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

["Glenn Otis Brown" <glenn AT creativecommons.org>]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:58:07 -0700, "Lisa Rein" <lisarein AT finetuning.com>
said:
> Hi Catherine,
> 
> I would love it if you could clarify the difference between what this 
> license allows  and what a "full derivative" license would allow.  It 
> seems to me that if you include a sample of a song, for instance, in 
> another song, repeating it frequently. It *is* a derivative work.

It is. But that's just one kind of derivative work. It doesn't represent
the universe of possible DWs.

The whole point of this license was to try to do a better job of
derivative work than the copyright act does. Under the law, pretty much
anything -- even a pretty trivial change -- counts as a derivative work.
We wanted to improve on that definition by requiring "transformation" or
a good faith remixing to discourage people from abusing the sampling
license by barely changing something and then trying to resell it.


> 
> It was my understanding that these lines are not crystal clear. (re: 
> between partial derivative and full derivatives, or whatever) -- I 
> would appreaciate any clarification you could provide in this regard.
> 
> thanks!!
> 
> lisa
> 
> 
> On Monday, September 15, 2003, at 02:59  PM, Kirkman, Catherine wrote:
> 
> > I agree with you that they are ambiguous, which is why I liked 
> > "sampling" best.
> >
> > With creative/artistic there may be connotations of the artistic 
> > techniques that we have in mind for this license, but again as a 
> > lawyer I will let the creative folks decide on what connotations 
> > resonate (or not).  My main concern is actually that the name not 
> > imply a full derivative right license.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cory Doctorow [mailto:doctorow AT craphound.com]
> > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 2:00 PM
> > To: Kirkman, Catherine
> > Cc: Glenn Otis Brown; cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > Subject: Re: [cc-sampling] Nation of Copiers, or, what to name the
> > license?
> >
> >
> > "creative re-use" and "artistic re-use" are ambiguous, because all of
> > the existing licenses ALSO permit creative and artistic reuse. IOW,
> > "Here is the 'Creative Re-Use License" and here is the
> > "Attrib-Derivs-Commercial" license. How do they differ?"
> >
> >> For this reason I also like "creative re-use" or "artistic re-use", as
> >> to me these are suggestive of sampling and the other artistic
> >> techniques that are contemplated.
> >>
> >> Cathy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, 
> > confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended 
> > recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any 
> > attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not 
> > the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and 
> > permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any 
> > attachments thereto.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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)