[cc-licenses] choosing a new license at freesound, please help
hsivonen at iki.fi
Wed Oct 25 18:42:54 EDT 2006
On Oct 26, 2006, at 00:43, freesound at iua.upf.edu wrote:
> It looks like the "authors" in freesound mostly want to use the nc
> because they want to be able to decide who uses their samples in which
> commercial contest.
Is that a good idea? If you were a user of samples, would you like to
give providers of samples control over your work? Would you want to
give font vendors veto over your writing?
> People (even here I see!) always seem to forget that even though you
> release something under by-nc you can still give permission to
> anyone to
> use the sample in a commercial work (in obviously a less "legally
> way, but *I* don't care about that).
Which means that the situation has degenerated into listen-before-you-
license ARR, but naïve people are more likely to incorporate the
samples in their works before they realize what they have gotten
themselves into. When they realize that their works have been
encumbered by NC, they have sunk cost (at least the opportunity cost
of creating the works using the samples) and would incur a cost if
they had to remove the samples from their works in case the copyright
holder of the samples turns out to be uncooperative.
I think Public Domain is the most sensible choice for samples.
However, if you want a CC license, ND is obviously unsuitable.
Sampling and Sampling+ are unsuitable, because they are for larger
works that can be sampled--not for samples. NC encumbers works that
use the samples is a way that is so unreasonable that I have a hard
time seeing why anyone would want to use samples under NC after
realizing the consequences of using NC. It has been pointed out in
this thread that it is not at all clear what SA means when applied to
samples. Using unclear licenses is a bad idea. That leaves CC-by, but
attributing each sample author may be impractical (hence the PD
IANAL. I am not CC.
hsivonen at iki.fi
More information about the cc-licenses