Again, the Non-Commercial attribute of Creative Commons makes me wonder. Also because of this excellent article. Yes, I do agree, the Share-Alike attribute also protects artist from ‘stealing’ for commercial use. So there you go: lets leave out the NC attribute.
So here we are, with our music using the by-sa license.
BY: Attribution. You must give the original author credit.
SA: Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one.
The tricky part of Share-Alike is that derivative works, like films, also need to be licensed under the same license.
Let’s say HBO wants to use my song which is licensed under BY-SA for a television program. Will HBO release that program under BY-SA as well? No, I don’t think so. (Although cable television is a public paid network, none of its works are public domain or use a more friendly license than the All Rights Reserved one.)
So now what? Well, if HBO really wants your song, they need to contact me (the old clearance shit of the past happens here, take note!) to ask for permission. I can probably create a special license for HBO and everybody is happy, right?
Well not really, here’s a quote of the Intelligentdesigns NC article:
All Creative Commons licenses make it clear that it is possible for the content creator to give special permission that goes beyond the terms of the license to any interested party. However, this, too, is insufficient. Any large free content community is likely to reject content under special permission, because it would exclude valid third party uses: from local initiatives that make use of the content in schools or community newspapers, to companies which distribute DVDs or printed copies, to useful and compliant mirror sites. This is true for Wikimedia as well: material which is under special permission is explicitly forbidden and will be deleted.
Well I simply don’t understand this. Since the CC is just a license, any artist could make a special personal license for a third party. This would in my opinion not change anything, because it is a special license for just this special case. And it is needed because in our example HBO would object to release the program under the same conditions as our song.
I also don’t think that would work. PodsafeMusic Network uses their own license which doesn’t use a commercial attribute and only has some sort of BY attribute so the artists will be notated in the shownotes of a podcast. Well, that’s fine because the music I publish on that network is to be used by Podcasters only.
But maybe I am missing the point. In my opinion anyone should be able to create a special license for the content for a special purpose. By deleting the SA out of a license, for HBO for example, you are not creating a more restricted license, no you are allowing them to play your music in a program which is created for money. So you ask for money too.
But if you, my dear reader, think I misinterpreted the above quote, please let me know because I really, really would like to understand it.
And lost but not least; what about using only the BY attribute? The only thing which really keeps me from doing so is that I don’t believe I can make any money out of these works. Using only the BY attribute allows HBO to use my tracks without paying me anything. And even without asking me for permission. Simple and clean… but no money. Or am I wrong?
Update: Lessig comments on some of the issues of the article of Intelligentdesigns in his weekly ‘CC in Review’. I understand now that using SA without NC might be tricky. At the moment I will continue using BY-NC-SA because this is the best one for me I guess, because it offers commercial protection. At the same time it gives a lot of freedoms to users. Rights to copy and distribute it among friends, family and most important: my prospects (filmmakers, documentary producers etc.). And that’s exactly what I need.
