[cc-community] Ask for help: I agreed to a license by mistake

Cesare Marilungo cesare at poeticstudios.com
Thu Feb 21 08:51:04 EST 2008


Thank you Tom and Lucas,

I have already removed from opsound and asked to remove my tracks (or at 
least, put the correct license) on the other website that crawled the 
content from there.

So I can keep the by-nc-nd license everywhere else?

I'm not concerned too much about those who got the tracks from Opsound. 
I asked this mostly because I don't want to relicense them. Also, two of 
these tracks are part of two albums which are licensed as by-nc-nd. On 
Jamendo.com, for instance, you can't have different licenses for each 
track of an album.

By the way - just for curiosity - how can somebody prove that he got an 
mp3 track from a source (and with a particular license in the period in 
which the license was applied)? Consider that on Jamendo, the albums are 
distributed as a zip file and there's a text file with the licensing 
information. Moreover, the license is specified in the id3 tags. The 
tracks linked from Opsound were the ones hosted on my own website, which 
are simply mp3 files without any licensing info in the tags.

-c.

Tomislav Medak wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dear Cesare,
>
> | And the question is: what can I do? So far I have removed my page there.
> | I've read that you can't revoke a creative commons license, but can I
> | still keep the more restrictive (by-nc-nd) license on my own website
> | (and everywhere else) for these particular tracks? Or am I obliged to
> | change it?
> |
> | I understand that somebody who got the tracks from Opsound.org when they
> | were linked there could use them for commercial purpose, but what about
> | other people? Somebody told me that if one of such persons makes a copy
> | of one of my tracks to somebody else, the old license is applied. Is it
> | true?
>
> It depends on the jurisdiction whether granting use such as under a CC
> license is revokable. Some copyright laws view revokability as an
> inalienable author's right and some don't. In some jurisdictions
> revoking might though burden for the revoking author to compensate the
> loss of those who have received the work under the revoked licenses.
> More importantly, however, revoking a perpetual, non-revokable free work
> license would beat the purpose of having a license that allows
> downstream use or re-use, and ultimately would have chilling effects on
> the readiness of downstream users to use or, particularly, re-use free
> works.
>
> ~From the perspective of a CC license you can always start distributing
> your work under a different set of permissions (be that under a some
> rights reserved license or under an all rights reserved regime). So, you
> can re-licenses your work. However, for the copies of your work that
> have entered downstream circulation before you have re-licensed your
> work, remain under the license that they were originally distributed
> under and this cannot be set back.
>
> I would advise you to go back and speak to Opsound.org to remove your
> work from their catalogs, if this has not been already done so by the
> removal of your page, and to inform contributors in a more straight
> forward fashion what license they are choosing and what that license
> means for the contributor's work.
>
> But, as Lucas has pointed out, likelihood of downstream use and re-use
> of copies of your work under by-sa  such that it might harm your
> commercial interest is not great.
>
> Tom
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFHvT4CkbN024ZV0z0RAh1+AKCaewGHufbQ+Lm2QfMxAVNbuu7MrgCgmQ+b
> XJG+kyJtzBZnnudSAoUBWRQ=
> =F0dT
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
>
>   


-- 
www.cesaremarilungo.com 



More information about the cc-community mailing list