On 1/17/08, Jamison Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wrote this article on Icommons back last year looking at licenses > for artists and physical spaces. Is creative commons interested in > creating this kind of contract for venues to use sometime in the > future? http://www.icommons.org/articles/contracts-for-artists- > physical-spaces > > 1)-Contract that the artist signs to tell the venue that the artist > is not with rights organization and shall perform only original > content at the venue. > > 2)-Contract that the artist signs that allows the venue to use the > recorded music of that artist in that venue free of charge. It would > be up to the artist to let the venue know if in the future the artist > joined a rights organization.
Those sound useful, along with other contracts recently discussed on cc-community. Jon Phillips noted a place collecting such things, http://www.ownterms.org/ > I posted this (bellow) on iCommons mail list already, then realized > that this mail list is the place for it to go. Actually cc-community is the right place. cc-devel is for technology development. I cc'd cc-community and replies should go there. > I wondered if any mock-ups might be created for non-profits/charities > to integrate the CC+(+) license to their organization http:// > wiki.creativecommons.org/Ccplus ? Yes, that's a great idea. > I see that mock-ups have been made > for some of the established sites. Can the CC+ license be for Non- > Profit/Charities also? in that i mean artists giving up (part of or > all % return) commercial rights to a charity of choice? I also > wondered if this license might potentially integrate into works > registered with rights organizations outside the US or if this > license could be adapted to do that? CC have myspace listed as > potentially using this license. A lot of artists on myspace would be > interested to give up commercial rights to a charity of choice at the > click of a button within their profile. The license would have to be > non-exclusive and not like a regular CC license. does that all make > sense? you can check out the node at the link http:// > www.hungryartists.org Yes, CC+ is just a thin architecture for specifying that other terms are available. An agent for handling the non-public license option could conceivably do so in any fashion, so it is a matter of creating such an agent or getting an existing one to implement the HAFHP proposal. > Also: Next month in Oslo i'm told that a project from the http:// > www.iarts.CC shall start being developed at the university. artist > press kit. Fantastic. Mike _______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
