I’ve identified some problems with the shoddy Creative Commons “audio” license/deed/whatchamacallit (second rate legal work at best). One would think that with all the millions of dollars that Creative Commons (the organization) has raised they could manage to get it right.
I guess it takes a lot of money to give things away for free. At least that would be my…bet…if you catch my drift.
I’m not the only one who has anted up on this topic. ASCAP’s Joan McGivern has a great piece on the subject which is well worth a read.
Professor Jane Ginsburg of the Columbia Law School has an excellent piece (Public Licenses: The Gift that Keeps on Giving) that I recommend, particularly since Professor Ginsburg has far more patience with these people than I do and is very even handed in her approach. So if you don’t believe me, and he won’t believe ASCAP, maybe you’ll believe one of the leading copyright scholars of the day.
“[T]he author may come to regret the free, perpetual grant of rights in future modes of exploiting the work, particularly if she adopts the default license and does not reserve commercial uses and derivative works. If new technologies create new markets for the work (as they surely will), the CC-licensing author will have in advance surrendered her exclusive rights to determine how (or indeed, if) her work should be exploited in those markets.”