Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Thursday 20 October 2005 07:31 pm, Hannes wrote:
> I'm still a bit confused by the various responses.
>
>  From what I understand he's recording his own videos that he wants to
> edit in a nice way and release on a DVD - all his original work. If he
> then wants to use by-sa licensed music as background music, he of course
> needs to credit the music authors somewhere and make clear that the
> music is licensed under by-sa. But from what I've understood he isn't
> obliged to release the whole DVD under a by-sa license? And does this
> not hold true even if he alters the music somewhat to make it fit better
> to the moving images, such as cutting and shortening the music? He must
> still release the music under by-sa, and credit the original author of
> the music while mentioning that it has been altered by him, as he's
> making a derivative work of the music. But his DVD can still be released
> under whatever license he wants.

No, if I get how it works, I think you misunderstand.

Let's take two cases. 

1. He makes a dvd where the video portion is one long documentary. He uses 
by-sa music as background. His whole dvd must be licensed by-sa or he needs 
to get a sync license from the music's copyright holders.

2. He makes a dvd which includes 3 seperate short documentaries, each on a 
different subject. He uses by-sa music as background in one of the 
documentaries but finds by music for background in the other two. The whole 
documentary with the by-sa background must be released by-sa, the other two 
documentaries do not have to be released that way. Even though all three 
documentaries come on the same dvd. This second case is the one the other 
poster referred to. Now, I am not sure this is actually correct. Perhaps, the 
complete thing needs to be by-sa but I think you could make a good case for 
what I have said. (I don't actually always like the fact that the by-sa 
license works this way.)
>
> Hannes
>

all the best,

drew

> Sincaglia, Nicolas wrote:
> >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

-- 
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22