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

[Don Joyce <dj AT webbnet.com>]

I agree with Chris, I too am out to diminish the traditional 
(European) concept of moral rights which seeks to prevent anything 
being done the maker might dislike. This pretty much prevents free 
expression concerning or re-using other art and is bad for the future 
of art in my opinion.

I would hope the Cut & Paste license wording (sorry, I'm just going 
to call it that) will deflect any artists who wish to maintain 'moral 
rights" over their own work by indicating how that control is being 
given up with this license.
DJ







> Hi Kevin, nice to see you over here too.
>
> At 12.54a -0700 2003.09.16, Kevin Marks wrote:
> > On Monday, September 15, 2003, at 09:41  PM, Chris Grigg wrote:
> >
> > > Of course, but looking at it from the perspective of the CC 
> > > licensing framework -- a set of orthogonal options, each clearly 
> > > defined -- the overall message of this license is way more 
> > > complicated than just "transformations required".
> >
> > I know I'm coming in at the end here, so I don't know the history 
> > of this, but this complexity is a concern. As the CC license 
> > accretes variations like this, the ability to use it 
> > deterministically fades, and the prospect of licence negotiation or 
> > potential litigation creeps back in.
> >
> > > ...you could have -- or might need to have -- something more like this:
> > >
> > >         Require Attribution:                   Yes | No
> > >         Allow Commercial Use:            Yes | No
> > >         Allow Advertising Use:             Yes | No
> > >         Modifications of your work:      Allowed | Require | No
> > >         Derivatives Must Share Alike:  Yes | No
> > >
> > > So one new choice, and one restructured choice, pulling Share 
> > > Alike out into a separate Y/N option.  In this scenario, the 
> > > 'Sampling License' we've been discussing would be Yes, Yes, No, 
> > > and Require; note that this way, Share Alike could be answered 
> > > either way.
> >
> > The definitions of 'partial', 'substantial', and 'highly 
> > transformative' are in effect deferred to future litigation;
>
> Kevin's objections are the exact same ones I've raised previously, 
> and which frankly I don't feel have been adequately answered. 
> Waiting for the vague definitions to be litigated doesn't seem like 
> anywhere near as good a plan as just writing better definitions up 
> front.  It should be a primary goal of the license to .avoid. 
> litigation, i.e. through clarity, not occasion it.
>
> >  this license seems to be bringing 'moral rights' into the definition.
>
> That's an interesting comment.  It does sort of look like that if 
> seen primarily in contrast to fair use rights that in the abstract 
> .should. be pretty free, i.e. the license is in that sense a 
> comparative restriction.  I have the feeling the CC gang are looking 
> at it more in contrast to a negotiated license, where everything not 
> explicitly permitted by the contract is forbidden... so in that 
> sense it's more like an relaxation of the customary limitations.  I 
> can't really defend it, but (ironically enough) some of the people 
> who started this project wanted to exert a lot of control over what 
> kinds of re-uses would be permitted.
>
> Kind of an arbitrary package IMHO.  Personally I don't much agree 
> with the larger moral rights agenda, so am lukewarm about seeing it 
> formalized in otherwise forward-looking initiatives such as this one.
>
>         -- Chris G.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-sampling mailing list
> cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling