Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Another mistake that is being made here is the definition of a derivative 
work. 
 
"The statutory definition of a  'derivative work' is extremely comprehensive, 
including such things as translations, arrangements, dramatizations, 
fictionalizations, films, recordings, abridgements, condensations, 'or any 
other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted'".
 
There is not mention of file formats, resolution or encoding schemes in the 
law. It is not relevant to the law nor is it relevant to the CC licenses.
 
Nick

        -----Original Message----- 
        From: cc-licenses-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Rob Myers 
        Sent: Tue 11/22/2005 5:56 AM 
        To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts 
        Cc: 
        Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Case study: Magnatune
        
        


        On 21 Nov 2005, at 21:26, Daniel Carrera wrote:
        
        > Practical question:  Are the WAV files automatically under the same 
CC
        > license?
        
        I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
        
        No because they are different works.
        
        The encoding of the same sounds will have different representations 
        as streams of numbers. Therefore they are different works, both 
        derivatives of the original recording or of the score if there is one.
        
        "Hey, now, hey now, now."
        
        MP3: 451365247426123624562467234
        WAV: 985672485629581305487135713
        
        Different derivatives of the same original (and if the MP3 is just a 
        derivative of the WAV the same applies).
        
        - Rob.
        _______________________________________________
        cc-licenses mailing list
        cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
        http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

<<winmail.dat>>