Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 20 October 2005 09:35 pm, Hannes wrote:
> I see what you mean. If that really is the case, it sounds to me that
> this is an area bound to cause problems and misunderstanding for people
> using SA licenses. I think most musicians who release their work under a
> BY-SA license is under the impression that their work can easily be used
> in movies. I have always seen a movie as a collective work - a
> compilation of video- and audio clips that are all separate works that
> can have different licenses. Why should movies be treated differently
> than, say, playing music in the background of a website? I never thought
> that Creative Commons would complicate the sharing of your work without
> good reasons, and without at least making it clear to the licensor.
>
> Hannes

It is not unclear if you know what a sync license is. I like the fact that my 
by-sa music can't be used in films that are not themselves by-sa unless the 
film's creators arrange a license. When I share my work by-sa, I would like 
it to be used freely only by those who are willing to share their works that 
mine appears in as by-sa as well.

In fact, I would like it if we could find some clear way to prevent the 
inclusion of by-sa content in compilations where the compilation it self is a 
"unit" or carries its own copyright notice.

Does anyone know what I am getting at and if so, does anyone know how to go 
about wording such a clause and is it a reasonable idea?

all the best,

drew
>
> drew Roberts wrote:
> >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