QCO news!

Congratulations to Creative Commons on new CC-BY-NV license.

Question Copyright congratulates Creative Commons on the release of the new Creative Commons Attribution No-Value 1.0 International license, which allows covered works to be distributed freely with proper attribution, as long as no recipient derives any value whatsoever from them, including but not limited to personal pleasure, commercial gain, or artistic benefit.


CC-BY-NV allows derivative works so long as the derivatives are also without value to anyone, but it can be explicitly combined with the No-Derivatives (NC) clause for good measure.  According to CC General Counsel Diane Peters, the new license cannot be combined with Non-Commercial (NC) clause, because lack of commercial potential is already implicit in the NV clause, but she added that "it can, however, be combined with the ShareAlike (SA) clause, not that it would do any good."

"The release of CC-BY-NV 1.0 International is the result of lawyers and other experts around the world coming together to ensure that artists who simply want to ensure that no one can experience enjoyment of their works have a place in the Creative Commons constellation too," said Creative Commons Executive Director Ryan Merkley.  "I'm enormously grateful to the entire CC team and to all the volunteers who worked so hard to get this out by the April 1st deadline."  Diane Peters noted "We already have a number of artists inquiring about applying the new license to their works."


Czech translation of our most popular article, "The Promise of a Post-Copyright World".

IdeasBy far the most popular article on this site (over half a million views now and counting) is The Surprising History of Copyright and the Promise of a Post-Copyright World.  Courtesy of Antonín Houska, it is now available in Czech (česky): Překvapivá historie copyrightu a příslib světa po něm.

Thank you, Antonín!

It's also been translated into Chinese, Polish, Latvian, and Italian.  We're very grateful to all the translators; it's a lot of work for a piece of that length.  But the existence of these translations should also serve as a reminder of the vast amount of material in the world that would be translated if it weren't restricted by copyright monopolies -- a topic we've covered in depth before.

Happy New Year, everyone.  Let's try to have more freedom in 2016 than we did in 2015.


Going to Town on Warner/Chappell in the "Happy Birthday" case.

Happy Birthday cupcake.We've written about the Happy Birthday lawsuit here before.  Now it seems the case has reached a turning point -- a "smoking gun" has been found, thanks to research in the files of the pro-monopoly side, Warner/Chappell: a copy of the "Happy Birthday" lyrics from 1922, that is, before the present-day copyright horizon.

The story (courtesy of Hollywood Reporter) is pretty fascinating in itself, but let's go to town on the amazing claim Warner/Chappell seems to be making in response to this new discovery.  After all, what is for, if not going to town on the most absurd claims of the monopoly industry?

What Warner/Chapell seems to be saying is that even if it were found that the song lyrics existed in their current form in 1922 -- that is, earlier than the current "earliest copyright horizon" -- the fact that the 1922 copy of those lyrics might have been, at that time, a possible copyright infringement (which it obviously wasn't, but we'll leave that aside in order to grant the widest possible latitude to Warner/Chapell's argument, for our own entertainment if nothing else) means that maybe the copyrights claimed later in 1935 are somehow still valid.  Or something?

But the mere existence of a version of a work before the horizon means that, even if that copy were in an copyright-infringing state at the time, whatever copyright it was infringing then must, clearly, have expired by now.  Because otherwise, the copyright horizon is not really a copyright horizon.  Unless you live in a world where time runs backwards and sideways, as Warner/Chapell perhaps does.

What this lawsuit really shows is what we've been arguing is the problem with broad information monopoly rights in general: once the state creates a monopoly, it creates a monopolist who owns it -- or in this case imagines themselves to own it -- and that monopolist will fight to the bitter end to keep it, against all reason and all evidence.  There is normally no representative of the public who has as clear and focused an interest in a given monopoly as its putative owner does; we just got lucky in this case that a filmmaker decided to take an interest in this one song.

Who will stand up for all the other songs?



Subscribe to RSS - news