[cc-licenses] Case study: Magnatune
nsincaglia at musicnow.com
Tue Nov 22 08:41:24 EST 2005
Another mistake that is being made here is the definition of a derivative work.
"The statutory definition of a 'derivative work' is extremely comprehensive, including such things as translations, arrangements, dramatizations, fictionalizations, films, recordings, abridgements, condensations, 'or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted'".
There is not mention of file formats, resolution or encoding schemes in the law. It is not relevant to the law nor is it relevant to the CC licenses.
From: cc-licenses-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Rob Myers
Sent: Tue 11/22/2005 5:56 AM
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Case study: Magnatune
On 21 Nov 2005, at 21:26, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Practical question: Are the WAV files automatically under the same CC
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
No because they are different works.
The encoding of the same sounds will have different representations
as streams of numbers. Therefore they are different works, both
derivatives of the original recording or of the score if there is one.
"Hey, now, hey now, now."
Different derivatives of the same original (and if the MP3 is just a
derivative of the WAV the same applies).
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 5102 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20051122/08998f34/attachment.bin
More information about the cc-licenses