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: Hannes <hannes AT atalante.org>
  • 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: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:29:30 +0200

That sounds a bit strange to me. It's like saying that by using a by-sa licensed image in a book or webpage, the book or webpage itself would also need to be licensed under by-sa.

Regarding this sentence from the by-sa 2.5 legal code:

"For the avoidance of doubt, where the
Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the
synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a
moving image ("synching") will be considered a
Derivative Work for the purpose of this License."

I can interpret that as: "If you alter the Work in any way to make it synchronized with a moving image, the altered Work will be considered a Derivative Work." I don't feel that sentence is very clear whatever its intention is. Isn't "the synchronization of the Work" a process? How can a process be considered a work at all?

Hannes


Evan Prodromou wrote:

On Tue, 2005-18-10 at 13:49 -0700, Wrye Modder wrote:

Movie as a derivative work (from section 1b of 2.5
by-sa license): "For the avoidance of doubt, where the
Work is a musical composition or sound recording, the
synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a
moving image ("synching") will be considered a
Derivative Work for the purpose of this License."

IANAL, and I'm new to the list, so perhaps someone
will correct me, but that seems pretty clear from the
license text.


Seems pretty clear to me, too.

~Evan





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page