Development of Creative Commons licenses

[James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>]

drew Roberts 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.

I would guess yes -- I expect that many people using ND for sound
recordings are familiar with MTV.  The relationship between a song and
its music video seems like one that would occur to many of them.

> Since I had never read the ND license before, I was curious if it had the 
> same 
> bit on sync rights as SA. When I went to check, I saw the bit in the 
> license 
> grant itself:
> 
> "The above rights may be exercised in all media and formats whether now 
> known 
> or hereafter devised. The above rights include the right to make such 
> modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other 
> media and formats, but otherwise you have no rights to make Adaptations."
> 
> and wondered if that actually grants the right to make adaptations when 
> using 
> in a different media.
> 
> It does say that the above rights (granted in the same numbered clause) may 
> be 
> excercised in all media. And it does say OTHERWISE you have no rights to 
> make 
> Adaptations which seems to indicate you have some rights to make 
> adaptations 
> as necessary to use in another medium.

If you can make an argument that the modifications you made in order to
use medium X or format Y were **technically necessary** to use medium X
or format Y, then you may have the right to make those modifications.
Otherwise, no.

There are places where I worry about ambiguity in the licenses.  This is
not one of them.

> I writing this response, I have thought of another question. I try and 
> write 
> songs, but mostly, when it comes to music, I write lyrics.
> 
> Does anyone know if lyrics themselves are considered musical works? Or do 
> they 
> only become musical works when paired with a melody ot some other "music"?

The same exact text could be part of a literary work (as a poem) and
part of a musical work (as lyrics).  The exact language used by the
Copyright Act in the U.S. talks of "musical works, including any
accompanying words."  That says to me that lyrics standing alone are
literary works, rather than musical ones.  Very little will ever turn on
this distinction.  (For example, the compulsory license for cover
versions of nondramatic musical works only kicks in once the copyright
owner has authorized a first recorded version.  With only lyrics and no
music, that's not as likely.)

James