[cc-community] What does NC means?

Peter Brink peter.brink at brinkdata.se
Mon Sep 17 11:04:54 EDT 2007


Terry Hancock skrev:
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>> On 9/17/07, Peter Brink <peter.brink at brinkdata.se> wrote:
>>> If you convert a score to mp3 you create a copy not an adaptation. The
>>> ND license allow you to make recordings. It's plain and simple.
>> While it is reasonable, I wouldn't guarantee that not only because a
>> lot of reasonable conclusions related to NC licenses are not so clear.
>>
>> Is scaling from 5000x5000px image to 800x800px adaptation or copying?
>> If it is adaptation, keep in mind that there are no two lossy
>> compression algorithms which may be "copied" from the first to the
>> second straight forward.
> 
> While scaling is fairly straightforward -- regardless of details of
> compression, the displayed image has a definite mathematical
> (non-creative) relationship to the original.
> 
> OTOH, the MP3 performance of a musical score involves a number of
> complex creative decisions: choice of musical instruments, live
> performance record or synthesized instrument patches, timing, vocals,
> orchestration, etc.
> 
> Certainly two different MP3s may be made which are quite different from
> each other. I think there is definitely a creative contribution when
> moving from "score" to "recording".
> 
This entire thread is filled with ambiguous uses of words (this comment 
is not targeted at Terry). Whenever you discuss copyright matters you 
need to keep in mind that copyright concepts do not have exactly the 
same meaning across the globe. The concept of "copy" is a good example. 
I would suggest that in continental Europe the concept has a wider scope 
as compared to the US and even more so when compared to the UK. It's 
also usefull to keep in mind that the concept "derivative work" is a 
strictly US only concept and that "adaptation" is not synonymous with 
"derivative work".

The scope of protection given to any given work depends (where I live) 
on the work's relative level of originality. A work that is highly 
original has a wider scope of protection as compared to a work of low 
originality. Popular music is a good example of works with relatively 
low levels of originality. It's fairly easy to move outside the scope of 
protection of a pop music piece and create a new independent work.

If you record a music score with a fairly trivial arrangement then that 
recording would become a copy (the arrangement would lack copyright 
protection). It you record the same score adding a highly original 
arrangement, you would still have a copy of the music score, you would 
also have a new work - the arrangement. If you started with music score 
and a original arrangement and made an adaptation of the arrangement, 
for example from Blues to Rock, and recorded the result, then you would 
have a copy of the music score and an adaptation of the arrangement.

Since you are allowed to include a copy of a BY-NC-ND work in a 
collection you would be able to add a new arrangement to a music score, 
record the result and distribute it.

/Peter Brink


More information about the cc-community mailing list