[cc-community] Ask for help: I agreed to a license by mistake
Clifton Gumbs
cogumbs at gmail.com
Thu Feb 21 23:01:11 EST 2008
HOW DO I UNSUBSCRIBE TO THIS !! !!
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Terry Hancock <
hancock at anansispaceworks.com> wrote:
> Cesare Marilungo wrote:
> >>One question I do have -- did you mark the works with your By-NC-ND
> >
> > At the time they were. Recently I re-uploaded all the mp3s on my server
> > with a better quality and I didn't put any info about the license since
> > I thought that people who downloaded them from my website would have
> > read the license on the page.
>
> Oh, don't ever assume that. Metadata is often bad, because people don't
> know how to set it correctly. But if you've got that problem solved,
> don't stop using it. There are a zillion-and-one ways for a work to get
> separated from a webpage referring to it, and the metadata is always
> going to be more authoritative.
>
> In this case, for example, if your metadata says "By-NC-ND" and the
> referring site says "By-SA", then I'd say the "By-NC-ND" is the license
> that actually applies. I can't swear that a court would back that up,
> but I'd at least bet my pocket change on it. :-)
>
> > In my profile page on Opsound I've put the link to my website for
> > additional informations, and there the license has always been by-nc-nd.
>
> Which, IMHO, is still more authoritative than Opsound's data.
>
> > I understand this. And I agree with you. It's just that I should know if
> > I'm giving my work to the commons
>
> Well, yeah. That's why verifying intent is so important.
>
> > Also, the web (as well as peer to peers, torrents) are full of
> > copyrighted mp3s shared illegally.
>
> Though quite a few are shared legally, too (either because of licensing
> or because of differing statutes -- file-sharing _is_ fair use in some
> countries).
>
> > By-nc-nd gives you the permission to
> > do this legally. Releasing your own music under this license you also
> > take the statement that you don't think that music should be sold.
>
> Not necessarily. There's still significant motivation to pay for NC-ND
> music. It's a lot more work to burn and label your own CDs, for example.
> You can regard that as a form of "ancillary" marketing of course, since
> it's really the packaging and not the music you're selling, but it's
> much the same. (Yeah, I still use CDs, and I wouldn't trust my music to
> be just stored as an MP3 on a flash drive -- that's fine for throwaway
> stuff, but not music I care about).
>
> Still, I appreciate your reasons for using NC-ND.
>
> > That
> > you want to communicate and share your art first, and that support to
> > artist should be voluntary. All the people I have met in person think
> > that this is crazy. Go figure.
>
> Well, it's always voluntary, really.
>
> > I understand this, too. You're right. But if somebody has used those
> > tracks on a gpl game or a movie or something else or he/she has made a
> > cover or sampled a track he should have credited me. And I would have
>
> Yes, of course.
>
> BTW, I did mis-speak slightly. If you had released By-SA, I would have
> to license the game content By-SA, not GPL (the engine might be GPL).
> Which is what I meant to say.
>
> > know about this. If this hypothetical derived work could not be found by
> > googling, I can safely assume it has never been published. What I'm
> > trying to say is that I am sure nobody would be hurted.
>
> Google isn't all-powerful. I've tried searches like you suggest and not
> found references that I know are published (Google might actually find
> it, but not list it until 30 or 40 pages back -- which I'm not going to
> find). For example, I have a full CV online, but searching for my name
> doesn't turn it up (at least not early in the results).
>
> > So what do you think I should do? :-)
>
> I'm still unclear on what the problem is. It sounds as if you've already
> done most of what you can do easily. You can send no-fault take-down
> notices to people who are using your work illegally (I don't think
> citing Opsound's incorrect reference is sufficient to defend their
> actions). Explain that the listing was an error and that you aren't
> intending to prosecute, but that they need to remove the material.
>
> Reputable users should have no problem with that, if they understand
> what happened (I know I wouldn't).
>
> Anything beyond that is going to require a lawyer, and your willingness
> to deal with the time and money costs that prosecution might require.
>
> Or you could just decide to chalk it up to experience, and not worry
> about it.
>
> It was, ultimately, your mistake, though, even if it was just a
> technical one of not reading Opsounds' ToS. So you can't really expect
> someone else to pay the costs. That leaves it up to you to decide how
> much effort you want to put into this. How badly do you care?
>
> Cheers,
> Terry
>
> --
> Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
> Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
--
Regards,
CLIFTON O. GUMBS
:1-954-415-2630
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20080221/e23cce55/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the cc-community
mailing list