Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Stephanie Rieger" <steph AT yiibu.com>]

You bring up an interesting point. When distributing to multiple media formats, there is often “stuff” being distributed along with the work. This isn’t necessarily your creative stuff, it’s just stuff that needs to be there for the content to function. As a matter of fact that stuff may not even belong to you (ex: bundling QuickTime or Flash player on a CD Rom.) So if the CD or DVD actually is (legally) “the work”, then I’m not sure if you CAN distribute the whole CD by-sa even though you may be perfectly willing to distribute the content it contains that way.

 

Stephanie

 

---

From: cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Mills
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 4:42 AM
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] "commercial" use of Att/Share-alike materials

 

I was understanding that as the Work is a Derivative and so needs to be licensed the same. I'm still processing the other part of Wrye's message:

 

It seems that your movie will be a derivative work,

and thus, not only must you allow people to create

derivative works, but also you must release it under

the 2.5 by-sa license. (I.e., you're not just

physically including the license on the DVD, but

you're actually releasing the DVD *under* the 2.5

by-sa license.) One of things that this implies is

that anyone who receives your DVDs can themselves make

and sell copies of them for their own profit. Of

course, if you're basically just recouping your

copying and distribution costs, then this shouldn't be

a problem in practice.

 

Does this assume that the only thing on the DVD is the movie using by-sa content? In my mind, the movie is the "work" and can be used according to that license, but if I have other works on the DVD (other movies perhaps with no music or original music), are they all subject to the same license? In other words, is Wrye correct in saying that the DVD itself is "the work" or is the video that contains the music and which makes up part of the DVD "the work"? I'm not trying to be uncooperative -- just trying to understand.

 

Doug

 

Douglas Mills <dmills AT uiuc.edu>

Computer Assisted Instruction Specialist

CITES Educational Technologies

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

 

 

 

On Oct 20, 2005, at 4:29 PM, Hannes wrote:

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