[cc-community] sound and video CC-ND

Mike Linksvayer ml at creativecommons.org
Tue Apr 3 19:44:03 EDT 2012


On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 4:06 PM,  <yul01 at riseup.net> wrote:
> Hey. I have some problems to get a idea to improve the CC-ND license.
> I dont find discussion area on the wiki and it is difficult to communicate
> effectively in a mailing list.
>
> I would greatly appreciate those who can read to get my idea to be
> considered and discussed.
> It is this:
>
> My experience with the interpretation of the creative commons license
> no-derivative-works is ambiguous in some cases.
> The complicated case is deciding whether you can make a video from cc
> audio-nd.
>
> A video is a movie clip with sound? No.
> (Cinema was mute when born)
> A video may or may not have sound.
> Like a video may or may not have an smell associated.
>
> Therefore, a video are images in movement. Nothing more.
>
> If audio with cc-nd is not modified and I get to dance at the same time.
> .. Am I making a derivative work? No.
>
> If audio with cc-nd is not modified and I show a picture at the same
> time... Derivative work? No.
> Audio is not changing.
> Audio and video are distinct and separate.
>
> Another example:
> If I have a photo with cc-nd license and i play music .. Am I changing the
> picture? No.
> Am I making a derivative work? No.
>
> So, my proposal is that any sound with cc-nd license can be used in a
> video if the sound is not modified.
>
> If not, all pictures or sounds with CC-ND can't be accompanied by other
> images or sounds as in any website.
>
> Sorry for my english.
> I hope be useful.
> Thanks for all.

Hi, I think your proposal is pretty clear -- you want to remove "where
the Licensed Work is a musical work, performance or recording, the
synchronization of the Licensed Work in timed-relation with a moving
image is an Adaptation." Right?

This was introduced in 2.0 http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4216

Reversing that change across the entire suite would not be possible -
specifically not for BY-SA due to
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/8213 (see point 3).

Other than pointing out that it would have to be different across the
licenses, I have no opinion about the desirability of that clause for
ND.

BTW, http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Sandbox is a good place to
add to the wiki if you're not otherwise sure.

Mike


More information about the cc-community mailing list