Discussion of all things related to Public Domain

[tom poe <tompoe AT amihost.com>]

Hi, Chris:  If we think of an example, say, a text that has a paragraph
that really makes sense added to another text paragraph.  Now, how does
cut and paste work?  Do we search out all the restrictions the copyright
holder wants to impose, or do we use a license that fits the general
usage, and move on?  [note:  I assume attribution accompanies such an
example]

I suspect that if someone wants to narrow the uses of cut and paste to
specific areas, they might want to customize the license, as noted in
the instructions for CC licenses.

Let's say the license was named, innovate-plus (my personal favorite). 
This might connote a license that includes sampling, cut and paste, and,
might not be limited to music, or art, but rather cuts across all
disciplines.  The descriptive name is important, I agree with you.  The
legalese, however, might serve the purpose for those who have specific
ideas about what they want their creation to be used for.

The overall vision, as I see licensing with Creative Commons is, that
whatever license is chosen, is used for the immediate foreseeable
future, one that is reasonable and fits the creation.  The goal is to
move from license to public domain as quickly as possible.

Even though we are working with licenses that carry into perpetuity (I
have to smile at this irony), the social controls built into Lessig's
dream, is to move us towards the Commons as rapidly as possible,
regardless of what the license says.  To sum up then, maybe this license
for sampling should be accompanied by something that alerts the
innovator to consider checking the legalese when coming across such
license.  What do you think?
Thanks,
Tom Poe
Open Studios
Reno, NV
http://www.studioforrecording.org/

On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 21:41, 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".  In fact, the combination is more 
> complicated than any of the existing CC license terms: "I offer you 
> (anybody) a license to re-use this work (i.e. in derivative works), 
> but only under the following conditions: 1) attribution required, 2) 
> transformative usage required, 3) commercial usage permitted but 
> advertising of other products prohibited."
> 
> 1) is covered by an existing CC license clause, no problem
> 
> 2) is new, so we need a name for this.  Not too hard -- cut & paste, etc.
> 
> 3) covers ground that an existing CC license clause (non commercial) 
> already covers, but with the opposite answer (commercial use good), 
> and with a carve-out (ads bad).  That's messy.  Don't we also need to 
> separate this part out and find a name for it, so it can be offered 
> as an alternative to Non Commercial, i.e. "No Ads"?  Otherwise the 
> overall Sampling clause couldn't be combined with the Non Commercial 
> clause.
> 
> 
> So I'm thinking maybe this whole thing should just be structured 
> differently. Instead of the current license options...
> 
>       Require Attribution:        Yes | No
>       Allow Commercial Use: Yes | No
>       Allow Modifications:       Yes | Only if Share Alike | No
> 
> ...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.
> 
>       -- Chris G.
> 
> 
> At 7.03p -0700 2003.09.15, Lisa Rein wrote:
> >Hi Chris,
> >
> >I think the point is to *require* transformations. Not to make them an 
> >option.
> >
> >So as not to allow people to re-release songs without really 
> >contributing anything to them in the resulting derivative work.
> >
> >thanks,
> >
> >lisa
> >
> >
> >On Monday, September 15, 2003, at 06:57  PM, Chris Grigg wrote:
> >
> >>OK, so I just looked at the CC For-Dummies cartoon 
> >>(http://creativecommons.org/learn/licenses/comics1  etc.), and 
> >>thought I should offer that it seems like what we're after, staying 
> >>consistent with CC vocabulary (esp. "No Derivative Works"), seems 
> >>more like "No Non-Transformative Derivative Works," or, to invert 
> >>that into a shorter and positive construction, "Only 
> >>Transformations OK," or "Transformations Only".  Obviously those 
> >>are awkward, but maybe we can find a more graceful way of saying 
> >>the same thing?
> >>
> >>"Transformations OK" is nicer, but doesn't say anything about the 
> >>non-transformative cases.  You need to retain both the meaning that 
> >>transformative derivatives are OK, and that non-transformative 
> >>derivatives aren't.  Ideas...?
> >>
> >>    -- Chris G.
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>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