[cc-community] Ask for help: I agreed to a license by mistake
Cesare Marilungo
cesare at poeticstudios.com
Thu Feb 21 17:26:47 EST 2008
drew Roberts wrote:
> On Thursday 21 February 2008 16:35:16 jonathon wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Cesare Marilungo wrote:
>>
>>> As I've already said on the LAU list, there are already some websites
>>> which are infringing the license putting all my tracks for download on
>>> pages full of ads and
>>>
>> The organizations that utilized your music failed to do due diligence.
>>
>> >From your statements, you did not intentionally release any of your
>>
>> music under a CC-BY-SA license.
>> Since no music that you released was hosted by a site with a CC-BY-SA
>> License, no music was released with that license.,
>>
>
> I think you may be wrong in this case. It may be to not having the facts. (You
> may be right, but still not have the facts.) I may not have the facts as
> well, but as I understand it, it went something like this:
>
> Music creator lists works on opsound:
>
> http://www.opsound.org/info/license/
>
> Opsound only will lists works that have a BY-SA license or are PD.
>
> Music creator chose BY-SA as the license option when listing.
>
> Opsound only listed, did not host. But the creator chose the BY-SA option.
> Now, admittedly by the creator, by mistake.
>
> This is how the ball got rolling.
>
> Presumably, people came by opsound, saw the track, listed by the creator /
> copyrightholder as BY-SA licensed with a link back to the creators site where
> the file could be obtained.
>
> They followed the link and got the files. (Or just linked to them? I am
> undclear there.)
>
> I think, so far, this much is not in dispute but I do stand to be corrected.
>
> Now, at this point I would like to take this discussion away from this
> particular instance and go more general.
>
> Let's assume something like this has happened in a general way.
>
> We have two possibilities where the copyright holder did the listing on
> opsound.
>
> 1. They made a mistake and thought they were using an NC license od some sort
> when in fact it was BY-SA as opsound has been BY-SA from the beginning.
>
> 2. They knowingly chose BY-SA at the time, but now want to change their mind
> and claim they made a mistake in the beginning.
>
> (Again, please do not read anything personal to this case into these two
> possibilities.)
>
> So, how do things stand with respect to people who saw the creators listing on
> opsound and pulled down the file under what they honestly thought was a valid
> BY-SA license under each of the cases 1. and 2. above?
>
>> What you have is an instance of where music was erroneously mislabeled
>> as regards to its license by a third party host. When the license
>> mislabeling was discovered, the error was rectified.
>>
>> If you lived in the Ninth District of the US, you probably would be
>> able to win a copyright infringemenet case. (In essence,there is no
>> difference between this and an ARR work to which a third party slapped
>> a CC license without the consent of the copyright owner.)
>>
>
> As I say, this case is a bit more complicated as a third party did not slap
> the license on the work.
>
>> I suspect that a DMCA take down order would also have your material
>> removed from the offending websites. (You need to consult an
>> attorney for the exact wording.)
>>
>> ###
>>
>> Something that organizations don't appear to have learned, is that
>> they need to do due diligence on all works that they use.
>>
>
> So are you suggesting that we, and do you, check with all the contributors to
> every GPL or BSD or other Free licensed software program that you use to
> determine that it is indeed licensed as the license file states?
>
You get the license included in a text file when you download GLP or BSD
licensed code. And you get the license when you download an album from a
website that does this right, like Jamendo.
> And is every user of a CC licensed work needing to check with the copyright
> holders?
>
>
>> It doesn't
>> matter what the license allegedly is,they need to verify with the
>> copyright owner that the material was indeed released under the
>> license that it allegedly is under.
>>
>
> Can Linus now claim that he used the GPL by mistake and the kernel is really
> ARR?
>
>> There is material out there which was released ARR, but third partties
>> have slapped a CC license onto.
>>
>>
>>> What is important for me, is which is my intention. What kind of uses I
>>> endorse.
>>>
>> I'd suggest adding both copyright and license metadata to everything
>> you release/distribute.
>>
>>
>>> What some people don't understand is that with music (at least with
>>> mine) there are emotions and personal stories involved.
>>>
>> Most music is a personal story.
>> (The major exception is that which Clear Chanel calls "music".)
>>
>> xan
>>
>> jonathon
>>
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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