Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] "commercial" use of Att/Share-alike materials

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Hannes <hannes AT atalante.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] "commercial" use of Att/Share-alike materials
  • Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 03:35:04 +0200

I see what you mean. If that really is the case, it sounds to me that this is an area bound to cause problems and misunderstanding for people using SA licenses. I think most musicians who release their work under a BY-SA license is under the impression that their work can easily be used in movies. I have always seen a movie as a collective work - a compilation of video- and audio clips that are all separate works that can have different licenses. Why should movies be treated differently than, say, playing music in the background of a website? I never thought that Creative Commons would complicate the sharing of your work without good reasons, and without at least making it clear to the licensor.

Hannes


drew Roberts wrote:

On Thursday 20 October 2005 07:31 pm, Hannes wrote:

I'm still a bit confused by the various responses.

From what I understand he's recording his own videos that he wants to
edit in a nice way and release on a DVD - all his original work. If he
then wants to use by-sa licensed music as background music, he of course
needs to credit the music authors somewhere and make clear that the
music is licensed under by-sa. But from what I've understood he isn't
obliged to release the whole DVD under a by-sa license? And does this
not hold true even if he alters the music somewhat to make it fit better
to the moving images, such as cutting and shortening the music? He must
still release the music under by-sa, and credit the original author of
the music while mentioning that it has been altered by him, as he's
making a derivative work of the music. But his DVD can still be released
under whatever license he wants.


No, if I get how it works, I think you misunderstand.

Let's take two cases.
1. He makes a dvd where the video portion is one long documentary. He uses by-sa music as background. His whole dvd must be licensed by-sa or he needs to get a sync license from the music's copyright holders.

2. He makes a dvd which includes 3 seperate short documentaries, each on a different subject. He uses by-sa music as background in one of the documentaries but finds by music for background in the other two. The whole documentary with the by-sa background must be released by-sa, the other two documentaries do not have to be released that way. Even though all three documentaries come on the same dvd. This second case is the one the other poster referred to. Now, I am not sure this is actually correct. Perhaps, the complete thing needs to be by-sa but I think you could make a good case for what I have said. (I don't actually always like the fact that the by-sa license works this way.)

Hannes



all the best,

drew


Sincaglia, Nicolas wrote:

The CC license has rules for derivatives works. This clause in the
license is just saying that the act of syncing moving images with
compositions or sound recordings UNDER THIS LICENSE must follow those
rules.

If you don't agree that synching a composition or sound recording is a
derivative work, you would be correct OUTSIDE OF THIS LICENSE. Since you
are attempting to use the composition or sound recording using this
license, you must accept their definition.

Regular copyright law does not always consider synching a composition or
sound recording to moving images to be a derivative work. It depends on
what exactly the end result is. But under regular copyright law you
would need to negotiate a Sync License with the owners of both the
composition and the sound recording.

The CC licenses help you avoid negotiating those direct licenses but you
must follow the rules of derivative works.

That is my understanding.

Nick


-----Original Message-----
From: cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Hannes
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 4:30 PM
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] "commercial" use of Att/Share-alike materials

That sounds a bit strange to me. It's like saying that by using a by-sa
licensed image in a book or webpage, the book or webpage itself would
also need to be licensed under by-sa.

Regarding this sentence from the by-sa 2.5 legal code:

"For the avoidance of doubt, where the
Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the
synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a
moving image ("synching") will be considered a
Derivative Work for the purpose of this License."

I can interpret that as: "If you alter the Work in any way to make it
synchronized with a moving image, the altered Work will be considered a
Derivative Work." I don't feel that sentence is very clear whatever its
intention is. Isn't "the synchronization of the Work" a process? How can

a process be considered a work at all?

Hannes

Evan Prodromou wrote:

On Tue, 2005-18-10 at 13:49 -0700, Wrye Modder wrote:

Movie as a derivative work (from section 1b of 2.5
by-sa license): "For the avoidance of doubt, where the
Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the
synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a
moving image ("synching") will be considered a
Derivative Work for the purpose of this License."

IANAL, and I'm new to the list, so perhaps someone
will correct me, but that seems pretty clear from the
license text.

Seems pretty clear to me, too.

~Evan





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page