[cc-community] Question about Share Alike
drew Roberts
zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Aug 28 20:53:19 EDT 2008
On Thursday 28 August 2008 15:57:08 Rob Myers wrote:
> 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.
kompoz has a bunch of BY stuff too as does jamendo iirc.
>
> - Rob.
all the best,
drew
More information about the cc-community
mailing list