[cc-community] cc-community Digest, Vol 48, Issue 3
=?GBK?B?1PPM7M7ewOG+xdTCyquxscnPtcTT4w==?=
zzf.001.dida at 163.com
Fri May 2 06:39:49 EDT 2008
I don't want it anymore!
在2008-05-02,cc-community-request at lists.ibiblio.org 写道:
>Send cc-community mailing list submissions to
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> cc-community-request at lists.ibiblio.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> cc-community-owner at lists.ibiblio.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of cc-community digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: rethink attribution (Jamison Young)
> 2. Re: rethink attribution (Rob Myers)
> 3. Re: rethink attribution (drew Roberts)
> 4. Re: rethink attribution (drew Roberts)
> 5. Re: rethink attribution (drew Roberts)
> 6. Re: rethink attribution (Robert Atwood (lists))
> 7. Re: rethink attribution (Evan Prodromou)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 23:08:26 +0200
>From: Jamison Young <jam at iarts.cc>
>Subject: Re: [cc-community] rethink attribution
>To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
>Message-ID: <6896D961-AE4E-4864-A3E7-9F3C5B395520 at iarts.CC>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>is the traditional film credits system partly structured the way it
>is because of the way rights are organized and payed out to artists?
>
>Could a different kind of attribution license exist/be adapted, that
>might work this way? If the film maker did not want to attribute as
>the art is being performed and wanted to put the credits at the end
>or the beginning of the film, the film maker could goto a central
>website and pay to have the rights cleared. Could be an interesting
>idea for the CC+ protocols.
>a lot of artists might go for this license, rather than just giving
>the art to film makers via a traditional form of attribution for free.
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 22:19:25 +0100
>From: Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org>
>Subject: Re: [cc-community] rethink attribution
>To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
>Message-ID: <481A33DD.4080307 at robmyers.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Jamison Young wrote:
>> is the traditional film credits system partly structured the way it
>> is because of the way rights are organized and payed out to artists?
>>
>> Could a different kind of attribution license exist/be adapted, that
>> might work this way? If the film maker did not want to attribute as
>> the art is being performed and wanted to put the credits at the end
>> or the beginning of the film, the film maker could goto a central
>> website and pay to have the rights cleared. Could be an interesting
>> idea for the CC+ protocols.
>> a lot of artists might go for this license, rather than just giving
>> the art to film makers via a traditional form of attribution for free.
>
>You don't have to attribute the work *as* it is performed, just *when*
>it is performed. You have to attribute it appropriately to the medium,
>and with the same emphasis as other credits.
>
>The work is being performed as part of the film. The appropriate time to
>display film credits is at the end (or beginning, depending on style).
>The appropriate attribution, equal to other attributions, is as part of
>the credits.
>
>So I don't think there is a problem with the licences and films.
>
>Managing attribution with CC+ is an interesting idea, though. Paying to
>waive attribution or attribute less prominently might be a useful degree
>of granularity between BY-SA and a proprietary licence.
>
>IANAL, TINLA.
>
>- Rob.
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 18:35:28 -0400
>From: drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com>
>Subject: Re: [cc-community] rethink attribution
>To: peter.brink at brinkdata.se, cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
>Message-ID: <200805011835.28529.zotz at 100jamz.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>On Thursday 01 May 2008 16:09:33 Peter Brink wrote:
>> Jamison Young skrev:
>> > When a film uses content licensed with CC, is it fair that
>> > attribution happen when the film has finished? how can the artist be
>> > considered to be attributed if the art is not placed with the
>> > attribution?
>>
>> To someone who lives in a jurisdiction in which attribution is mandatory
>> by law, this discussion seems a bit odd. The Swedish copyright act art.
>> 3 states: "When a work is reproduced, or when it is made available to
>> the public, the name of the author shall be stated to the extent and in
>> the manner required by proper usage." Proper usage varies with the
>> medium and the context. At a funeral it's not proper to attribute the
>> author of the text to the hymns sung at all but if the texts of those
>> hymns were quoted on a web page, attribution in full is required (i.e.
>> you need to state the name of the author, the name of the work, year of
>> publication and the name of the publisher - if applicable).
>>
>> The key word is thus "proper usage". In jurisdictions where moral rights
>> exists (which should be all jurisdictions according to the Berne
>> Convention) this issue has been settled long ago in case law. Following
>> the standards for "proper usage" should IMO be quite sufficient when
>> dealing with attribution in the context of a CC license.
>
>That may be the case, but if it is, I would say that those of us who are
>ignorant might benefit from some use case examples and best practive
>examples.
>
>I have asked about this issue of attribution in a radio show before on list
>and seem to remember being told that the audio announcement would need to be
>made for each song to be in keeping with the license. Does anyone recall any
>doissenting views to that at that time?
>>
>> /Peter Brink
>
>all the best,
>
>drew
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 18:46:13 -0400
>From: drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com>
>Subject: Re: [cc-community] rethink attribution
>To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
>Message-ID: <200805011846.13563.zotz at 100jamz.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>On Thursday 01 May 2008 17:08:26 Jamison Young wrote:
>> is the traditional film credits system partly structured the way it
>> is because of the way rights are organized and payed out to artists?
>>
>> Could a different kind of attribution license exist/be adapted, that
>> might work this way? If the film maker did not want to attribute as
>> the art is being performed and wanted to put the credits at the end
>> or the beginning of the film, the film maker could goto a central
>> website and pay to have the rights cleared. Could be an interesting
>> idea for the CC+ protocols.
>> a lot of artists might go for this license, rather than just giving
>> the art to film makers via a traditional form of attribution for free.
>
>This would only apply to people using BY and BY-SA and BY even more than
>BY-SA. Unless someone envisions people willing to pay for a BY-NC use license
>to avoid some super strict attribution on the NC work. I doubt this would
>happen but would be interested in counter thoughts.
>
>For BY-SA it might be an interesting way to distinguish between uses
>which "seriously" promote Free works and those that are more on the free ride
>end of use. Not sure it makes sense though. Thoughts?
>
>all the best,
>
>drew
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 18:48:58 -0400
>From: drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com>
>Subject: Re: [cc-community] rethink attribution
>To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
>Message-ID: <200805011848.58764.zotz at 100jamz.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>On Thursday 01 May 2008 17:19:25 Rob Myers wrote:
>> Jamison Young wrote:
>> > is the traditional film credits system partly structured the way it
>> > is because of the way rights are organized and payed out to artists?
>> >
>> > Could a different kind of attribution license exist/be adapted, that
>> > might work this way? If the film maker did not want to attribute as
>> > the art is being performed and wanted to put the credits at the end
>> > or the beginning of the film, the film maker could goto a central
>> > website and pay to have the rights cleared. Could be an interesting
>> > idea for the CC+ protocols.
>> > a lot of artists might go for this license, rather than just giving
>> > the art to film makers via a traditional form of attribution for free.
>>
>> You don't have to attribute the work *as* it is performed, just *when*
>> it is performed. You have to attribute it appropriately to the medium,
>> and with the same emphasis as other credits.
>>
>> The work is being performed as part of the film. The appropriate time to
>> display film credits is at the end (or beginning, depending on style).
>> The appropriate attribution, equal to other attributions, is as part of
>> the credits.
>>
>> So I don't think there is a problem with the licences and films.
>
>Yes, but I think film is less problematic in this reguard than is radio
>broadcast of music and DJ use of music. If the attribution needs to be in
>audio form and in band, this is problematic.
>>
>> Managing attribution with CC+ is an interesting idea, though. Paying to
>> waive attribution or attribute less prominently might be a useful degree
>> of granularity between BY-SA and a proprietary licence.
>
>Yes, it very well could be a very interesting angle to hash out. It may be
>counter productive or it may turn out to be a boon. Thoughts?
>>
>> IANAL, TINLA.
>>
>> - Rob.
>
>all the best,
>
>drew
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 01:34:07 +0100
>From: "Robert Atwood (lists)" <lists at atwood.org.uk>
>Subject: Re: [cc-community] rethink attribution
>To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
>Message-ID: <481A617F.80101 at atwood.org.uk>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
>drew Roberts wrote:
>>
>> Yes, but I think film is less problematic in this reguard than is radio
>> broadcast of music and DJ use of music. If the attribution needs to be in
>> audio form and in band, this is problematic.
>
>I dont think I have ever heard a DJ attribute any band, in 'audio
>in-band ' form ... and indeed usually the artistic intent of DJs is to
>keep music going continuosuly ... I hadn't really thought of that in
>terms of license requirement strictness, but I would be happy for DJ's
>to use my cc-by-sa music and would consider it sufficient attribution if
>they were willing to tell anyone who came up and asked , who the
>musician was. I would consider that 'appropriate to the medium'
>basically, that's usually how I find out the musician of a track that I
>particulary found interesting, so it's 'equal' with others.
>
>Perahps some disagree? Then do you put cc-by-sa other cc-by-* music on
>disks and give or sell them to DJ's ? What exactly do you expect them to
>do ?
>
> There is always some elemnt of audience choice, you could in theory
>read a book without reading the author's naem , and less theoretically
>leave the film before credits are over as virtually all audience members
>seem to do. So it seems not wholly out of line that some small act of
>intent on the audeince member is needed for that information to be
>transferre to them
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 23:52:31 -0400
>From: Evan Prodromou <evan at prodromou.name>
>Subject: Re: [cc-community] rethink attribution
>To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
>Message-ID: <1209700351.8168.52.camel at zhora.4690ruepontiac.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 18:48 -0400, drew Roberts wrote:
>
>
>> Yes, but I think film is less problematic in this reguard than is radio
>> broadcast of music and DJ use of music. If the attribution needs to be in
>> audio form and in band, this is problematic.
>
>If it's problematic, it doesn't have to be in-band. Ta-da! That's how
>the magic of "give credit reasonable to the medium" works.
>
>-Evan
>
>
>
>
>-------------- next part --------------
>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20080501/5a7f999c/attachment.htm
>-------------- next part --------------
>A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>Name: smime.p7s
>Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
>Size: 5175 bytes
>Desc: not available
>Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20080501/5a7f999c/attachment.bin
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>cc-community mailing list
>cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
>
>End of cc-community Digest, Vol 48, Issue 3
>*******************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20080502/e21edb75/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the cc-community
mailing list