[cc-community] What does NC means?

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Sep 17 16:55:02 EDT 2007


On Monday 17 September 2007 11:39 am, Peter Brink wrote:
> drew Roberts skrev:
> > On Monday 17 September 2007 12:31 am, Peter Brink wrote:
> >> Let's say that a author writes a poem then that this is a work. Then a
> >> composer creates a music score so that one can sing the poem, this is a
> >> new independent work.
> >
> > OK,  independent, so does the composer need permission from the author to
> > make this work? If no, I can see how the word independent properly
> > applies. If yes, then this must be some special legal meaning for the
> > word independent that does not line up too closely with everyday usage.
> >
> >> Later a musician comes along and makes a nice
> >> arrangement of the music score, the arrangement as such can also be a
> >> copyrightable work. It's independent from the music score.
> >
> > How in the world is this independent? That seems totally nonsensical in
> > the ordinary usage of the word. Can you explain how it comes to be an
> > independent work?
>
> Remember that it's perfectly all right to be inspired by another work or
> to re-use the ideas, the information or the thoughts that are expressed
> in a given work when creating a new work. 

Sure, but this seems a lot more than just inspired. I am always looking to 
lessen my ignorance though, so I am happy to learn new things.

> Such works are "new and 
> independent" works. These works are not dependent upon someone else's
> copyright. 

So, again, in Europe, the words and music to a song are independant works? You 
can write a tune to someone's words or words to someone's tune and get a 
copyright to an independant work. (Without permission?)

You can then publish your new work under whatever license you wish? The refer 
to the other work? Leave it up to someone who wants to perform the song to 
sort out the rights?

> An adaptation, on the other hand, is an example of an 
> _dependent_ copyright. Do note that in Europe, as opposed to the US, the
> creator of an adaptation is the sole copyright holder of the rights to
> the adaptation. He do need permission from the copyright holder of the
> work that has been adapted when he wants to publish his adaptation.

So the European BY-SA licenses grant this permission on the condition that the 
new work is BY-SA?

How do they get an independant work to be BY-SA? Refuse permission to even 
copy unless the related work is BY-SA? Or does the license just choose not to 
address this?
>
> An arrangement can be said to express the same ideas that are expressed
> in the score but with different means. 

Would different notation be enough to be different means?

> One has to remember though that 
> the style used, manner or method used when expressing an idea is not
> covered by copyright. Playing a piece of music in a sad manner is thus
> not covered by copyright. The copyright that you can get for an
> arrangement is therefore somewhat limited.
>
> >> It's used to
> >> perform the music score which in turn is used to perform the poem.
> >
> > Fine.
> >
> >> The performing artist gets a independent performance neighbouring right
> >> (which is not a work) if the set of works are publicly performed.
> >
> > Performed? zEven if it is not fixed? And in the US, doesn't this work get
> > a (P) when fixed?
>
> Fixation is not an requirement under the Berne convention...

So, in Europe, every water cooler conversation that is original is 
copyrighted?
>
> >> In Europe a product that can easily be independently double created
> >> (such as most source code) is not considered original enough for it to
> >> qualify for copyright protection.
> >
> > So the GPL would be useless for those works? Any ideas as to the
> > percentage of GPL products on a place like sourceforge that would
> > actually have no copyright in Europe? (Wild guessing appreciated in the
> > absence of good data on this one as a start.)
>
> In Sweden it's currently held that it's very difficult indeed to prove
> that someone has infringed upon (a claim of) copyright to a piece of
> source code. It's also held that one can claim a "selection" copyright
> to the combination of source code, help-files etc. that most binaries
> are made up of - thus preventing direct copying of binaries.
>
> > For the record. I am not in the US, nor from there, nor a citizen of
> > there.
> >
> >> In Europe the producer of a sound recording receives an independent
> >> neighbouring right to any recording he does.
> >
> > So, what does this right allow him to do / not do?
>
> A neighbouring right is fairly similar to a copyright with some notable
> exceptions. Neighbouring rights are not protected against adaptations
> and the duration of the protection is much shorter.

This is a bit confusing and I can see I have a lot more to learn.
>
> >> There is no requirement of
> >> originality. This is thus _not_ a copyright (since a copyrightable work
> >> needs to be original). The duration of the right is 50 years counting
> >> from the publication date. The producer needs to secure a permission to
> >> make the recording from the copyright holder of the work being recorded.

How do they figure there is no originality in making a recording?
> >
> > So, on a BY-SA work, how would this right be handled? Presumably??? this
> > right would not have to be BY-SA since there is no copyright??? Or did I
> > miss some esoteric language that I did not get the import of in my
> > reading of the license?
>
> In the 3.0 version of CC-licenses phonograms are included in the
> definition of "work". In the various European ports "work" has been
> defined as either a copyrightable work or a neighbouring right. So
> neighbouring rights are covered by the license.
>
> /Peter Brink

all the best,

drew


More information about the cc-community mailing list