[cc-licenses] Need clarification: What is "commercial"?

Kevin Phillips (home) tacet at qmpublishing.com
Thu May 3 18:53:03 EDT 2007

----- Original Message -----
From: "drew Roberts" <zotz at 100jamz.com>
To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts"
<cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Need clarification: What is "commercial"?


*sorry if this is off thread a little but I think it's important and may
impact on CC licenses*

I appreciate the (c) question was directed sampling, though remixing can
often obfuscate an original sample, if there's still a "distinctive pattern
of notes" there could be an infringement.  If it's a straight cover and
therefore a re-recording then you would imagine it would be more of a (p)
issue, true.....but.....

> > Surely a "work" should mean any recognisable element of the work, not
> > work in it's entirety?  1 hour, 1 minute, or just 10 seconds.....
> Please note, I am not talking sampling when I say a cover, but I am not
> your thinking holds even in the case of sampling.

"Now, the court did not rule that bands who sample needn't bother clearing
rights to both recordings and compositions as a general matter. The court
implies that had the Beastie Boys sampled some more distinctive pattern of
notes - distinctive not in their recording, but in their abstract ordering -
or had they taken more of those notes, they would have violated Newton's
copyright in the composition."

...and more recently...


"Three judges sitting on the panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in
Cincinnati said the same federal laws currently in place to halt music
piracy will also apply to digital sampling, and explained, "If you cannot
pirate the whole sound recording, can you 'lift' or 'sample' something less
than the whole? Our answer to that question is in the negative."



More information about the cc-licenses mailing list