Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-sampling - Re: [cc-sampling] Making the SL fit in with it all

cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org

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

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: mark / negativland <markhosler AT charter.net>
  • To: Glenn Otis Brown <glenn AT creativecommons.org>, jcsehak AT rootrecords.org
  • Cc: creative list <cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-sampling] Making the SL fit in with it all
  • Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:07:31 -0400

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">




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page