Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: A question about Share-Alike

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: A question about Share-Alike
  • Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:40:28 -0500

>>>>> "SR" == Sal Randolph <sal AT highlala.com> writes:

SR> Hi! I've recently gotten a question from a user about
SR> incorporating music from the opsound site (which is all under
SR> the Attribution-ShareAlike license) into what they describe as
SR> "commercial websites". My guess would be that any page which
SR> used by-sa music (as, say, background music for the page
SR> experience) would need to be itself licensed as by-sa. In
SR> other words, it would be considered a derivative work. It's
SR> also my understanding that a movie using by-sa music as
SR> soundtrack would similarly be a derivative work. Is this
SR> correct? And how about a page which merely linked to the
SR> music but didn't play it? That seems like it wouldn't be a
SR> derivative use, no? Is there a good source on the cc site or
SR> elsewhere that I can refer people to in terms of understanding
SR> the definitions of derivative work?

Sal:

First off, IANAL. I'm just some schmuck off the street who's mouthing
off. So, take everything I say with a grain of salt.

Now, I think the legal code of the by-sa is a good place to look for
definitions, as "derivative work" is defined at the top of the
page. I'm going to quote it here for clarity:

---8<---
1. Definitions

1. "Collective Work" means a work, such as a periodical issue,
anthology or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in
unmodified form, along with a number of other contributions,
constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are
assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a
Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work (as
defined below) for the purposes of this License.

2. "Derivative Work" means a work based upon the Work or upon the
Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation,
musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion
picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment,
condensation, or any other form in which the Work may be recast,
transformed, or adapted, except that a work that constitutes a
Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work for the
purpose of this License.

---8<---

Lemme take some of your examples point-by-point:

* background music for a Web page: First, don't ever do this. B-)
However, my interpretation is that if the music isn't changed or
altered, the whole thing is a "collective work", made up of the HTML
on the page, the music, images embedded in the page, etc.

* movie soundtrack: again, I think it's a collective work, unless the
music is altered.

* link to a music file on another site: I think that this is not a
copyright issue, since you're neither distributing or reproducing
the work, so most of the provisions of by-sa don't, I think, apply.

There may, however, be some other fields of law such as publicity
rights or trademark that apply. That is, if I make "THE OFFICIAL SAL
RANDOLPH MUSIC PAGE", and try to give the impression that you
endorse the page and try to trade on your name, and then have links
to your music*, that'd probably be actionable.

And, yes, absolutely Creative Commons needs some more information on
this kind of stuff.

Again, I don't know shit from Shinola, but that's my dumb and
probably wrong interpretation of the issues you bring up. It'd be nice
to get some information about volunteering to write up these
clarifications.

~ESP

*I'm not saying you make music; I'm just using you as an example.

--
Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page