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: Evan Prodromou <evan AT bad.dynu.ca>
  • 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 11:32:13 -0400

On Fri, 2005-21-10 at 03:35 +0200, Hannes wrote:
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.
The difference between a Collective Work relationship and a Derivative Work relationship is clear in most instances but tricky in many situations. This is one of them, which is why it's explicitly called out in the license text.
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'm not sure if that's the case, but I think that by-sa music is easy to use in movies. The resulting movie needs to be by-sa licensed, though.
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.
I think there are very few exceptional movies that are like that. Most movies I've seen tell a story or give information that hangs together as a cohesive whole. I think it would be hard to justify the idea that sets, music, lighting, direction, acting, props, script aren't all used to form a cohesive single Work.

There are movies like that, of course -- bits and pieces strung together or juxtaposed. I'm thinking of, say, Atomic Cafe or Four Rooms. But I think it would be hard to argue that two scenes in a movie are more like two paintings in the same gallery, or two photos in the same magazine, than like two chapters in a book or two movements in a symphony.
Why should movies be treated differently 
than, say, playing music in the background of a website?
Indeed. Why do you think that music playing in the background of a Website isn't an integral part of that 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.
Don't you think that licensors have an obligation to find this stuff out?

~Evan




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page