Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Sincaglia, Nicolas" <nsincaglia AT musicnow.com>]

The CC license has rules for derivatives works. This clause in the
license is just saying that the act of syncing moving images with
compositions or sound recordings UNDER THIS LICENSE must follow those
rules.

If you don't agree that synching a composition or sound recording is a
derivative work, you would be correct OUTSIDE OF THIS LICENSE. Since you
are attempting to use the composition or sound recording using this
license, you must accept their definition.

Regular copyright law does not always consider synching a composition or
sound recording to moving images to be a derivative work. It depends on
what exactly the end result is. But under regular copyright law you
would need to negotiate a Sync License with the owners of both the
composition and the sound recording. 

The CC licenses help you avoid negotiating those direct licenses but you
must follow the rules of derivative works.

That is my understanding.

Nick


-----Original Message-----
From: cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Hannes
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 4:30 PM
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] "commercial" use of Att/Share-alike materials

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