[cc-community] Ask for help: I agreed to a license by mistake
cesare at poeticstudios.com
Thu Feb 21 11:43:51 EST 2008
By the way (as I've already said on the LAU list) as a result of this
episode, I'm considering to relicense everything under the by-sa
license. I thought about it and your reasoning that it is the equivalent
of GPL for music made me think. On the other hand, your attitude is
scaring me. You admitted that you're biased, but it seems that you're
happy that I've made this mistake, while all the other parties involved
have been supportive (they removed the content or corrected the license).
drew Roberts wrote:
> On Thursday 21 February 2008 08:51, Cesare Marilungo wrote:
>> 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.
> There is something that you are still not getting.
> You can license the same track with one license in one place and with another
> license in another place.
> So, even if you were to give in an fix the mistake by going BY-SA, you could
> leave them BY-NC-ND on Jamendo. You CAN give out more than one license for
> the same work.
> Your comments seem to indicate that you are having trouble with that concept.
>> 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.
> Well, in your case, you have admitted that you listed your works with opsound
> and all works listed on their site must be licensed BY-SA or be PD.
> What happens when mistakes like that are made is a different question, but
> people who got those tracks after finding them on opsound can point to these
> mailing list archives as proof for one.
> But, in general, how do you prove anything.
> If someone comes to you tomorrow and asks you to prove that you bought a
> random item in your home and did not steal it, could you?
> It is tough to prove some things on the net.
> all the best,
>> 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
>>> ~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.
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> cc-community mailing list
>>> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the cc-community