Cc-uk mailing list

[Bernard Hurley <bernard AT fong-hurley.org.uk>]

A few comments on v.2.03.

3B - I agree with Rob Meyers that "Later new versions of the work"
should _not_ include works by the original author, and this should be
made clear.
There are two reasons for this.
First the author might wish to license different versions of a work
differently.  For instance I might wish to give an orchestra exclusive
rights to perform an orchestration of a piano piece for a year.
It is not always clear, in the case of the original author, whether
something should be considered a new version of a work. For instance,
when Haydn re-used a theme from a string quartet in a symphony, was he
creating a new work or a new version of an old work?

4H - I would have to think very seriously before using a work that had
this clause in its licence.

5C - What precisely does this mean?
If for instance a work I had written were performed by a choral society,
which was a charity and non-profit making, at a concert where an
entrance fee was charged. The society would not in the normal sense of
the word be "making money" out of the work, but merely be carrying out
one of its charitable aims of presenting new works to the public. 
However it still has to charge money to cover the costs of rehearsals,
hall hire, soloists fees etc.
OTOH suppose it or a recording of it were performed on Classic FM. To me
this would clearly be a commercial use of the work, but no fee would be
charged for accessing (listening to) the work.

6A I regard this as absurd. Referring to my hypothetical choral work, an
amateur choir might need 3 months of rehearsals before performing it.  I
doubt if they would bother if they thought the licence might have
changed by the end of that period.
I certainly would NOT use work licensed under these terms.

7A What are "music clearances"? I suppose I _should_ know the answer to
this but I don't.

8 I agree with Rob that this unilateral audit is a bad thing.

Regards,

Bernard Hurley