[cc-community] Ask for help: I agreed to a license by mistake
zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Feb 21 17:20:33 EST 2008
On Thursday 21 February 2008 17:19:09 Terry Hancock wrote:
> Cesare Marilungo wrote:
> > drew Roberts wrote:
> >>>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.
> > Yes, I've admitted it. I'm an honest person. I never thought to claim
> > the false. I'm all for truth. :-)
> > I'm asking about how can you prove such things because I've made a
> > mistake,
> Note also, however, that he has said the above (and earlier in the
> thread as well). I'm fairly certain that if you post something on a site
> without *intending* to apply the license in the first case that you are
> not obligated to honor it (at least in principle).
> The problem is *proving* that you didn't *intend* to apply the license.
> There might be enough evidence in this case, though.
> This is distinct from the case where you originally *intend* to release
> under a given license, then later change your mind.
> In other words, I think it has to be a *technical* mistake in which your
> action somehow didn't achieve your intent, as opposed to a *conceptual*
> mistake in which you later feel that your intent was wrong.
> I think that applying a license to creative work has to be a genuinely
> *intentional* act.
I think so too, but what if you do it intentionally, but carelessly? What
if "users" - not the site, then promote you based on the license. (I aks
this, because this is one if the criteria I use on promoting works, I promote
BY and BY-SA works that I like, I don't promote NC or ND works.) So you get
the benefit of your mistake and the honest users?
To me this is a tough area to figure what is right. And also perhaps tough to
know how the law treats it. Lawyers?
Also, please note, to the best of my knowledge, I have nothing to do with the
actual works in question in this thread one way or the other.
> If this were NOT defensible, then there are a lot of scams that hosting
> sites could use to take advantage of authors, by hiding the license
> terms in such a way that it's very hard for the authors to read them
> (haven't you ever seen a site where the "terms of service" button was a
> dead or slow link -- or a rat's nest of interconnected links that
> virtually no one would read through entirely?).
all the best,
More information about the cc-community