Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Bram @ Freesound" <freesound AT iua.upf.edu>]

Hello everyone,


I've been trying to hold out subscribing to cc-licenses myself, but it 
looks like it's really necessary now. Over at the Freesound Project 
we're in a bit of trouble:

We know Sampling+ is no good for samples/soundfx/field-recordings etc so 
we are looking into choosing a new set of license(s).

Now there is one big problem: none of the legal code in either 
sampling+, by or by-nc is particularly well suited for sound effects. A 
sound-effect is almost invariably used as a "whole work" in the derived 
work. Hence the definition of "derived work" is a bit strange when 
talking about "samples".

Also, sometimes a sample can be more than just a sample: someone doing a 
field recording of a street-organ is considered OK for freesound, but 
then we're talking about something rather different.

Anyway: Could someone more knowledgeable than me please do an analysis 
of using Sampling+, Attribution and Attribution-Noncomm in the context 
of sound samples (think < 1 minute sound effects you use as building 
blocks to create something else). What are the repercussions of using 
these various licenses for derived work (and what exactly does one call 
derived work of a 50 millisecond 'bass drum hit' sample?)

for those interested the related forum discussion -which is attracting a 
LOT of attention- is here:
http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1209
It would be extra-super-great if someone from CC could jump in once in a 
while to shed some "legal light" on the points raised, but I can 
understand if this would be a problem.

thanks a lot,

 - bram, the freesound project ;-)