Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>]

David Dixon said:
> Thanks for all your responses.
>
> Evan wrote:
>
>>     DD>   - Can we legally do this, considering that the material
>>     DD> Beatallica uses is copyrighted?  There are no samples (except
>>     DD> for a little one in "Leper Madonna"...); the music is
>>     DD> performed, but the melodic and lyrical references are pretty
>>     DD> obvious.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, pretty much no. You have to clear your rights to
>> publish anything, Creative Commons license or no. There may be some
>> exception for parody under the fair use clause of US copyright law,
>> but it's shaky ground to stand on.
>
> I don't understand why the ground is shaky.  The Supreme Court, in the 2
> Live Crew "Pretty Woman" case, unanimously agreed that parodies are
> protected speech.  The Beatallica tracks are obviously parodies.  So what's
> the problem?

That the 2 Live Crew "Pretty Woman" case went all the way to the
Supreme Court should be a HUGE red flag for trouble.
The legal requirement for "parady" requires subjective interpretation,
not just purely objective measures. From a purely physical standpoint,
"parady" and "create derived work" are identical. the only difference
is "intent" which boils down to the subjective decision of a judge.




> Also, since the band is giving away the music for free, it satisfies at
> least one of the "fair use" doctrines.
>
> D^2
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
>


-- 
Draft the Gift Domain:
Put Free/Libre/Open/Public licensing
concepts directly into Copyright Law.
http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/html/draftingthegiftdomain.html