Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] CC-BY 2.0 photo usage inside a screensaver

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Melissa Cotano <melcotano AT yahoo.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] CC-BY 2.0 photo usage inside a screensaver
  • Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:15:33 -0700 (PDT)

Can anyone else on the list confirm that indeed, in the case of a trialware screensaver using CC-BY 2.0 images, the "technological protection measures" in section 4.a does not apply?

-Melissa

Greg London <teloscorbin AT gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/16/06, Melissa Cotano wrote:
> > Greg London wrote:
>
> >
> > On 8/15/06, Melissa Cotano wrote:
> >> I am creating a commercial screensaver that will be distributed
> >> as a trial download that expires after 30 days.
> >>
> >> I would like to include in this screensaver some
> >> CC-BY 2.0 images I found on Flickr, but before
> >> doing so I would like to know:
> >>
> >> 1) whether the CC-BY 2.0 license allows such
> >> usage (i.e. inclusion of CC-BY 2.0 works inside
> >> a binary application expiring after a given time frame)
> >
> > CC-BY is almost like a Public Domain license,
> > so you could take the work private, as long as you
> > honor the attribution requirement.
>
> I was concerned that the following sentence in section 4.a would prevent me
> from using CC-BY 2.0 images inside a binary application expiring after a
> period of time ("trialware"):
> "You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
> digitally perform the Work with any technological measures that control
> access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this
> License Agreement."

Ah, the hairs are splitting more finely than I thought.
I think your screen saver is a derivative, which would
fall under 4.b of the license, not 4.a

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode

And 4.b doesn't have any "technological protection measures" TPM clause.

I think the TPM clause should be removed from the attribution license,
but that's a different debate.

I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

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


Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page