Re: OT: for our planned festival - distribution channels regarding "call for performers", legal advice regarding ancillary copyright

[Dennis Moser <sinsofmachaut@gmail.com>]

Well-said, Rainer ... clearly the problem lies with the contract-side ... and Per, in your follow-up to this, American "copyright" is derived directly from English law. The problem is that it was codified in the in the US to a greater degree than elsewhere, and yes, there are an increasing number of conflicts arising out of this lately. US copyright is not a "contract" ... it is very close to the EU "artists' rights" concept, being based on the same very law. The problem lies in the fact that we (the US) talk about "copyright" and not about "artist's rights" because so much material has been given over to corporate ownership. It's all "intellectual property" at the end of the day ... 

Any of us participating need to be crystal clear about what is said in any existing contracts that we are party to ... whether in the EU/UK or the US. I, for one, would never consent to a contract that took away my rights of use ... we need to be vigilant about negotiating just what rights are covered in the contracts.

Having said that, I would encourage us to reconsider the use of the AT-NC-ND license ... as I pointed out to Jeff in an off-list message, that gives quite a bit of clout. Here are the references I sent him:


Here are some sites that give some good sound information on how it works =

http://rising.blackstar.com/how-to-handle-a-copyright-switcheroo-on-flickr.html

http://www.openarchitecturenetwork.org/licensing ("What if I change my mind" .. about half way down the page)
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ (same info)

Yes, while the work is our there people can download it and share
it ... BUT they are required to attribute it to you and cannot change
or profit from it. You then have the right to withdraw the work and
release it in traditional copyrighted form ... if those folks who
downloaded it earlier, use it outside of the specifications of the
license UNDER WHICH THEY DOWNLOADED IT, they are subject to recourse
... even years later and even if you have changed the license.

The point is that you still have more control over the work than you think.

If you have a contract, PLEASE look at it carefully and see what it spells out ... there is a reason that the lawyers get involved. A good lawyer is one who is your own personal pit bull. And contracts can be re-negotiated (if they can't, it's time to get a new one!) Here's a link to a discussion about negotiating the use of a CC license (yes, they are talking about books, but in this case, it still applies ... w just have to be sure and include issues like "performance rights") =

http://www.mandiberg.com/2009/01/12/howto-negotiate-a-creative-commons-license-ten-steps/


Best,

Dennis

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Rainer Straschill <moinsound@googlemail.com> wrote:

Dennis,

thanks for your reply - but actually, you said what I was trying to
express myself:

"We could still use a CC license for the performance of work not
previously covered by a contract (unless you have an agreement with a
rights organization to whom you have signed over the COPYRIGHT of all
your performances past and future, which even in this day and age
people are still signing!)."

From what I understand (and I'm no lawyer myself, as you may have
guessed), your contract with a performing rights organisation may not
include handing over your copyright, but may very well include handing
over the management of your performing rights, and that for all of
your works you create while that contract is running.

Which would mean that the organisation will charge a fee on any
distribution of your material with the possible exception of internet
transmission. Under that condition you could not publish anything
under by-nc-nd (or any other cc license) without violating that
contract.

           Rainer

-- 
http://myspace.com/usrsbin
http://audiozoloft.com
http://usrslashsbin.angrek.com/