Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Eric Garner <ejgarner AT yahoo.com>]

--- drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:

> On Sunday 08 April 2007 07:27 pm, Dana Powers wrote:
> > >From the Definition of Adaption in 1.a:
> >
> > "For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a
> musical work,
> > performance or phonogram, the synchronization of
> the Work in
> > timed-relation with a moving image ("synching")
> will be considered an
> > Adaptation for the purpose of this License."
> 
> That was the original light that went off in my head
> when I decided to ask a 
> question about it. Do people using ND for music
> realise that because of ND 
> their songs cannot be used in videos.

FWIW, my initial thought is that a user of ND probably
chose that license so keep terrible techno renditions
from being made of his beloved classical track (for
instance), not realizing the side effect that he's
making the song non-synchable.

When in doubt, you can always direct-license if the
song you absolutely can't do without is under ND. It's
not a perfect solution, but it does remove all doubt.
This is probably not as hard as it seems, since the
contact info is likely to be found right on the
webpage where you got the download from.

Eric