Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] choosing a new license at freesound, please help

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] choosing a new license at freesound, please help
  • Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:50:51 -0500

Hi Bram,

Bram @ Freesound wrote:
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".

"NC" is reviled by a lot of "free culture" / "free software" people. Some of us feel that Creative Commons should deprecate it entirely. In any case, I think it's a disaster for your project. I think you should seriously reconsider the implications of using any "non-commercial" license, because such restrictions are "non-free" and severely limit any practical applications of the content on your site (for example, an NC clause prohibits their use in any GPL-licensed or By-SA-licensed free-software game).

NC is a loose-cannon, because it is so broadly-defined. NC means you can't include a work using the samples on a website that has Google ad-sense ads to pay for the bandwidth. NC means, no way it'll ever be included in any Linux or free software distribution. NC means it's just "non-free" as far as most "free culture" advocates are concerned.

I also think that, because of the limits imposed on copyright by "fair use"/"fair dealing", and the limits due to "derivation" and "collection" of the works, such licenses may offer a false-promise to contributors (make them think they can control uses which they can't -- and possibly which no license can control).

ShareAlike is a far better option if you want to preserve the "freeness" of the work.

"Sampling" or "Sampling Plus" is a problem primarily because these aren't licenses *for samples* but for *work from which samples can be taken*. (The "Sampling" licenses are quite restrictive as regards the original work used as a whole, and probably rule out any use you'd likely be interested in).

Presumeably your fear of "By" is that it might lead to "exploitation" of some kind, though I think that for sound samples, this is perhaps a bit misguided. In fact, "By" is probably a very good option.

"By-SA" (that is, "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike") is probably the best bet for many people.

This license would mean that modified samples derived from samples on FreeSound would also have to be licensed "By-SA", as would the original samples when included in some work. (This is a Good Thing in terms of collaborative leverage).

IMHO, it would have little to no effect on what sorts of works the samples could be used in, which is a Good Thing (consistent with intuitive concept of "freedom").

>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?)

My (not a lawyer) opinion is that a remix of the 'bass drum hit' sample, to alter its sound (say move it up an octave, stretch it out, add echo, or etc) is a "derivative".

A musical performance made up of these samples (and probably others) is a "collective work" in the terms used in the CC licenses.

IMHO, this is still ambiguous, though. Other free licenses (e.g. the GPL) might well extend the copyleft to the "collective work" created with the samples.


I had a look at the thread. One thing I find disturbing is the number of people who appear to want to use their copyright as a means to *suppress expression* with which they disagree. IMHO, this is an improper use of copyright in fundamental conflict with the very idea of freedom, and I find it highly unethical. At some level, copyright is always in conflict with the ideal of the freedom of speech, but this is a case of people expressly setting out to impede the freedom of speech through the use of copyright law (we're more likely to appreciate the unethicality of this practice when someone powerful like Microsoft or Sony is the one handing out the gag orders, but it remains unethical even when it's a "counter-culture little-guy" doing it).

Also, in terms of implementation, if you intend to support content with multiple licensing, make sure the search and contribution interfaces make it easy to select by license. If you had both By and By-NC content on your site, for example, I would routinely want to search *only* By licensed works, because I won't use NC content.

Cheers,
Terry

--
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page