Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-sampling - Re: [cc-sampling] More name

cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of the Creative Commons Sampling license (or license option)

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Don Joyce <dj AT webbnet.com>
  • To: creative commons license list <cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-sampling] More name
  • Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 18:03:59 -0700

The Supreme Court used the term first in the 2 Live Crew case, in which it was seen by some justices to be a significant enough "transformation" to be a case of fair use rather than theft.

I trust the court's wisdom in coming up with terminology to make such distinctions in art works. Is something transformed or not? In 99% of the cases that might come before the courts, the answer will be just as obvious as it is out here in the world. You don't need to technically define "transformed" to know it when you see it (it's most often a drastic transformation since few artist want to be accused of copycatting even when their work is all appropriation - something 'original' is usually trying to be done in any case) and, exactly as fair use cases are now determined by courts on a case by case basis, so will any of these CC disputes about transformation. Is it transformed? Gimmie a jury. It's almost always easy to judge this factor, and also very important not to restrict such judgements to any particular definition of "transform." Why? Because it's ART we're talikng about, and no one can predict what transformation might consist of in future art, but I bet they will be just as obvious as transformations of an "original" as they are now.

I equate the Cut & Paste license with an expansion, by owner, of the scope of fair use for their work. What determines fair use as a legal position will similarly apply to Cut & Paste re-uses (like determining "transformation" for instance, that's what a court that gets involved will be doing under this license.) Fair Use has always been subject, as it must be, to subjective determinations because there's no established guidelines (thank God) as to what art might be or what form it may take.
Now we're in an age of reproduction. Now we need a Cut & Paste license to allow for free transformations of existing material.
DJ



On Tuesday 16 September 2003 04:03, Lisa Rein wrote:
I think the point is to *require* transformations. Not to make them an
option.

So as not to allow people to re-release songs without really
contributing anything to them in the resulting derivative work.

But who's gonna decide what a transformation is?
And is the transformation required for any redistribution?

In my opinion this transformation requirement doesn't make sense at all.

bye,
Kasper

_______________________________________________
cc-sampling mailing list
cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page