[cc-community] sound and video CC-ND
claude.almansi at bluewin.ch
Thu Apr 5 05:08:25 EDT 2012
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:44 AM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org> wrote:
> 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
>> 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
Fair enough, Mike. However hasn't yul01 got a point nonetheless? What
if someone were to offer a mute video with the pics and mention that
it could be banged together with the original audio in a video editor?
Or one step further: what if someone used a player like the one in
There you have three files - original video, audio file with the
audio description and closed captions file. They can be or not be
synchronized by the user.
By the same token, you could use such a player to propose a a mute
video with pics and an audio file under a ND license. The files
would only play together if a user decides to activate the audio
track, but they would be unsynchronized until then. So would someone
offering users the possibility to do this synchronization, without
actually synchronizing them him/herself, violate the ND condition for
the audio file too?
More information about the cc-community