that not only
> > >                         allows for every situation we 
> > > can think of  
> > > now, but also is modular,
> > >                         to allow for future situations? 
> > > I think  
> > > there is.
> > >
> > >                         Someone (I think Glenn) said:
> > >
> > >                              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.
> > >
> > >                         Aha. So why not, instead of 
> > > creating a whole  
> > > new SL, just say that?
> > >                         Doesn't sampling fall under the 
> > > category of  
> > > a derivative work? Is
> > >                         there any reason why you'd want 
> > > to allow  
> > > sampling but not another type
> > >                         of derivative work?
> > >
> > >                         My suggestion:
> > >
> > >                         The way I see it, there are two 
> > > types of  
> > > freedoms you might want to
> > >                         grant:
> > >
> > >                         Distribution- anyone can  
> > > distribute/broadcast verbatim copies.
> > >                         Derivative- anyone can  
> > > make/distribute/broadcast derivative works.
> > >
> > >                         and there are certain types of 
> > > restrictions  
> > > you might want to impose
> > >                         on those freedoms (perhaps 
> > > called modifiers  
> > > or options):
> > >
> > >                         Attribution- any copies of the 
> > > work must  
> > > include credit to the
> > >                         original author.*
> > >                         Non-commercial- you can't profit 
> > > off of it.
> > >                         No Ad- the work cannot be used 
> > > in an  
> > > advertisment.
> > >                         No Sync- the work cannot be 
> > > synchronised  
> > > with another media (just a
> > >                         thought).**
> > >                         Education- these rights are 
> > > allowed only for  
> > > educational purposes***
> > >                         Under-developed Countries- these 
> > > rights are  
> > > allowed only in
> > >                         under-developed countries
> > >                         Open-Source- you must make the 
> > > source  
> > > material available (only an
> > >                         option for derivative works)**
> > >
> > >                         * This includes credit to the 
> > > parent  
> > > author(s), if the work in
> > >                         question is itself a derivative 
> > > work.
> > >                         ** Doesn't educational use fall 
> > > under "fair  
> > > use" anyway? I'm pretty
> > >                         sure it does, but only for 
> > > snippets, not  
> > > entire works.
> > >                         *** More on this later
> > >
> > >                         So for instance, Alice might 
> > > release her  
> > > song "Yeah Baby," under a
> > >                         "Distribution (attribution, 
> > > non-commercial,  
> > > no-ad) & Derivative
> > >                         (attribution, no-ad)" license. 
> > > This would  
> > > mean that people could share
> > >                         her song for free over KaZaa but 
> > > not sell  
> > > copies of it, other people
> > >                         could sample the song and sell 
> > > their new  
> > > song, and an ad company would
> > >                         have to get her permission if 
> > > they wanted to  
> > > use her song or any song
> > >                         that samples her song in a 
> > > commercial.  
> > > Alternatively, if she doesn't
> > >                         care if people use a derivative 
> > > song in an  
> > > ad (just not her original
> > >                         song), she could remove the 
> > > "no-ad" modifier  
> > > from the Derivative
> > >                         freedom.
> > >
> > >                         I really think these options 
> > > cover every  
> > > concern that's been brought
> > >                         up so far. I'd be very 
> > > interested though, to  
> > > hear if I'm missing
> > >                         something, or my logic simply 
> > > isn't sound.  
> > > One thing it doesn't cover
> > >                         is if you want to make it so 
> > > people could  
> > > say, use the work in an ad
> > >                         in an under-developed country, 
> > > but not in  
> > > the US. Or if you want to
> > >                         make it so people only have to 
> > > attribute you  
> > > if they're profiting off
> > >                         of your work, but not if they're 
> > > just giving  
> > > it away. But I think if
> > >                         you want to get that picky, you 
> > > can write  
> > > your own damn license.
> > >
> > >                         One thing to think about - I 
> > > can't think of  
> > > any reason why you'd want
> > >                         to have more restrictions for 
> > > the derivative  
> > > works than for verbatim
> > >                         copies. But I think it's best to 
> > > keep the  
> > > options open.
> > >
> > >                         Yes, the list is incomplete and 
> > > poorly  
> > > defined, and it's a bit of a
> > >                         radical change, but I think 
> > > restructuring it  
> > > like this is the only way
> > >                         to make everyone's concerns fit 
> > > into a  
> > > consistent and
> > >                         easy-to-understand licensing 
> > > scheme. I also  
> > > don't think any work would
> > >                         be lost by adopting this 
> > > structure (or  
> > > something like it), since most
> > >                         concerns that have been brought 
> > > up would  
> > > fall under the Derivative
> > >                         freedom or the No Ad modifier.
> > >
> > >                         You might notice I left out the 
> > > "share and  
> > > share alike" option.
> > >                         Defining what rights 3rd parties 
> > > are allowed  
> > > to license their
> > >                         derivative works under is a 
> > > tricky mess, as  
> > > is evident in the archive.
> > >                         My thoughts on that whole mess, 
> > > and on how  
> > > to best define the
> > >                         advertising option (for 
> > > instance, does  
> > > propaganda count as
> > >                         advertising?), and even how to 
> > > define a  
> > > derivative work (for instance,
> > >                         does a music video qualify as a 
> > > derivative  
> > > of the original song?),
> > >                         will follow in another email.
> > >
> > >                         best,
> > >                         Joshua Csehak
> > >
> > >                          
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >                         cc-sampling mailing list
> > >                         cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > >                          
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling
> > >
> > >                     
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > > --
> > >                    --------------------
> > >                    Glenn Otis Brown
> > >                    glenn AT creativecommons.org
> > >                    Executive Director
> > >                    t +1.650.723.7572
> > >                    (cc) creativecommons f
> > >                    +1.650.723.8440
> > >
> > >               --
> > >               root# records
> > >               Open Source Music
> > >               www.rootrecords.org
> > >
> > >           
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > > ----------------------
> > >          Glenn Otis Brown glenn AT creativecommons.org
> > >          Executive Director t +1.650.723.7572
> > >          (cc) creativecommons f +1.650.723.8440
> > >
> > >          _______________________________________________
> > >          cc-sampling mailing list
> > >          cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > >          http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling
> > >
> > >     ----------------------------
> > >     Root# Records
> > >     Open Source Music
> > >     www.rootrecords.org
> > >     _______________________________________________
> > >     cc-sampling mailing list
> > >     cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > >     http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > > ----------------------
> > > Glenn Otis Brown glenn AT creativecommons.org
> > > Executive Director t +1.650.723.7572
> > > (cc) creativecommons f +1.650.723.8440
> >
> > --
> > root# records
> > Open Source Music
> > www.rootrecords.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> --------------------
> Glenn Otis Brown 
>                                      glenn AT creativecommons.org
> Executive Director 
>                                                      
>    t +1.650.723.7572
> (cc) creativecommons 		 
>                                 f  +1.650.723.8440
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-sampling mailing list
> cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling

<TEXTAREA NAME="Signature" ROWS="4" COLS="60">