[cc-community] Question about Share Alike

Rob Myers rob at robmyers.org
Thu Aug 28 15:57:08 EDT 2008


Molly Kleinman wrote:

> I'm surprised to learn that the Share Alike provision is intended to apply
> to the use of audio in a video, even in cases where the video is feature
> length and the song is one of many songs used in the video. It sounds a lot
> more like a compilation to me, even having read the bit in the legal deed
> about syncing audio with video.

Yes this is an area where ShareAlike isn't a straight fit to the law.

The idea of "share alike" comes from ethical concepts of quid pro quo or 
fairness rather than legal concepts such as derivation or compilation.

Some other examples of such mismatches in the CC licenses are the 
NonCommercial license declaring that file sharing isn't commercial, and 
the Sampling license forbidding use of work in advertising.

> I did eventually find some of the old discussions on this list, and clearly
> my complaints have already been voiced: Under the usual definition of a
> derivative work, using an unaltered song in a video doesn't qualify. Also,
> that "syncing" language is confusing as heck. But if that's how it is,
> that's how it is.

Presumably it is what musicians feel is fair.

> Yet another reason not to like the SA licenses.

If I can use music in my video without the musician being able to use my 
  video in return, that isn't "share alike". :-)

BY can be used in videos without having to share alike. I've just 
recommended that an artist friend use CC Mixter for music for a video of 
hers for precisely this reason. I'd recommend Mixter to anyone who needs 
music that they can use without having to license their own work in return.

- Rob.


More information about the cc-community mailing list